title: Case T-110/13: Action brought on 23 February 2013 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/23

         Action brought on 23 February 2013 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

   (Case T-110/13)
   2013/C 129/47
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and D. Skara)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision No FK/fa/D(2012) 1707818 of the European Commission of 10 December 2012 in so far as the debit note No 3241213460 attached to that decision relates to projects in respect of which the implementing parties have been placed in receivership, and order the Commission to return the amount of EUR 3 148 549,66;

               —

               annul Decision No FK/fa/D(2012) 1707818 of the European Commission of 10 December 2012 in so far as the debit note No 3241213460 attached to it relates to Project No P27010010, and order the Commission to return the amount of EUR 1 060 560,56;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, each relating to a breach of European Union law:

               1.

               The European Commission, in adopting the contested decision and not having shared the losses on the administration of the SAPARD funds with the Republic of Lithuania, or in any event by not having considered that matter and by not having provided any reasons for the refusal to share the losses, breached Article 8(2) of Regulation No 1258/1999, (1) read in conjunction with Article 73(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002, (2) Article 87 of Regulation No 2342/2002 (3) and the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) TEU.

               2.

               The European Commission, having failed to provide, in sufficient time, information as to the possibility of cancelling the debt and striking the corresponding company off the list of debtors, breached the provision on mutual consultation contained in point 7.7.4 of Part F of the multiannual financing agreement concerning the special aid programme for agriculture and rural development (SAPARD) (4) signed in 2001 by the Republic of Lithuania and the European Commission, read in conjunction with the principle of sincere cooperation set out in Article 4(3) TEU.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1999 L 160 of 26.6.1999, p. 103).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1; corrigendum at OJ 2007 L 99 of 14.4.2007, p. 18).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357 of 31.12.2002, p. 1; corrigendum at OJ 2005 L 345 of 28.12.2005, p. 35).

      (4)  Valstybės žinios, 29.8.2001, No 74-2589.


title: Case C-233/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Gerhard Dijkman, Maria Dijkman-Lavaleije v Belgische Staat (Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Difference in treatment according to the place of investment)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/13

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Gerhard Dijkman, Maria Dijkman-Lavaleije v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-233/09) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Difference in treatment according to the place of investment)
   2010/C 234/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gerhard Dijkman, Maria Dijkman-Lavaleije

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) — National income tax rules — Supplementary municipal tax calculated on the basis of the amount of income tax — Discharge resulting from withholding tax on movable assets — Different treatment according to the place of investment — Compatibility with Article 56(1) EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 EC precludes legislation of a Member State according to which taxpayers resident in that Member State who receive interest or dividends from investments made in another Member State are subject to a supplementary municipal tax when they have not elected for that income from moveable assets to be paid to them by an intermediary established in their Member State of residence, whereas income of the same type from investments made in their Member State of residence, because it is subject to withholding tax at source, need not be declared and, in that case, is not subject to the supplementary municipal tax.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-421/07: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Deutsche Post v Commission (State aid — Measures taken by the German authorities in favour of Deutsche Post AG — Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC — No prior definitive decision — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Deutsche Post v Commission
      (Case T-421/07) (1)

      (State aid - Measures taken by the German authorities in favour of Deutsche Post AG - Decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC - No prior definitive decision - Inadmissibility)
      (2012/C 25/87)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Khan and B. Martenczuk, and subsequently by Martenczuk and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium); and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the Commission decision of 12 September 2007 to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) [EC] in respect of State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Deutsche Post AG (C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07))

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

                  2.

                  Orders Deutsche Post AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders UPS Europe NV/SA and UPS Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case C-490/13 P: Appeal brought on 13 September 2013 by Cytochroma Development, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-106/12: Cytochroma Development, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/7

         Appeal brought on 13 September 2013 by Cytochroma Development, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2013 in Case T-106/12: Cytochroma Development, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-490/13 P)
   2013/C 352/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Cytochroma Development, Inc. (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, A. Smith, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the General Court dated 3 July 2013 in Case T-106/12;

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those of the appellant

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled on the following grounds:

               —

               The General Court infringed Article 65(6) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) and Article 1 (d) (1) of Regulation 216/96 (2) regarding the measures taken by OHIM to comply with the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               The General Court infringed the principle of legal certainty, as well as Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 78, p. 1

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96 of 5 February 1996 laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   OJ L 28, p. 11


title: Case T-264/07: Action brought on 18 July 2007 — CSL Behring v Commission and EMEA

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Action brought on 18 July 2007 — CSL Behring v Commission and EMEA
   (Case T-264/07)
   (2007/C 235/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: CSL Behring GmbH (Marburg, Federal Republic of Germany) (represented by: Professor C. König and F. Leinen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC, EMEA's decision of 24 May 2007 in the ‘Human Fibrinogen — Application for Orphan Medicinal Product Designation — EMEA/OD/018/07’ case, received by the applicant on 24 May 2007;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests EMEA's letter of 24 May 2007. The applicant takes the view that, by that letter, the EMEA refuses in a legally binding manner to continue the procedure for the designation of the applicant's medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product pursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 (1).
   The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action.
   The applicant submits, first, that an interpretation of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 141/2000 to the effect that the application for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product must be submitted before the application for marketing authorisation for that medicinal product is incorrect. That provision was therefore applied incorrectly.
   Second, the applicant asserts that Article 5(1) of Regulation No 141/2000 is contrary to primary law and should be declared inapplicable pursuant to Article 241 EC in the event that it is to be interpreted as meaning that the application for designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product must be submitted before the application for marketing authorisation for that medicinal product. In that connection, it is submitted that that interpretation infringes the fundamental Community law principles of freedom to enjoy property rights and pursue a trade or profession, the principle of equal treatment and the principle of good faith.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).


title: Case T-206/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  1 February 2006  — Rodrigues Carvalhais v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Figurative mark containing the verbal element  PERFIX  — Earlier Community figurative trade mark containing the verbal element  cerfix  — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Rodrigues Carvalhais v OHIM
   (Case T-206/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘PERFIX’ - Earlier Community figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘cerfix’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 86/50)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais (Almada, Portugal) (represented by: P. Graça initially, then J. Lopes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Profilpas Snc (Cadoneghe, Italy) (represented by: J.L. Revenga Santos initially, then J.M. Monravá, lawyers)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2004 (Case R 408/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between M. Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais and Profilpas Snc
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Case C-412/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfill of waste — Operation in the absence of a conditioning plan for the site — Obligation to close down the site)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/19

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-412/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfill of waste - Operation in the absence of a conditioning plan for the site - Obligation to close down the site)
   2013/C 260/31
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and D. Düsterhaus, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: M. Chatzigeorgiou and K. Lykourgos, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 14 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Continued operation of the landfill sites of Nicosia and Limassol in the absence of conditioning plans for the sites

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to close down all the landfill sites for the uncontrolled disposal of waste (XADA) which are operated on its territory or in failing to comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case T-340/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Arne Mathisen AS against the Council of the European Union

text:
18.3.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 79/31
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Arne Mathisen                          in essence transfer prices between related companies.
       AS against the Council of the European Union                         Moreover, it acted in good faith and did not intend to
                                                                            mislead the Commission.
                         (Case T-340/99)
                                                                        — The principle of proportionality has been breached. The
                                                                            regulation was not absolutely necessary to protect the
                          (2000/C 79/68)                                    Community market since the applicant discontinued the
                                                                            contested business practice.
                  (Language of the case: English)                       — It was entitled to compensation payments under
                                                                            Article 288 EC since the regulation was unlawful and it
An action against the Council of the European Union was                     incurred economic loss by being commercially excluded
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  from taking part in the salmon-export trade with the EC.
Communities on 1 December 1999 by Arne Mathisen AS,
represented by Sigurd Knudtzon, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn, Schmitt & Steichen,
7 Val Ste-Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, in so far as it relates to the applicant, Council
    Regulation (EC) No 1895/1999 of 27 August 1999                      Action brought on 2 December 1999 by Airtours PLC
    amending Regulation (EC) No 722/1999 imposing defini-                 against the Commission of the European Communities
    tive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of
    farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway;
                                                                                (Case T-342/99)
— award the applicant compensation to be paid by the
    Council on the basis of the commercial losses incurred as                                    (2000/C 79/69)
    a consequence of the said Council regulation;
— interest at a rate of 12 % annually on such amounts as are                               (Language of the case: English)
    found to be due;
— order the Council to pay the costs of this proceeding.                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 2 December 1999 by Airtours PLC,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         represented by John Swift, QC, Rupert Anderson, Malcolm
                                                                        Nicholson, Jacqueline Holland and Andrea Gomes da Silva,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant is a Norwegian fish trading company, that, with           Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill, L-2014.
other Norwegian exporters, signed an undertaking not to sell
Norwegian salmon in the Community below a specified
minimum price and to report the quarterly sale of salmon to             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Commission. Moreover, it undertook not to circumvent the
undertaking by compensatory arrangements with customers in              — declare the Commission Decision of 22 September 1999
the Community or by misleading declarations or reports.                     relating to the notification of a concentration pursuant to
Following allegations that the applicant had sent hypothetical              Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 in Case
sales reports, and misled the Commission as to its true function            No. IV/M.1524 — Airtours/First Choice void and annul it
and its capability of respecting the undertaking, the Council               in its entirety;
adopted the contested regulation.
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay Airtours’ costs.
In support of its case, the applicant puts forward the following
pleas in law:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— Its business practice was not in breach of the undertaking
    since the undertaking did not cover triangular trading
    arrangements before it was amended in December 1998.                The contested decision prohibits the proposed merger between
                                                                        Airtours and First Choice Holidays PLC on the ground that the
— The business practice did not constitute a circumvention              concentration would lead to a situation of collective domi-
    of the undertaking. The applicant rejects the assertion that        nance in the UK short-haul foreign package holiday market.
    the prices and money-flows between its trading partners,            The collectively dominant firms would be the merged Air-
    that formed the basis of the applicant’s reports to the             tours/First Choice entity, and two other tour operators,
    Commission, were only of notional character and were                Thomson Travel Group PLC and Thomas Cook Group Limited.


title: Case C-224/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2016 — Rose Vision, SL v European Commission (Appeal — Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research — Audits finding irregularities in the implementation of certain projects — Commission decisions suspending payment of the amounts payable under certain projects — Action for compensation — Rejection — Statement of reasons)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 May 2016 — Rose Vision, SL v European Commission
   (Case C-224/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Projects funded by the European Union in the field of research - Audits finding irregularities in the implementation of certain projects - Commission decisions suspending payment of the amounts payable under certain projects - Action for compensation - Rejection - Statement of reasons))
   (2016/C 260/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Rose Vision, SL (represented by: J.J. Marín López, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Siekierzyńska, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 5 March 2015 in Rose Vision and Seseña v Commission (T-45/13, not published, EU:T:2015:138), in so far as it concerns Rose Vision SL;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case C-122/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Measures having equivalent effect — Importers and distributors of medicinal products — Submission of a certified copy or a document attesting to the holding of a marketing authorisation)

text:
C 47/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the European
                                                                                Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 28 EC;
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                             2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                       of 11 December 2003
                                                                             (1) OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.
in Case C-122/03: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Measures having equivalent effect — Importers and distribu-
tors of medicinal products — Submission of a certified copy
or a document attesting to the holding of a marketing                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
                            authorisation)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                           (2004/C 47/16)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             nella causa C-244/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Kauppatalo Hansel Oy
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             v Imatran kaupunki (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Article 104(3) — Rules of Procedure — Procurement
                                                                             contracts — Directive 93/36/EEC — Procedures for the
                                                                             award of public supply contracts — Incorrect assessment as
                                                                             regards the criterion for determining the most economically
In Case C-122/03, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             advantageous tender — Procurement procedure discon-
(Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Stromsky) v French Republic
                                                                                tinued)
(Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes): Application for
a declaration that, by imposing, pursuant to Article R. 5142-
15 of the Code de la santé publique, on traders importing or                                           (2004/C 47/17)
distributing in France medicinal products which are already
covered by a marketing authorisation for the French or
Community market a requirement that they submit, when first                                     (Language of the case: Finnish)
so requested by the monitoring authorities, either a certified
copy issued by the Agence française de securité sanitaire des
produits de santé of the French marketing authorisation or of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the registration of the medicinal product, or a document issued                                 in the European Court Reports)
by that Agency attesting that the imported medicinal product
has obtained a marketing authorisation issued by the European
Community, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 28 EC, the Court (Third Chamber),                  In Case C-244/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), acting for the Presi-                  EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
dent of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken,                   ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,                Kauppatalo Hansel Oy and Imatran kaupunki, on the interpret-
has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:                       ation of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
                                                                             coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
                                                                             contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1), as amended by European
1.    Declares that by imposing, pursuant to Article R. 5142-15 of           Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October
      the Code de la santé publique, on traders importing or                 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/
      distributing in France medicinal products which are already            EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
      covered by a marketing authorisation for the French or                 of public service contracts, public supply contracts and public
      Community market a requirement that they submit, when first            works contracts respectively (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1), the Court
      so requested by the monitoring authorities, either a certified         (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
      copy issued by the Agence française de securité sanitaire des          the Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
      produits de santé of the French marketing authorisation or of          L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
      the registration of the medicinal product, or a document issued        an order on 16 October 2003, the operative part of which is
      by that Agency certifying that the imported medicinal product          as follows:


title: Action brought on 26 August 1996 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-288/96)

text:
No C 354/ 14           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                23 . 11 . 96
judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the            24 September 1996, the operative part of which is as
European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ) on 16 November               follows :
1994 in Case T-451 /93 San Marco v. Commission [ 1994]
ECR 11-1061 , and for compensation for the damage
allegedly suffered by the appellant in relation to a public         1 . When committing expenditure in implementation of its
works contract concluded by it with the Government of the               circular of 2 May 1996 inviting applications for
Somali Democratic Republic, the other party to the                      Commission funding of measures to assist the elderly
proceedings being the Commission of the European                        and of its circular received by the United Kingdom
Communities ( Agents: Hans Peter Hartvig and Claire Bury )              authorities on 15 May 1996 inviting applications for
— the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward              Commission funding of measures to combat poverty
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L.                and social exclusion, the Commission shall clearly state
Sevon, Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar: R.            that such commitments are conditional upon the
Grass, made an order on 17 September 1996 , the operative               judgment of the Court in the main proceedings and shall
part of which is as follows :                                           make no payment until that judgment is delivered.
                                                                    2.  Costs are reserved.
1 . The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
2 . San Marco Impex Italiana is ordered to bear its own
      costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.
t 1 ) OJ No C 74, 1995 .
                                                                    Action brought on 26 August 1996 by the Federal Republic
                                                                    of Germany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-288/96 )
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                                     ( 96/C 354/28 )
                     of 24 September 1996
in Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R: United                   An action against the Commission of the European
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland supported             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
by Federal Republic of Germany v. Commission of the                 European Communities on 26 August 1996 by the Federal
                   European Communities (*)                         Republic of Germany, represented by Bernd Kloke,
(Applications for interim measures — Social policy —                Oberregierungsrat, of the Federal Ministry of Economic
Community measures to assist the elderly — Community                Affairs, and Michael Schiitte, Rechtsanwalt, of Bruckhaus
       measures to combat poverty and social exclusion)             Westrick Stegemann, Brussels .
                          96/C 354/27
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    — declare Commission Decision COM(96)1646 def. of
                                                                        29 May 1996 on aid from Niedersachsen to JAKO
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            Jadekost GmbH & Co. KG void;
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In Joined Cases C-239/96 R and C-240/96 R: United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents:             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
John Collins and Derrick Wyatt ), supported by Federal
Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and Bernd
Kloke ), against Commission of the European Communities             Infringement of the right to be heard : the Commission did
                                                                    not make available to Niedersachsen or the Federal
 ( Agents : Peter Oliver and Maria Patakia ) — application for
suspension of operation of the decisions or acts comprised          Republic of Germany the observations submitted by
or referred to in the Commission circular of 2 May 1996             competitors of Jadekost which apparently influenced the
                                                                    Commission 's decision .
inviting applications for Commission funding of measures
to assist the elderly and in the Commission circular received
by the United Kingdom authorities on 15 May 1 996 inviting          Breach of essential procedural requirements ( Article 173 ,
applications for Commission funding of measures to                  second paragraph, of the EC Treaty ): the Commission's
combat poverty and social exclusion, or for interim                 investigation of the facts was inadequate and its account of
measures — the President of the Court made an order on              them in the decision is inaccurate .
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 11 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 354/ 15
Misapplication of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the                  2 . If so , are the provisions applicable in the same way:
Commission misapplied Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty in
finding that the guarantee provided by Niedersachsen was                        ( a ) if the decision in question is the first calculation of
incompatible with the common market. The findings in the                              the insured person's rights under the regulations by
decision with regard to Article 92 ( 1 ) are unlawful in both                         that institution ?
form and substance . The substantive illegality is sufficiently
demonstrated by the application by the Commission of the
fisheries guidelines published in Official Journal of the                       ( b ) if a first decision made before 1 June 1996 did not
European Communities No C 152 of 17 June 1992 , in                                    correctly calculate the rights under the regulations
connection with the investigation of the facts under                                  and has to be cancelled and replaced after 1 June
                                                                                1992 by a rectification decision, the latter thus
Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty, as well as by the absence of a
detailed examination of the individual circumstances when                             being the first to calculate the rights under the
                                                                                regulations correctly ?
determining whether the requirements of fact were met. In
particular, the Commission failed entirely to take into
account the provision of valuable securities when                               ( c ) if a first decision made before 1 June 1992 and
determining the aid element, and to consider alternative                              otherwise correct has to be annulled and replaced
financing, omissions which led to false assumptions . The                             after 1 June 1992 because another institution
argument concerning distortion of competition is not                                  concerned has made a rectification decision ?
supported by any factual finding whatsoever and is,
moreover, contradictory. The decision does not comply                     3 . If the first two questions are answered in the affirmative,
with Article 190 of the EC Treaty and is therefore unlawful                     may the recalculation of the benefit on 1 June 1992 have
as to form as well .
                                                                                the consequence of reducing the benefit due, compared
                                                                                with the amount due on 31 May 1992 on the basis of the
Misapplication of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( e ) of the EC Treaty: the                  provisions applicable until that date, given that
guarantee for Jadekost satisfies the conditions laid down in                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 did not amend or
Article 92 ( 3 ) ( e ) in order for it to be regarded as compatible             supplement the provisions of Articles 118 to 119a of
with the common market . The Commission 's verification of                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 ( 4 ) to make them
the presence of the conditions for application of this                          applicable on 1 June 1992 ?
exception was defective in both form and substance .
                                                                          (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 7 .
                                                                          (-') OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
                                                                          (4 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p. 159 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
Travail de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of
5 September 1996 in the case of Salvatore Baldone v. Institut
           National d 'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite
                            Case C-307/96                                 Action brought on 24 September 1996 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                             ( 96/C 354/29 )                                                              Netherlands
                                                                                ( Case C-310/96 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                                 ( 96/C 354/30 )
 European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
 Travail de Bruxelles [Brussels Labour Court] of 5 September
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
 23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 Salvatore    Baldone        v.   Institut   National    d'Assurance       Communities on 24 September 1996 by the Commission of
 Maladie-Invalidite on the following questions:                           the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber, of
                                                                           the Legal Service , acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal
 1 . Are paragraphs 1 to 3 of Article 95a of Regulation                    Service , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
     ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( ! ), inserted by Regulation ( EEC)
     No 1248/72 ( 2 ), to be interpreted as meaning that if an
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should :
     institution of a Member State after 31 May 1992
     calculates the rights of an invalid under the regulations,
     it must apply, for the period ending on 3 1 May 1992 , the            — declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed
     provisions of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ( in                            to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Council
     particular Article 46 ) in the codified version of                          Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 by maintaining
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 ( 3 ), and, from 1 June                      after 1 January 1990 a special provision by virtue of
      1992 , the provisions of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71                     which certain supplies of waste and recuperable material
     as amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1248/92 ?                               are not required to be subject to value added tax;


title: Case T-117/04: Action brought on 24 March 2004 by the Vereniging Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens Zuidelijke Randmeren and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/46

         Action brought on 24 March 2004 by the Vereniging Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens Zuidelijke Randmeren and Others against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-117/04)
   (2004/C 118/100)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 March 2004 by the Vereniging Werkgroep Commerciële Jachthavens Zuidelijke Randmeren, established in Zeewolde (Netherlands), Jachthaven Zijl Zeewolde B.V., established in Zeewolde (Netherlands), Wolderwijd II BV, established in Zeewolde (Netherlands), Jachthaven Strand-Horst BV, established in Ermelo (Netherlands), Recreatiegebied Erkemederstrand V.O.F., established in Zeewolde (Netherlands), Jachthaven and Campingbedrijf Nieuwboer B.V., established in Bunschoten-Spakenburg (Netherlands) and Jachthaven Naarden B.V., established in Naarden (Netherlands), represented by T.R. Ottervanger and A.S. Bijleveld.
   The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2003)3890fin of 17 December 2003 concerning aid measures implemented by the Netherlands in favour of non-profit making marinas in the Netherlands and deem the aid granted to be unlawful aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission is of the opinion that, in regard to the marinas concerned, there is no State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. According to the Commission, in regard to the Wieringermeer marina, there is no benefit and that, in regard to the Nijkerk and Enkhuizen marinas, trade between the Member States is not adversely affected by the aid measure.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission misapplied and misconstrued Article 87(1) EC. They maintain first that the Commission manifestly erred in its assessment in accepting that the aid measure in regard to the marinas in Enkhuizen and Nijkerk does not affect trade between the Member States. According to the applicants, the marinas are active in an international tourist sector and do not have a strictly local function.
   They further submit that the Commission also manifestly erred in its assessment in regard to the calculation of the amount of State aid in favour of the marina in Nijkerk. According to the applicants, the Commission wrongly proceeded on the basis that the estimation was based on an unpolluted and well-maintained marina.
   According to the applicants, there is also State aid in the case of the Wieringermeer marina.


title: Case T-445/09: Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/54

         Action brought on 4 November 2009 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-445/09)
   2010/C 24/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 August 2009 in so far as it relates to the set-off between the applicant’s claim on the Community under the Role of Skin contract, and the Community’s alleged claim on the applicant under the EURO-THYMAIDE contract;

               —

               order the Commission to the pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) seeks the annulment of the set-off measure contained in Decision BUDG/C3 D(2009) 10.5 — 1232 of 17 August 2009, by which the Commission recovered sums paid to the applicant pursuant to the EURO-THYMAIDE contract No LSHB-CT-2003-503410 relating to a project under the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development.
   The applicant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its application, alleging:

               —

               infringement of the rights of the defence, in that the decision was taken without the Commission having considered the information in the applicant’s detailed response to the final audit report;

               —

               breach of the duty to state the reasons for the decision, as provided for under Article 253 EC, given the absence of essential information enabling the Commission’s reasoning in the decision to be understood;

               —

               errors of law and manifest errors of assessment of the facts inasmuch as the Commission refused eligible costs by adjusting the eligibility criteria for expenditure incurred pursuant to the contract, and erroneously dismissed conclusive evidence of such expenditure;

               —

               infringement of Article 73(1) of the Financial Regulation, in that the claim at issue could not be regarded as ‘certain, of a fixed amount and due’, owing to the serious nature of the challenge mounted against it;

               —

               infringement of the principle of legal certainty on account of the fact that the decision was taken on the basis of expenditure eligibility criteria which did not exist when the contract was signed.


title: Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission (C-584/10 P), Council of the European Union (C-593/10 P), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-595/10 P) v Yassin Abdullah Kadi, French Republic (Appeal — Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) — Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person included in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations — Listing of that person’s name in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Fundamental rights — Rights of the defence — Principle of effective judicial protection — Principle of proportionality — Right to respect for property — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — European Commission (C-584/10 P), Council of the European Union (C-593/10 P), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-595/10 P) v Yassin Abdullah Kadi, French Republic
   (Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) - Restrictive measures taken against persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person included in a list drawn up by a body of the United Nations - Listing of that person’s name in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Fundamental rights - Rights of the defence - Principle of effective judicial protection - Principle of proportionality - Right to respect for property - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 260/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: European Commission (C-584/10 P) (represented initially by P. Hetsch, S. Boelaert, E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, and subsequently by L. Gussetti, S. Boelaert, E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, Agents), Council of the European Union (C-593/10 P) (represented by M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (C-595/10 P) (represented initially by E. Jenkinson and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer, acting as Agents, and by J. Wallace QC, D. Beard QC, and M. Wood, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, V. Lowe QC, J. Crawford SC, M. Lester and P. Eeckhout, Barristers, G. Martin, Solicitor, and by C. Murphy), French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, D. Colas, A. Adam and E. Ranaivoson, Agents)

      Interveners in the appeals (Cases C-584/10 P and C-595/10 P) in support of the European Commission and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: B. Zaimov, T. Ivanov and E. Petranova, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and K. Molnár, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, Agent)

      Interveners in the appeal (Case C-593/10 P) in support of the Council of the European Union: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: B. Zaimov, T. Ivanov and E. Petranova, Agents), Czech Republic (represented by: K. Najmanová, E. Ruffer, M. Smolek and D. Hadroušek, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: L. Volck Madsen, Agent), Ireland (represented initially by D. O’Hagan and subsequently by E. Creedon, Agents, and by N. Travers BL and P. Benson, Solicitor), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez and N. Díaz Abad, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent), Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and K. Molnár, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. Bulterman, Agents), Republic of Austria, (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, Agent), Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09 Kadi v Commission, by which the General Court upheld an application for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1190/2008 of 28 November 2008 amending for the 101st time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 322, p. 25), in so far as the applicant’s name is included on the list of persons, groups and entities to which those provisions apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission, the Council of the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Slovak Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case T-389/08: Action brought on 16 September 2008 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/50

         Action brought on 16 September 2008 — Lemans v OHIM — Turner (ICON)
   (Case T-389/08)
   (2008/C 301/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Lemans Corporation (Janesville, United States) (represented by: M. Cover, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Stephen Turner (Luddington, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2008 in case R 778/2007-2;

               —

               A declaration that the opposition be dismissed and that Community trade mark concerned may proceed to registration; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs, including the appeals before the Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ICON’ for goods and services in classes 9, 18 and 25 — application No 2 197 440

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘IKON’ for goods in class 9 — UK trade mark registration No 2 243 676

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its finding that the other party to the proceedings before it had locus standi to file the opposition.


title: Case T-341/00: Action brought on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank

text:
C 4/10                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.1.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt
                                                                                against the European Central Bank
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000                                   (Case T-341/00)
      No 54 (2000) D/106308 pursuant to Article 320(4) of
      the EC Treaty and order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 4/16)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                      before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                      on 10 November 2000 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
By the present action the applicant contests the decision of the      (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner
Commission of 14 August 2000 No 54 (2000) D/106308                    and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main
withdrawing the financial contribution from the EAGGF                 (Germany).
granted to the Comunità Montana della Valnerina (Norcia) by
decision C(93) 3182 of 10 November 2000 relating to a
contribution by the EAGGF-Guidance Section in the context             The applicant claims that the Court should:
of project 93.IT.06.016 ‘a pilot forestry agro-alimentary
demonstration project in marginal hill areas (France, Italy)’.        —     declare that the European Central Bank has committed
                                                                            a breach of the applicant’s employment contract by
                                                                            employing him to perform the activities forming the
                                                                            subject-matter of the job description of 28 June 2000;
The applicant points out in this connection that, in order to
improve the chances of obtaining finance for the project              —     declare that the job description of 28 June 2000 has no
submitted by the applicant, the Commission had suggested                    legal force or effect;
through non-official channels to the authorities of the upland
community to link their project with a similar one put forward
by the ‘Route des Senteurs’ operating in the Drôme Provençale         —     order the European Central Bank to withdraw the job
region of France.                                                           description of 28 June 2000;
                                                                      —     order the European Central Bank, in the event that the
                                                                            relief constituting item (3) in the form of order sought in
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of                   his application of 30 June 2000 in Case T-178/00 (1) is
the principles of non-discrimination and of proportionality,                not granted by the Court of First Instance, to provide the
inasmuch as the defendant has sought, by a global withdrawal                applicant in any event with work corresponding to the
of the total contribution, to deal with complex and hetero-                 activities forming the subject-matter of the job description
genous facts, arising from two draft projects submitted entirely            on which the applicant’s staff report of 23 November
separately and independently by two different persons, with                 1999 was based;
the risk of charging each of the partners with also having
committed the irregularity alleged against the other party.           —     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.
Moreover, according to the applicant, it is clear that the            Pleas in law and main arguments
irregularity with which ‘Route des Senteurs’ is charged, involv-
ing almost 67 % of the EEC contribution, is far greater than          The applicant is an employee of the ECB. He contests the
that with which the applicant is charged, which involves only         validity in law of a written communication by the defendant
36 % of the same contribution. It is in fact the sanction of          assigning him, with reference to a job description, to perform
withdrawing the whole of the contribution which gives rise to         new tasks. He maintains that the assignment to him of those
the breach of the principle of proportionality, where a               tasks infringes his contractual rights. In addition, the job
reduction of that contribution in proportion to any irregularity      description is inconsistent with what has been contractually
would have been an equitable solution which would have                agreed.
taken account of their respective responsibilities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 259, 9.9.2000, p. 29.


title: Case C-366/00: Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
4.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/19
Action brought on 25 September 2000 by the Com-                            Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission
mission of the European Communities against the                            of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                         Kingdom of Spain                                                             of Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-366/00)
                          (Case C-354/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/36)
                          (2000/C 316/35)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                  Communities, represented by Roland Tricot, of its Legal
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Sep-                Service, and Panayotis Panayatopoulos, a national civil servant
tember 2000 by the Commission of the European Communi-                     seconded to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
ties, represented by G. Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal Service,
the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Wagner Centre.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     Declare that, by failing to adopt, or, in the alternative,
                                                                                failing to inform the Commission of, the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions which are necessary in
1.    declare that, by failing to classify as special protection
                                                                                order fully to comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of
      areas for birds in the Comunidad de Murcia the areas
                                                                                3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      identified by scientific evidence as most suitable for the
                                                                                assessment of the effects of certain public and private
      conservation of protected species, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                projects on the environment (1), the Grand Duchy of
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of
                                                                                Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of
                                                                                EC Treaty;
      wild birds;
                                                                           —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
2.    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Case C-335/00 (2); the period for transposition laid down by
                                                                           Article 3 of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March 1999.
The Commission considers that the judgment of the Court of
Justice in Case C-3/96 (2) supports the use in this instance of            (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
the list drawn up by the Sociedad Española de Ornitologia                 (2) See p. 16 of this Official Journal.
(Spanish Ornithological Society, ‘the SEO’) for the purpose of
deciding which areas must be designated Special Protection
Areas for Birds (SPABs) in Murcia. The Commission therefore
considers classification of the territories of the Comunidad
Autónoma de Murcia as SPABs (3) to be essential, unless the
Spanish authorities had provided, which they did not, scientific
data other than those in the list concerned.                               Action brought on 9 October 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           the Netherlands against the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
(1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
(2) Judgment of 19 May 1998 in Case C-3/96 Commission v                                               (Case C-369/00)
    Netherlands [1998] ECR I-3031.
(3) In all, only 31 701 hectares of the 291 083 hectares recognised                                   (2000/C 316/37)
    in the SEO’s inventory, that is to say, only 10,2 % of the area of
    the territories listed as Important Areas for Birds have been
    declared to be SPAPs.                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 9 October 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                           represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the European Law
                                                                           Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague,
                                                                           acting as Agent.


title: Case T-568/12: Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/23

         Action brought on 17 December 2012 — Golam v OHIM — Derby Cycle Werke (FOCUS extreme)
   (Case T-568/12)
   2013/C 63/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH (Cloppenburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action, so as to annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 October 2012 in Case R 2327/2011-4;

               —

               reject the opposition of the other party before the Board of Appeal and grant the application lodged by the applicant in its entirety;

               —

               order the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sofia Golam

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘FOCUS extreme’ for goods in Classes 5, 16 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 894587

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Derby Cycle Werke GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘FOCUS’ which has been registered under No 2062620, for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009


title: Case C-257/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch v Germanwings GmbH
   (Case C-257/16)
   (2016/C 279/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Elke Roch, Jürgen Roch

      Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a technical defect of the aircraft caused by bird strike, that is, a collision in the air between the aircraft and birds, an extraordinary circumstance within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation? (1)

               2.

               Is Article 5(3) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the operating air carrier can rely also on extraordinary circumstances which did not occur on the flight booked by the passenger but on an immediately preceding flight with the aircraft scheduled for the booked flight as part of a flight diagram?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-71/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — EIB staff — Reports procedure — Career development report — 2007 appraisal procedure — Errors of law — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/29

         Order of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-71/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - EIB staff - Reports procedure - Career development report - 2007 appraisal procedure - Errors of law - Appeal manifestly unfounded))
   (2017/C 213/39)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented initially by G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, and subsequently by G. Nuvoli and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (sitting as a single judge) of 18 December 2015, De Nicola v EIB (F 82/12, EU:F:2015:166), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-627/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M.

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 December 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Miguel M.
   (Case C-627/13)
   2014/C 39/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party to the main proceedings

   Miguel M.

      Question referred

   Are medicinal products, as defined in Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, (1) which contain scheduled substances listed in Regulations (EC) No 273/2004 (2) and (EC) No 111/2005 (3) always excluded from the scope of those regulations in accordance with Article 2(a) of both those regulations, or is that to be presumed only where the medicinal products are compounded in such a way that the scheduled substances cannot be easily used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).


title: Case T-531/13: Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan/OHIM — Kik Textilien und Non-Food (KICKS)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/16

         Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Kicks Kosmetikkedjan/OHIM — Kik Textilien und Non-Food (KICKS)
   (Case T-531/13)
   2013/C 359/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: K. Strömholm, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH (Bönen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, or alternatively, if applicable, an intervening party to do so;

               —

               authorise the registration of the contested application No. 924 6166 in its entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kicks Kosmetikkedjan AB

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘KICKS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 8, 14, 21 and 35 — application No 9246166

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kik Textilien und Non-Food GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German and international word mark ‘kik’ for services in class 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: upheld the opposition for the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

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


title: Case C-227/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/13

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-227/13 P)
   2013/C 207/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case T-534/10: Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark HELLIM — Earlier Community collective word mark HALLOUMI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 June 2012 — Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM)
   (Case T-534/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark HELLIM - Earlier Community collective word mark HALLOUMI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Article 63(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 217/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented initially by: C. Milbradt and H. Van Volxem, and subsequently by C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Garmo AG (Stuttgart, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 (Case R 794/2010-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case F-91/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Alionescu v Commission (Civil service — Recruitment — Open competition — Decision to extend the deadline for registration — No complaint — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 24 May 2012 — Alionescu v Commission
   (Case F-91/11)
   (Civil service - Recruitment - Open competition - Decision to extend the deadline for registration - No complaint - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 217/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ciprian-Calin Alionescu (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: M. Stănculescu, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the EPSO decision to extend by six hours the period for the submission of applications in open competition EPSO/AD/206-207/11.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Alionescu shall bear his own costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) 27 May 2004 in Case C-68/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. Lipjes (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 28b(E)(3) — Services by intermediaries — Place of supply)

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   27 May 2004
   in Case C-68/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van Financiën v D. Lipjes (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 28b(E)(3) - Services by intermediaries - Place of supply)
   (2004/C 179/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-:68/03, reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Staatssecretaris van Financiën and D. Lipjes — on the interpretation of Article 28b 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 — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 28b(E)(3) 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 – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, is not to be interpreted as meaning that it covers only the services of intermediaries provided to a taxable person or to a non-taxable legal person for the purposes of value added tax.

               2.

               When an intermediary transaction falls within the scope of Article 28b(E)(3) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended, it is necessary, for the purposes of determining the place where the transaction underlying the supply of intermediary services was carried out, to refer to the provisions of Article 28b(A) and (B) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.