title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 28 February 2002 in Case T-395/94: Atlantic Container Line AB e.a. v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Liner conferences — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Scope — Block exemption — Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Individual exemption)

text:
15.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/33
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         28 February 2002
                                                                                28 February 2002
in Case T-308/94: Cascades SA v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                               in Case T-395/94: Atlantic Container Line AB e.a. v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81(1) EC) — Liability for the infringement — Fine
— Appeal — Referral back to Court of First Instance —                      (Competition — Liner conferences — Regulation (EEC)
          Equal treatment — Principle of res judicata)                     No 4056/86 — Scope — Block exemption — Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 1017/68 — Individual exemption)
                          (2002/C 144/71)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/72)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-308/94, Cascades SA, established in Bagnolet
(France), represented by J.-Y. Art, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and É. Gippini Fournier):                    In Case T-395/94, Atlantic Container Line AB, established in
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/                   Gothenburg (Sweden), Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established
EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85               in Seoul (South Korea), DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established
of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) (OJ 1994                      in Bremen (Germany), Hapag Lloyd AG, established in Ham-
L 243, p. 1), Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended             burg (Germany), Mediterranean Shipping Company SA, estab-
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, K. Le-                lished in Geneva (Switzerland), A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line,
naerts, J. Pirrung, M. Vilaras and N. J. Forwood, Judges;                  established in Copenhagen (Denmark), Nedlloyd Lijnen BV,
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), Neptune Orient Lines
judgment on 28 February 2002, in which it:                                 Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), Nippon Yusen Kaisha
                                                                           (NYK Line), established in Tokyo (Japan), Orient Overseas
                                                                           Container Line (UK) Ltd, established in Levington (United
1.    Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by              Kingdom), P & O Containers Ltd, established in London
      Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July                (United Kingdom), Polish Ocean Lines (POL), established in
      1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             Gdynia (Poland), Sea-Land Service Inc., established in Jersey
      Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) at EUR 13 538 000;                City, New Jersey (United States of America), Tecomar SA de
                                                                           CV, established in Mexico City (Mexico), Transportación
                                                                           Marı́tima Mexicana SA de CV, established in Mexico City,
2.    Orders the applicant to bear five sixths of its own costs and of     represented by J. Pheasant, N. Bromfield and, initially, S. Kim
      the Commission’s costs, incurred before the Court of Justice and     and, subsequently, M. Levitt, solicitors, with an address for
      the Court of First Instance, including those relating to the         service in Luxembourg, supported by The European Com-
      interlocutory proceedings;                                           munity Shipowners’ Associations ASBL, established in Brussels,
                                                                           represented by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and The Japanese
3.    Orders the Commission to bear one sixth of the applicant’s           Shipowners’ Association, established in Tokyo, represented
      costs and of its own costs, incurred before the Court of Justice     initially by N. Forwood, QC, and P. Rutley, solicitor, and
      and the Court of First Instance, including those relating to the     subsequently by F. Murphy, lawyer, with an address for service
      interlocutory proceedings.                                           in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: B. Langeheine and R. Lyal), supported by The Freight
                                                                           Transport Association Ltd, established in Tunbridge Wells
                                                                           (United Kingdom), including The British Shipping Council,
(1) OJ C 351 of 10.12.1994.                                                Association des utilisateurs de transport de fret, established in
                                                                           Paris, incorperating Conseil des chargeurs français, and by The
                                                                           European Council of Transport Users ASBL, established in
                                                                           Brussels, including The European Shippers Council, represent-
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/34               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
ed by M. Clough, solicitor-advocate QC, with an address for                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
service in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating
to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/                                     28 February 2002
34.446 — Trans-Atlantic Agreement) (OJ 1994 L 376, p. 1),
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:                in Case T-18/97: Atlantic Container Line AB e.a. v Com-
K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Y. Mottard,                mission of the European Communities (1)
Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
28 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                         (Competition — Liner conferences — Agreement fixing the
                                                                         price of inland transport in the context of intermodal
                                                                         transport — Regulation No 1017/68 — Notification —
                                                                                Immunity — Admissibility)
1.   Annuls Article 5 of Commission Decision 94/980/EC of
     19 October 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to                                         (2002/C 144/73)
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.446 — Trans-Atlantic
     Agreement);
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2.   Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                         In Case T-18/97, Atlantic Container Line AB, established in
                                                                         Göteborg (Sweden), Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established in
                                                                         Seoul (South Korea), DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in
                                                                         Bremen (Germany), Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd, established in
3.   Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay four       Seoul, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, established in Singapore,
     fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission and the              Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line), established in Tokyo (Japan),
     interveners, the Freight Transport Association Ltd, the Associ-     Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, established in
     ation des utilisateurs de transport de fret and the European        Levington (United Kingdom), P & O Nedlloyd BV, established
     Council of Transport Users ASBL, including those relating to        in Rotterdam (Netherlands), P & O Containers Ltd, established
     the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-395/94 R and in Case        in London (United Kingdom), Hapag-Lloyd AG, established in
     T-395/94 R II;                                                      Hamburg (Germany), A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in
                                                                         Copenhagen (Denmark), Mediterranean Shipping Company
                                                                         SA, established in Geneva (Switzerland), POL-Atlantic, estab-
                                                                         lished in Gdynia (Poland), Sea-Land Service Inc., established in
4.   Orders the Commission to bear one fifth of its own costs;           Charlotte (United States of America), Tecomar SA de CV,
                                                                         established in Mexico City (Mexico), Transportación Marı́tima
                                                                         Mexicana SA de CV, established in Mexico City, represented
                                                                         by J. Pheasant and N. Bromfield, Solicitors, with an address for
5.   Orders the interveners, the Freight Transport Association Ltd,      service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
     the Association des utilisateurs de transport de fret and the       Communities (Agent: R. Lyal), supported by French Republic
     European Council of Transport Users ASBL, to bear one fifth         (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans): Appli-
     of their own costs;                                                 cation for annulment of Commission Decision C(96)
                                                                         3414 final of 26 November 1996 relating to a proceeding
                                                                         under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —
                                                                         Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement), the Court of First
                                                                         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
6.   Orders the interveners, the European Community Shipowners’          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Y. Mottard, Legal Secretary, for
     Association ASBL and the Japanese Shipowners’ Association,          the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 February 2002, in
     to bear their own costs, including those relating to the            which it:
     interlocutory proceedings in Case T-395/94 R and in Case
     T-395/94 R II.
                                                                         1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
                                                                         2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs together with
                                                                               those of the Commission;
(1) OJ C 392 of 31.12.1994.
                                                                         3.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.


title: Case T-192/09: Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Amen Corner v OHIM — Comercio Electrónico Ojal (SEVE TROPHY)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/18

         Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Amen Corner v OHIM — Comercio Electrónico Ojal (SEVE TROPHY)
   (Case T-192/09)
   2009/C 167/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Amen Corner (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Comercio Electrónico Ojal (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2009 in Case R 462/2008-2 in so far as it allowed registration of a Community trade mark for goods in class 9;

               —

               as a consequence of that annulment, refuse the application for Community trade mark 4 617 213 in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM, and the other parties before the Court, to pay the costs of the present proceedings should they be contested, and reject the claims of OHIM and the other parties before the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Comercio Electrónico Ojal S.L.

      Community trade mark applied for: Figurative mark including the verbal component ‘SEVE TROPHY’ (Application No 4 617 213) for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, 28, 35 and 41.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative trade marks ‘SEVE TROPHY’ and ‘SEVE BALLESTEROS TROPHY’ (No 1 541 226, No 1 980 341, No 2 068 682 and No 3 846 235) for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 25, 28, 35 and 41.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition brought under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.


               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/1

         2009/C 205/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

      OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

      OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

      OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

      OJ C 113, 16.5.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case F-136/14: Action brought on 1 December 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/54

         Action brought on 1 December 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-136/14)
   (2015/C 034/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision taken by the Commission granting the applicant, retroactively, the expatriation allowance, in so far as the grant is retroactive only to 1 September 2013, the applicant arguing that the Commission ought to grant him that allowance from the date of his recruitment to the Commission on 1 July 1999.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the PMO of 29 January 2014 to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance, provided for in Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, with retroactive effect from 1 September 2013, instead of from his date of recruitment of 1 July 1999;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-438/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Stockholms tingsrätt by decision of of 29 November 2002 in the case of Åklagaren v Krister Hanner

text:
8.2.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 31/9
       4.   and by failing to institute criminal or administrative        A bse n c e of c r i m i n al p r o c e e d i n gs o r ad m i n-
            proceedings against masters or other persons                  i s tra ti v e ac ti on
            responsible for fishing taking place after the prohib-
            ition of fishing,
                                                                          It appears from the Finnish Government’s answer to the
                                                                          Commission’s reasoned opinion that no measures in accord-
       the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations       ance with Article 31 of the monitoring Regulation No 2847/
       under Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 ( 1) and            93 have been taken.
       Articles 2, 21 and 31 of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (2),
       and
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
—      order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                         establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
                                                                               (OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1).
                                                                          (2 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
                                                                               establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
                                                                               policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
A bs ence o f ap p rop ri at e deta i l ed rul es con -
c erni n g t he use of al l o cati o ns
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from Stockholms
                                                                          tingsrätt by decision of of 29 November 2002 in the case
Certain stocks of fish referred to in the annexes to the aforesaid                          of Åklagaren v Krister Hanner
regulations were overfished in 1995 and 1996 by vessels
flying the Finnish flag. It appears from the Finnish Govern-
ment’s response to the Commission’s reasoned opinion that                                            (Case C-438/02)
Finland accepts the Commission’s complaint of overfishing in
1995 and 1996 as specified in detail in the tables annexed to
the Commission’s official notice.                                                                     (2003/C 31/14)
A bs ence of i n sp ect i on an d mon i to ri ng                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
m easu res con cern i n g th e u se o f al l oca ti o ns                  European Communities by a decision of Stockholms tingsrätt
                                                                          of 29 November 2002, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 4 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
It is clear on the basis of the excess fishing which took place           case of Åklagaren v Krister Hanner on the following questions:
in 1995 and 1996 that Finland breached Article 2 of the
monitoring regulation. In its response to the Commission’s
                                                                          1.     There is an independent system at national level for the
reasoned opinion Finland accepts that the monitoring arrange-                    testing and approval of medicinal products intended to
ments did not operate adequately. Finland refers in particular
                                                                                maintain good quality for medicinal products and prevent
to the difficulties which derived from Finland’s accession to
                                                                                damaging effects of medicinal products. Certain medicinal
the European Union and the changes required by membership                        products also require a prescription from a registered
to the Finnish legislation on fishing.
                                                                                doctor. In such circumstances does Article 31 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty preclude national legislation which provides that
                                                                                retail trade in medicinal products may only be carried on
                                                                                by the State or by legal persons in which the State has a
                                                                                determining influence, the objective of which is to meet
La te sus pen si o n of fi s hi n g                                              the need for safe and effective medicinal products?
                                                                          2.     Does Article 28 of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such
A Member State which terminates fishing only when it is
                                                                                as that described in Question 1, in the light of the
already known that the quota has been exceeded acts too late
                                                                                information in that question.
and thus breaches its obligations under Article 21(2) of the
monitoring Regulation No 2847/93. It is clear from the
Finnish Government’s response to the Commission’s reasoned                3.     Does Article 43 of the EC Treaty preclude legislation such
opinion that the national prohibition decisions were not made                    as that described in Question 1, in the light of the
in sufficient time to prevent excess fishing.                                    information in that question.
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/10                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           8.2.2003
4.    Does the principle of proportionality preclude legislation                4.    in adopting expulsion orders against citizens of
      such as that described in Question 1, on examination of                         the Union which fail to maintain a reasonable
      Questions 1 to 3?                                                               relationship between the fundamental right to
                                                                                respect for the right to family life, on the one hand,
5.    Would the answer to Questions 1 to 4 be different if                            and the preservation of public order, on the other;
      ‘non-prescription’ medicinal products were entirely or
      partly exempted from the requirement under national
      legislation that retail trade in medicinal products be                    5.    in ordering the immediate enforcement of expulsion
      carried on only by the State or by legal persons in which                       orders against citizens of the Union in non-urgent
      the State has a determining influence?                                          cases;
                                                                                the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Articles 18 and 39 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                                under the fundamental right to respect for family life as a
                                                                                general principle of Community law, and under Articles 3
                                                                                and 9 of Directive 64/221/EEC ( 1) on the coordination of
                                                                                special measures concerning the movement and residence
                                                                                of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of
Action brought on 5 December 2002 by the Commission                             public policy, public security or public health, Article 1
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                          of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 ( 2) on freedom of
                           lic of Germany                                       movement for workers, Articles 1, 4, 5, 8 and 10 of
                                                                                Directive 73/148/EEC (3) on the abolition of restrictions
                                                                                on movement and residence within the Community for
                          (Case C-441/02)                                       nationals of Member States with regard to establishment
                                                                                and the provision of services, and Articles 1 and 2 of
                                                                                Directive 90/364/EEC ( 4) on the right of residence;
                           (2003/C 31/15)
                                                                          —     Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 5 December 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by C. O’Reilly and W. Bogensberger,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Mandatory (automatic) expulsion fails to take adequate
The Commission claims that the Court should find that:                          account of individual conduct: The provisions of Para-
                                                                                graph 47(1) and (2) of the Ausländergesetz (AuslG) are,
—     1.    in failing to make sufficiently clear in its legislation            in so far as they relate to citizens of the Union, flagrantly
            that expulsion orders against citizens of the Union                 and inevitably contrary to the requirements of Article 3(2)
            may not be based on an enabling provision which                     of Directive 64/221/EEC, under which criminal convic-
            provides mandatorily for expulsion on the ground                    tions may not in themselves constitute grounds for
            of a final criminal conviction or provides mandatori-               automatic expulsion. They also conflict with the require-
            ly for it as the general rule, or in basing expulsion               ment in Article 3(1) of Directive 64/221/EEC, which
            orders against citizens of the Union on this unclear                requires an assessment of the personal conduct of the
            enabling provision;                                                 ‘individual concerned’, i.e. an examination of the individ-
                                                                                ual case. However, Paragraph 47(1) and (2) (the general
                                                                                rule) of the AuslG deprive the authorities of precisely the
      2.    in failing to implement in sufficiently clear terms in              discretion which they must have for such an assessment
            Paragraph 4 12(1) of the Aufenthaltsgesetz/EWG                      of the individual case and replaces it with the legislature’s
            the requirements under Community law with regard
                                                                                general assessment which exclusively takes account of
            to restriction of freedom of movement, or in basing                 the conviction. Although Paragraph 12 of the Aufen-
            expulsion orders against citizens of the Union on
                                                                                thaltsgesetz/EWG provides that a criminal conviction in
            this unclear enabling provision;
                                                                                itself does not suffice for the expulsion of a foreign
                                                                                national (subparagraph 4) and the determining factor is
      3.    in failing to make sufficiently clear in its legislation            whether his personal conduct gives cause to expel him
            that expulsion orders against citizens of the Union                 for reasons of public order and security (subparagraph 3),
            may not be based on an enabling provision which                     Paragraph 12(3) and (4) of the Aufenthaltsgesetz/EWG
            pursues general preventative aims, or in justifying                 and Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 64/221/EEC cannot
            expulsion orders against citizens of the Union with                 be understood as a mere ‘supplement’ and ‘modification’
            deterrence of other foreign nationals;                              to mandatory expulsion under Paragraph 47(1) and (2)


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2002 in Case T-218/01: Laboratoire Monique Remy SAS against the Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 156/25
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.   The applicant shall bear the costs.
                                                                                of 20 December 2001
                                                                         in Case T-214/01 R: Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                         (Proceedings for interim measures — Competition — Access
                                                                         to documents — Admissibility — Urgency — Weighing of
                                                                                interests)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/49)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE                                      In Case T-214/01 R: Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG,
                                                                         established in Vienna, represented by H.J. Niemeyer, lawyer,
                                                                         against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                     of 20 December 2001                                 S. Rating), — application principally for suspension of the
                                                                         operation of the Commission’s decision COMP/D-1/36.571 of
                                                                         25 July 2001 and, in the alternative, for an order restraining
in Case T-213/01 R: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v                  the Commission from disclosing to the Freiheitliche Partei
        Commission of the European Communities                           Österreichs the statement of objections of 10 September 1999
                                                                         and the further statement of objections of 21 November 2000
                                                                         in Case COMP/36.571, — the President of the Court of First
(Proceedings for interim measures — Competition — Access                 Instance has made an order on 20 December 2001 in which
to documents — Admissibility — Urgency — Weighing of                     he:
                             interests)
                                                                         1.    Dismisses the application for interim measures.
                         (2002/C 156/48)
                                                                         2.    Reserves the costs.
                  (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-213/01 R: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG, estab-
lished in Vienna, represented by M. Klusmann, F. Wiener and                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
A Reidlinger, lawyers, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Rating), — application principally for                                      of 21 March 2002
suspension of the operation of the Commission’s decision
COMP/D-1/36.571 of 9 August 2001 and, in the alternative,
for an order restraining the Commission from disclosing to               in Case T-218/01: Laboratoire Monique Remy SAS against
the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs the statement of objections             the Commission of the European Communities (1)
of 10 September 1999 and the further statement of objections
of 21 November 2000 in Case COMP/36.571, — the President                 (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Manifest inadmis-
of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 20 Decem-                                           sibility)
ber 2001 in which he:
                                                                                (2002/C 156/50)
1.   Dismisses the application for interim measures.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2.   Reserves the costs.
                                                                         In Case T-218/02: Laboratoire Monique Remy SAS, established
                                                                         in Grasse (France), represented by J.-F. Pupel, lawyer, v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes)
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        29.6.2002
— application for annulment of Commission Decision                        1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
C (2001) 1380 of 2 July 2001 withdrawing the financial
assistance previously granted to the applicant by the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section),              2.    The applicants shall pay the costs.
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
B. Vesterdorf, President, N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 21 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay its own costs and those of the
      defendant.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                          ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 March 2002
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in Case T-21/02 R: Giuseppe Atzeni and Others v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                        of 11 March 2002
                                                                          (Procedure for interim relief — State aid — Time-limit for
in Case T-3/02: Schlüsselverlag J. S. Moser GmbH and                      bringing proceedings — Admissibility of the action in the
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)                                              main proceedings)
(Control of concentrations — Action for a declaration of
failure to act — Definition of a position — Manifest                                                (2002/C 156/52)
                           inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          (2002/C 156/51)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-21/02 R: Giuseppe Atzeni, residing at Serdiana
                                                                          (Italy), and 77 others, represented by G. Dore and F. Ciulli,
In Case T-3/02, Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH, established              lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
in Innsbruck (Austria), J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co. KG,                   D. Triantafyllou) — application for suspension of operation of
established in Linz (Austria), Styria Medien AG, established              Commission Decision 97/612/EC of 16 April 1997 on aid
in Graz (Austria), Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH,                granted by the Region of Sardinia, Italy, in the agriculture
established in Bregenz (Austria), Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger                  sector (OJ 1997 L 248, p. 27) — the President of the Court of
Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH, established in Schwarz-                First Instance made an order on 18 March 2002, the operative
ach (Austria), ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, established         part of which is as follows:
in Vienna (Austria), ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesell-
schaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Salzburg (Austria),
represented by M. Krüger, lawyer, Linz, v Commission of the               1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner): Application for a
declaration that, by unlawfully failing to adopt a decision on
the compatibility of a concentration with the common market,              2.    The costs are reserved.
the defendant has failed to act, the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts
and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on ,
the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-98/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole v Commission
   (Case T-98/06) (1)

   (2009/C 55/91)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case C-49/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)

text:
C 70/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                      22.3.2003
The Applicant submits that the documents communicated to                Action brought on 10 February 2003 by the Commission
the Commission constituted an application for final payment             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
in accordance with Article 52(5) and that in concluding to the                                        Republic
contrary the Commission erred in law and/or made a manifest
error of assessment.
                                                                                (Case C-48/03)
It is also submitted that the Commission’s interpretation of the                                   (2003/C 70/28)
Regulation infringes the principles of legal certainty and of
proportionality.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The Applicant submits that if the Commission’s interpretation           10 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
of Article 52(5) of the Regulation and/or the Annex to its              Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, acting
Decision C(92) 1358/8 is correct, the absolute nature of those          as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
provisions is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, those provisions contravene the principle of
legal certainty in that they are not sufficiently clearly and           The applicant claims that the Court should:
precisely drafted and that, in these circumstances, it is submit-
ted that, by virtue of Article 241 EC, the provisions of the            —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Regulation and the Decision are inapplicable against the United               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Kingdom.                                                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 2000/16/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                              the Council of 10 April 2000 amending Council Directive
The Applicant maintains that the decision of the Commission                   79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs
contained in its letter of 22 November 2002 does not disclose                 and Council Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed
the principle issues of law and of fact upon which it is based                materials, and, in any event, by failing to inform the
and should therefore be annulled on grounds of lack of                        Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed
reasoning.                                                                    to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned direc-
                                                                              tive;
                                                                        —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
2)    T h e D eci si o n to s eek r ecov ery                  of
      9 2 7 2 76 7 E uro s of E RD F As si st an ce
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The Applicant submits that the decision letter of 22 November
2002 by which the Commission notified the United Kingdom                The period for transposition expired on 2 May 2001.
that it was obliged to issue a recovery order for the sum of
9 272 767 Euros should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 2000 L 105, p. 36.
—      that the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
       interpretation and/or made a manifest error of assess-
       ment;
—      that the decision contravened the principles of good
       administration, Community solidarity, regional partner-          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
       ship and the principle of cooperation between Com-               de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court
       munity institutions and Member States (Article 10 EC);           of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against
                                                                        Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et
                                                                                Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
—      lack of adequate reasoning.
                                                                                (Case C-49/03)
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
                                                                                (2003/C 70/29)
     down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161,
     26.06.1999, p. 1).
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de
 ---pagebreak--- 22.3.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 70/19
Rennes, Septième Chambre (Court of Appeal, Rennes, Seventh                    Action brought on 14 February 2003 by the Commission
Chamber) of 5 February 2003, received at the Court Registry                   of the European Communities against the French Republic
on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Alain Rousseau against Association Comité Économique                                                (Case C-66/03)
Régional Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL) on the
following questions:                                                                                (2003/C 70/30)
                                                                              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                              Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February
In view of the provisions of Article 3 of Council Regulation                  2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 (1), where a Member State                          represented by N. Yerrell, acting as Agent, with an address for
applies the provisions of Article 15b(1) and (8) of Council                   service in Luxembourg.
Regulation No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 (2) by making certain
production and marketing rules mandatory for producers                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
established within the area of an economic committee who do
not belong to it and by making them liable for all or part of                 (a)   declare that by failing to bring into force and/or inform
the membership fees paid by producers who do belong to it,                          the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrat-
is it admissible and well founded for a farmer engaged in                           ive provisions necessary to comply with Commission
organic farming to invoke the principle of non-discrimination                       Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first
on the ground, in particular, that the rules prescribed by the                      list of indicative occupational exposure limit values in
economic committee in respect of market withdrawal render                           implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
its activity of little or no interest to him.                                       protection of the health and safety of workers from the
                                                                                risks related to chemical agents at work (1) the French
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
                                                                                Treaty, and
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on
     organic production of agricultural products and indications              (b)   order the French Republic to pay the costs of the
     referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 198            proceedings.
     of 22.07.1991, p. 1).
( 2) Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on
     the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables            Pleas in law and main arguments
     (OJ L 118 of 20.05.1972, p. 1).
                                                                              The period prescribed for implementation ended on 31 Decem-
                                                                              ber 2001.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ L 142, 16.06.2000, p. 47.


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/13

         Removal from the register of Case C-123/05 (1)

   (2005/C 330/35)

      Language of the case: Italian

   By order of 6 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-123/05 Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-382/15 P: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Skype Ultd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Ltd (Appeal — Community trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/4

         Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2016 — Skype Ultd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Ltd
   (Case C-382/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 136/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Skype Ultd (represented by: A. Carboni and M. Browne, Solicitors)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent), Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc, Sky IP International Ltd (represented by: D. Rose and J. Curry, Solicitors)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the appeal.

               2.

               Skype Ultd shall pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-195/10: Action brought on 21 April 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/20

         Action brought on 21 April 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-195/10)
   2010/C 179/33
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by A. Marghelis and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to transpose correctly Articles 8(a)(iv) and 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Paragraph 91(5) of the Jäätmeseadus (Law on waste) does not provide for the security to be kept as long as required by maintenance and after-care operation of the landfill site in accordance with Article 13(d), nor is any requirement laid down to cover the costs of after-care of the site for a period of at least 30 years.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case C-122/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Articles 2, 3 and 6 — Difference in treatment on grounds of age — National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income — Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 — Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (reqeust for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — proceedings brought by C
   (Case C-122/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation providing, in certain situations, for higher taxation of pension income than earned income - Scope of application of Directive 2000/78 - Competence of the European Union in the field of direct taxation))
   (2016/C 287/14)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Party to the main proceedings

   C

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, relating to a supplementary tax on pension income, does not fall within the substantive scope of that directive nor, therefore, is it covered by Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-199/01: Action brought on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.11.2001            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 317/31
      that his name was not on that list and against the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      Commission’s decision not to promote him to grade A4
      under the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         The applicant disputes two decisions of the office responsible
—     annul any related and/or subsequent decision;                      for settling claims under the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme
                                                                         refusing to reimburse at 100 % of the cost of certain medical
—     annul the Commission’s implied decision rejecting the              services that he submits are linked to the serious illness from
      complaint submitted by the applicant under Article 90(2)           which his wife is suffering. In support of his action he alleges
      of the Staff Regulations on 27 December 2000;                      breach of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations and manifest
                                                                         error of assessment.
—     annul the 2000 A4 promotions procedure with regard to
      the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the action.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of his action, the applicant puts forward the same
pleas in law as in Case T-188/01.
                                                                                (Case T-199/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-191/01)                                  European Communities on 28 August 2001 by Pierrette Dessy,
                                                                         resident in Ispra (Italy), represented by Olivier Slusny, lawyer,
                        (2001/C 317/61)                                  with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         —     declare unlawful and annul the implied decision to reject
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                               the applicant’s complaint of 30 January 2001;
European Communities on 10 August 2001 by André Hecq,
resident in Mondercange (Luxembourg), represented by Carlos
Mourato, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              —     rule that the applicant has the right, in accordance with
                                                                               the provisions of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, to
                                                                               100 % reimbursement for prescribed products;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the Appointing Authority to pay all the costs.
—     annul the decisions of 13 October 2000 and 6 November
      2000 of the Brussels office responsible for settling claims
      as well as the implied decision of 12 May 2001 of the
      Appointing Authority;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
      sum of 38,84 Euros plus default interest from 13 October
      2000;                                                              The applicant, a former Community official, presently in
                                                                         retirement, objects to the refusal of the administration to
—     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the              classify as reimbursable certain pharmaceutical products that
      sum of 26,51 Euros plus default interest from 6 Novem-             she needs for the treatment of a serious illness, within the
      ber 2000;                                                          meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, considering
                                                                         them to be ‘inefficacious’ as regards the condition from which
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.                  she is suffering.
 ---pagebreak--- C 317/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.11.2001
In support of her claims, the applicant submits:                          principle of equal treatment and freedom of movement for
                                                                          workers. The conversion to the Community pension system of
—     Arbitrariness and failure to state reasons, in that, first, the     the pension rights acquired by the applicant in Austria before
      administration changed its mind as to whether certain               her entry into service constitutes, in her view, discrimination
      medicines were reimbursable and, secondly, the principle            based on grade, sex, age and nationality.
      of the doctor’s free choice of medicines was disregarded
      in this case;
—     Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation and of
      the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.
                                                                          Action brought on 6 September 2001 by André Ronsse
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-205/01)
Action brought on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise
   Lindorfer against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (2001/C 317/64)
                         (Case T-204/01)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2001/C 317/63)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 6 September 2001 by André
                                                                          Ronsse, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                          lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 September 2001 by Maria-Luise Lindorfer,
resident in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Laure Levi and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.
                                                                          —      annul the decision taken on 9 November 2000 by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Appointing Authority concerning the reimbursement of
                                                                                the household allowance considered by the Appointing
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 3 November 2000                          Authority to have been overpaid since 1 January 1994;
      fixing at 5 years, 5 months and 8 days the number of
      years of pensionable service to be taken into account for           —      annul the decision, taken by the Appointing Authority on
      the applicant’s Community pension following the transfer                   23 November 2000, to recover the household allowance
      of her pension rights acquired in Austria prior to her                     previously overpaid since 1 January 1994
      entry into the service of the European Communities and,                    (22 433,07 Euros) from the applicant’s monthly pension,
      in so far as necessary, annul the Council decision, dated                  in 30 monthly payments of 770 Euros from December
      31 May 2001, to reject the applicant’s complaint of                        2000 to May 2003 inclusive and a monthly payment of
      2 February 2001;                                                           15,89 Euros in June 2003;
—     order the defendant to fix again, on an amended legal               —      in any event, whatever the decision on the substance of
      basis devoid of all illegality, the years of pensionable                   the case, authorise his repayment arrangements to be
      service to be taken into account for the applicant’s                       made more flexible than those presently imposed on him,
      Community pension following the transfer of her pension                    with average monthly payments of a maximum of
      rights acquired in Austria;                                                385 Euros;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           —      order, in any event, the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of her action, the applicant raises an objection to
the legality of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff                  The applicant in the present case, a retired official, states that,
Regulations and Articles 10.3 and 10.4 of the Council decision            according to the Appointing Authority, he unduly received
fixing the general provisions for giving effect to Article 11(2).         household allowance from 1 January 1994 to 31 October
According to the applicant, those articles, which form the legal          2000 and that, on the basis of Article 85, the Staff Regulations,
basis of the contested measure, constitute a breach of the                it is seeking to recover the amount overpaid.


title: Case C-178/03: Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union

text:
21.6.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     Incorrect transposition of Article 8 of the directive: the
                                                                                national provisions on informing the population or the
                                                                                information to be given in the event of a radiological
—     declare that, by not taking the necessary measures to                      emergency do not make binding provision for indicating
      comply with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Council                        which authorities are responsible for applying the
      Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on                            measures envisaged by the directive.
      informing the general public about health protection
      measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event
      of a radiological emergency (1), the French Republic has             (1 ) OJ L 357, 7.12.1989, p. 31.
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Action brought on 24 April 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the European
                                                                                Parliament and the Council of the European Union
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 2 of the directive: the
      transposition measures taken concerned only some of the
      situations referred to in that article. The given definition                                  (Case C-178/03)
      of ‘radiological emergency’ was not transposed, and the
      transposition measures do not cover the transport and
      storage of nuclear fuels or radioactive wastes, the manu-                                     (2003/C 146/55)
      facture, use, storage, disposal and transport of radioiso-
      topes for agricultural, industrial, medical and related
      scientific and research purposes, or the use of radioiso-
      topes for power generation in space vehicles. In addition,
      the measures concern only risks connected with instal-               An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      lations in French territory and not those connected with             the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice
      installations outside that territory.                                of the European Communities on 24 April 2003 by the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                           G. zur Hausen, L. Ström and E. Righini, acting as agents, with
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 3 of the directive: the           an address for service in Luxembourg.
      transposition measures taken contain no definition of the
      terms ‘significant release of radioactive material’ and
      ‘abnormal levels of radioactivity which are likely to be             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      detrimental to public health’.
                                                                           —     annul Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 (1) of the European
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 5 of the directive: as                  Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003
      already indicated in relation to the transposition of                      concerning the export and import of dangerous chemi-
      Article 2 of the directive, the transposition measures as                  cals;
      regards informing the population do not cover all
      the installations and all the activities envisaged by the            —     declare that the effects of the Regulation shall remain in
      directive.                                                                 force until the Council has adopted a new regulation;
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 6 of the directive: the           —     order the European Parliament and the Council to pay
                                                                                the costs.
      national provisions on informing the population in the
      event of a radiological emergency do not require that the
      population be informed without delay.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Incorrect transposition of Article 7 of the directive: the
      measures referred to in the directive for informing
      persons likely to be involved in the organisation of
      assistance in the event of a radiological emergency, for             The PIC Regulation implements the Rotterdam Convention on
      example, are reproduced only in a circular, which does               the Prior Informed Consent procedure for certain Hazardous
      not comply with the requirements for legal certainty                 Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade, hereinafter
      imposed by the Court’s case-law.                                     the ‘PIC Convention’.
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/34                EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.6.2003
The PIC Convention establishes the principle that import and           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
export of a chemical covered by it can only take place with the
prior informed consent of the importing Party. The PIC
Convention establishes a procedure as a means to formally
obtain and disseminate the decisions of importing Parties and          Pleas in law and main arguments
to ensure compliance with these decisions by the exporting
Parties, called the ‘PIC procedure’.
                                                                       The action is directed against the contested decision in so far
                                                                       as it excludes from Community financing expenditure of
                                                                       EUR 26 446 505,00 incurred by the Federal Republic of
The Commission considers that the PIC Regulation falls within          Germany in respect of the arable crops sector in Brandenburg
the scope of the Community’s common commercial policy.                 for crop years 1999 and 2000 and imputes it to the Federal
The Regulation should therefore, as proposed by the Com-               Republic of Germany. That amount represents a flat-rate
mission, have been adopted as a Council Regulation based on            correction of 5 % of the expenditure notified for the Land of
Article 133 EC and not as a European Parliament and Council            Brandenburg for crop years 1999 and 2000 in the arable crops
Regulation based on Article 175(1) EC, which concerns                  sector.
measures adopted in the field of the Community’s environmen-
tal policy. The Commission maintains that the choice by the
European Parliament and the Council of the legal basis for the         In the opinion of the Federal Republic of Germany, the
adoption of the PIC Regulation is erroneous and the act in             decision was adopted in breach of procedural rules and general
question is therefore illegal and should be annulled.                  principles of Community law. The Commission’s inspection
                                                                       findings and conclusions, which formed the basis of the
                                                                       decision, were incorrect in a number of material factual
( 1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1.                                          respects and, moreover, were based on a misinterpretation of
                                                                       law. A flat-rate imputation of 5 % is therefore completely
                                                                       illegal. That follows from the following seven pleas in law:
                                                                       —     Procedural errors. The complaints subsequently made by
                                                                             the Commission:
                                                                             —     ‘no reliable or current data on the parcels in the
                                                                                Allgemeines Liegenschaftsbuch (General Register of
                                                                                Real Property) (ALB)’ (Under Paragraph 12 of the
Action brought on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic                            Gesetz über die Landesvermessung und das Liegen-
of Germany against the Commission of the European                                  schaftskataster in Brandenburg (Law on Topo-
                            Communities                                            graphic Survey and the Land Register in Branden-
                                                                                burg — VermLiegG), the ALB constitutes, together
                                                                                with the real property map and real property data,
                          (Case C-183/03)                                          the cadastre of the Land of Brandenburg. It is held
                                                                                on computer),
                          (2003/C 146/56)                                    —     ‘double applications not detectable’,
                                                                             —     ‘there is hardly any or no connection between the
                                                                                parcels entered in the land register and those in
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                          agricultural use’ and
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 28 April 2003 by the Federal Republic of                      —     ‘it was not always possible to check and measure the
Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,                      specified agricultural parcels on the basis of, for
Moritz Lumma, Regierungsdirektor, and Annette Tiemann,                             example, maps or aerial photographs, since the
Regierungsrätin z. A., Federal Ministry of Finance, Graurhein-                     holdings do not enclose with their applications
dorfer Straße 108, D-53117 Bonn.                                                   any maps or sketches of the specified agricultural
                                                                                parcels’,
                                                                             were not communicated to the German authorities in due
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  time. Breach of the procedure for the clearance of the
                                                                             accounts (Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1258/
—     annul Commission Decision 2003/102/EC of 14 February                   1999 ( 1) and Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1663/
      2003 — C(2003) 500 final — excluding from Com-                         95 ( 2) and breaches of the principles of the right to a fair
      munity financing certain expenditure incurred by the                   hearing and proper administration are therefore alleged.
      Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                —     Reliability of the land identification system. In its second
      (EAGGF) in so far as an amount of EUR 26 446 500,00                    plea in law, the Federal Government defends itself against
      is excluded from Community financing and imputed to                    the doubts expressed by the Commission concerning the
      the Federal Republic of Germany and                                    reliability of the identification system.


Avis juridique important

|

52003XX1024(03)

Court of Justice - Election of the Presidents of Chambers

Official Journal C 255 , 24/10/2003 P. 0005 - 0005

Election of the Presidents of Chambers(2003/C 255/09)At their meeting on 8 October 2003, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, under the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Jann and Mr Timmermans as Presidents of the two Chambers of five Judges for a period of three years expiring on 6 October 2006.At their meeting on 10 October 2003, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, under the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Gulmann, Mr Cunha Rodrigues and Mr Rosas as Presidents of the three Chambers of three Judges for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2004.


title: Case T-183/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/42

         Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Menta y Limón Decoración v EUIPO — Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Representation of a man in regional costume)
   (Case T-183/17)
   (2017/C 151/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Menta y Limón Decoración, SL (Argame, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma (Santa Cruz de La Palma, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a man in regional costume) — EU trade mark No 10 822 013

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 510/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               uphold the first-instance decision of 28 January 2015 of EUIPO’s Cancellation Division which rejected in its entirety Community mark No 10 822 013 applied for by the Ayuntamiento de Santa Cruz de La Palma;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and also those of the appeal and invalidity proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(2)(d) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-502/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2009 — Fleischerei Nier GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Detmold

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 3 December 2009 — Fleischerei Nier GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Detmold
   (Case C-502/09)
   2010/C 63/37
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fleischerei Nier GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Detmold

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the term ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ in Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) to be interpreted as covering only ‘take-away’ foodstuffs as typically sold in the grocery business, or does it also cover dishes and meals which have been prepared by boiling, grilling, roasting, baking or other means for immediate consumption?

               2.

               In the event that ‘foodstuffs for human consumption’ within the meaning of Category 1 of Annex H to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes also covers dishes or meals for immediate consumption:
               Is the process of the preparation of the dishes or meals to be taken into account as a service element if it has to be decided whether the single supply of a party-service business (provision of dishes or meals ready for consumption together with the transport thereof and, perhaps, the provision of cutlery and crockery and/or tables for standing at as well as the collection of the objects provided for use) is to be classified as a supply of foodstuffs that is subject to a reduced rate of taxation (Category 1 of Annex H to that directive) or as a supply of services not subject to a reduced rate of taxation (Article 6(1) of that directive)?

               3.

               In the event that Question 2 is answered in the negative:
               Is it consistent with Article 2(1), in conjunction with Articles 5(1) and 6(1), of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes for the classification of the single supply of a party-service business as either a supply of goods or a sui generis supply of services to be based purely on the number of the elements in the nature of supplies of services (two or more) compared with the proportion constituted by the supply of goods, or must the elements in the nature of a supply of services necessarily be assessed independently of their number, and, if so, according to what criteria?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.