title: Judgment of the Court 23 April 2002 in Case C-143/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice): Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG v Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between Glaxo Group Ltd and Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome Foundation Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd and between Eli Lilly and Co. and Dowelhurst Ltd (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(2) — Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark — Pharmaceutical products — Parallel importation — Repackaging of the trade-marked product)

text:
C 144/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           15.6.2002
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement
                                                                              on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, must be
                                                                              interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may rely
                         23 April 2002                                        on its trade mark rights in order to prevent a parallel importer
                                                                              from repackaging pharmaceutical products unless the exercise
                                                                              of those rights contributes to artificial partitioning of the
in Case C-143/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     markets between Member States.
the High Court of Justice): Boehringer Ingelheim KG,
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG v Swingward Ltd, and                     2.    Replacement packaging of pharmaceutical products is objectively
between Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim                         necessary within the meaning of the Court’s case-law if, without
Pharma KG and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between Glaxo                               such repackaging, effective access to the market concerned, or to
Group Ltd and Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer                           a substantial part of that market, must be considered to be
Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and                              hindered as the result of strong resistance from a significant
Dowelhurst Ltd, and between Glaxo Group Ltd, The                              proportion of consumers to relabelled pharmaceutical products.
Wellcome Foundation Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, and
between SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc,                      3.    A parallel importer must, in any event, in order to be entitled
SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd and Dowelhurst                           to repackage trade-marked pharmaceutical products, fulfil the
 Ltd and between Eli Lilly and Co. and Dowelhurst Ltd (1)                     requirement of prior notice. If the parallel importer does not
                                                                              satisfy that requirement, the trade mark proprietor may oppose
                                                                              the marketing of the repackaged pharmaceutical product. It is
(Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 7(2) —                          incumbent on the parallel importer himself to give notice to the
Exhaustion of the rights conferred by the trade mark                          trade mark proprietor of the intended repackaging. In the event
— Pharmaceutical products — Parallel importation —                            of dispute, it is for the national court to assess, in the light of
          Repackaging of the trade-marked product)                            all the relevant circumstances, whether the proprietor had a
                                                                              reasonable time to react to the intended repackaging.
                        (2002/C 144/08)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-143/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Chancery Division (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Boeh-
ringer Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and                                            (Fifth Chamber)
Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer Ingelheim KG, Boeh-
ringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between
Glaxo Group Ltd and Swingward Ltd, and between Boehringer                                            25 April 2002
Ingelheim KG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma KG and Dowel-
hurst Ltd, and between Glaxo Group Ltd, The Wellcome                    in Case C-154/00: Commission of the European Communi-
Foundation Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd, and between SmithKline                                   ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc, SmithKline & French
Laboratories Ltd and Dowelhurst Ltd and between Eli Lilly and
Co. and Dowelhurst Ltd, on the interpretation of Article 7(2)           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988               Directive 85/374/EEC — Product liability — Incorrect
to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade                                       transposition)
marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1), as amended by the Agreement on
the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1,
                                                                                (2002/C 144/09)
p. 3), and of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court, composed
of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann (President
of Chamber), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward,                                       (Language of the case: Greek)
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
and C. W. A. Timmermans, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Registrar,has given a judgment on 23 April 2002, in which it                                in the European Court Reports)
has ruled:
1.    Article 7(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of             In Case C-154/00, Commission of the European Communities
      21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member            (Agent: M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-


title: Case C-256/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2006 — Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2006 — Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl
   (Case C-256/06)
   (2006/C 224/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Theodor Jäger

      Defendant: Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl
   Questions referred
   Is it compatible with Article 73b(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Article 56(1) EC) that for inheritance tax purposes:

               a)

               assets (held abroad) consisting of agricultural land and forestry situated in another Member State are valued in accordance with their fair market value (current market value), whereas a special valuation procedure exists for domestic assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry, the results of which amount on average to only 10 % of their fair market value, and

               b)

               assessment of the acquisition of domestic assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry is excluded up to a special tax-free amount and the remaining value is assessed merely at 60 %,

         if, in the case on an heir inheriting an estate made up of both domestic assets and foreign assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry, this results in a situation whereby, as a result of the fact that the assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry are situated abroad, the acquisition of the domestic assets is subject to higher inheritance tax than would be applicable if the assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry were also domestic assets?


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 February 1998 in Case T-182/97: Smanor SA and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Refusal to bring Treaty infringement proceedings - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 113/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.4.98
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Republic Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                     of 13 February 1998                           composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President; C. W. Bellamy
                                                                   and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
      in Case T-276/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL v.                on 16 February 1998, the operative part of which is as
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  follows:
(Competition Ð Action for annulment Ð Time limit for
bringing proceedings Ð Manifest inadmissibility of the
                         application)                              1. the action is dismissed as inadmissible,
                        (98/C 113/39)
                                                                   2. the applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
In Case T-276/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL, a company
in judicial liquidation, established at AlencËon (France),
acting in the person of Xavier LemeÂe, liquidator,
represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon,
v. Commission of the European Communities Ð                              ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for annulment of Decision SG(97) D/823182                                   of 18 February 1998
of the Commission of 25 April 1997 rejecting the
applicant's complaint No IV/F-2/34.423 Ð the Court of              in Case T-189/97: ComiteÂ d'entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,              francËaise de production and Others v. Commission of the
President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                         European Communities (1)
Registrar, made an order on 13 February 1998, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                   (State aid Ð Decision declaring aid incompatible with the
                                                                   common market Ð Action for annulment Ð Trade unions
                                                                               and works councils Ð Inadmissibility)
1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible,                                (98/C 113/41)
2. the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                   In Case T-189/97: ComiteÂ d'entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ
                                                                   francËaise de production, established at Bry-sur-Marne
                                                                   (France), Syndicat national de radiodiffusion et de
                                                                   teÂleÂvision CGT (SNRT-CGT), established in Paris,
                                                                   Syndicat unifieÂ de radio et de teÂleÂvision CFDT
                                                                   (SURT-CFDT), established in Paris, Syndicat national
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   force ouvrieÁre de radiodiffusion et de teÂleÂvision,
                     of 16 February 1998                           established in Paris, and Syndicat national de
                                                                   l'encadrement audiovisuel CFE-CGC (SNEA-CFE-CGC),
in Case T-182/97: Smanor SA and Others v. Commission
                                                                   established in Paris, represented by HeÂleÁne Masse-Dessen,
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   avocat at the Conseil d'EÂtat and at the Cour de Cassation,
(Refusal to bring Treaty infringement proceedings Ð                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
          Action for annulment Ð Inadmissibility)                  Chambers of Guy Thomas, 77 boulevard de la Grande-
                                                                   Duchesse Charlotte, v. Commission of the European
                        (98/C 113/40)                              Communities (Agents: GeÂrard Rozet and Dimitris
                                                                   Triantafyllou) Ð application for annulment of
                (Language of the case: French)                     Commission Decision 97/238/EC of 2 October 1996
                                                                   concerning aid granted by the French State to the
                                                                   audiovisual production company SocieÂteÂ francËaise de
In Case T-182/97: Smanor SA, established at Saint-Martin-          production (2) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second
d'Ecublei (France), Hubert SeÂgaud and Monique SeÂgaud,            Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of A.
residing at Saint-Martin-d'Ecublei, represented by                 Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. P. BrieÈt, C. W. Bellamy,
Laurence Roques, of the Val de Marne Bar, 7Ð9 rue du               A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
GeÂneÂral de Larminat, CreÂteil (France), v. Commission of         made an order on 16 February 1998, the operative part of
the European Communities (Agents: Richard Wainwright               which is as follows:
and Olivier Couvert-Castera) Ð application for annulment
of the Commission's decision of 21 May 1997 not to
bring Treaty infringement proceedings against the French           1. the application is dismissed as inadmissible,


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2005 in Case T-229/02 Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Capacity to bring proceedings — Locus standi — Association — Admissibility)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/34

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 February 2005
   in Case T-229/02 Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Action for annulment - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Capacity to bring proceedings - Locus standi - Association - Admissibility)
   (2005/C 143/65)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-229/02: Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), established in Brussels, represented by M. Muller and E. Grieves, barristers, instructed by J.G. Peirce, solicitor, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop) supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially J. Collins and subsequently R. Caudwell, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Brown and P. Kuijper, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33), and of Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2002/334 (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President of the Chamber, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicants are to bear their own costs and pay those of the Council.

               3.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.


title: Case C-67/09 P: Appeal brought on 17 February 2009 by Nuova Agricast Srl and Cofra Srl against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 2 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-362/05 and T-363/05 Nuova Agricast Srl and Cofra Srl v Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/17

         Appeal brought on 17 February 2009 by Nuova Agricast Srl and Cofra Srl against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) on 2 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-362/05 and T-363/05 Nuova Agricast Srl and Cofra Srl v Commission
   (Case C-67/09 P)
   2009/C 90/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Nuova Agricast Srl, Cofra Srl (represented by: M. A. Calabrese, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Principal Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds that the Commission’s letter of 29 May 2000 does not contain an untruth and therefore reject the Commission’s counterclaim on its merits;

               —

               by giving a decision on the questions included in the measures of organisation of procedure of 2 March 2006, declare that, as a result of its conduct as described in the applications at first instance, the Commission flagrantly and gravely infringed Community law, resulting in financial loss to the appellants;

               —

               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance to adjudicate on the questions which were not included in the measures of organisation of procedure of 2 March 2006; and

               —

               with regard to costs:

                           (i)

                           order the Commission to pay the costs in relation to the proceedings before both Courts, or

                           (ii)

                           reserve the costs;

         or, in the event that the case cannot be decided on the merits:

      In the alternative

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it finds that the Commission’s letter of 29 May 2000 does not contain an untruth and therefore reject the Commission’s counterclaim on its merits;

               —

               refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               reserve the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      FIRST PLEA OF ILLEGALITY: the Court of First Instance erred in law in so far as it considered that the Commission was entitled to authorise a scheme which is contrary to the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and non-discrimination as between undertakings participating in the same aid scheme. As a consequence, the Court of First Instance infringed Article 87 EC and the Community case-law which establishes that the procedure laid down in Article 88 EC can never constitute a mechanism for circumventing or infringing the rules and principles of Community law and that the Commission cannot authorise schemes which infringe other rules and principles of Community law.
   The appellants submit that, by interpreting the 1997 decision as it did at paragraph 81 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance interpreted the entire aid scheme authorised by that decision in such a manner as to render its interpretation incompatible with the principles of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and non-discrimination because the scheme, thus interpreted, while it provided specific assurances to the undertakings which had submitted an application for the first time in the second tender procedure in 1999 that they too would be able, if necessary, to reformulate those applications, made it logically impossible for them to do so because, after 31 December 1999, it was never possible for that tender procedure to be proceeded with, even on the basis that it was restricted to reformulated applications. The appellants therefore conclude that, thus interpreted, the scheme infringed not only the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations but also the principle of non-discrimination on the ground that only the undertakings which participated for the first time in the second tender procedure in 1999 were not permitted to do what was permitted to all the undertakings which participated in the earlier calls.

      SECOND PLEA OF ILLEGALITY: The Court of First Instance erred in law in so far as it omitted to ascertain whether the interpretation which it gave of the approval decision of 1997 could be substituted by another interpretation which complied with the abovementioned principles of law. The Court of First Instance therefore infringed the case-law which imposes upon that court a duty to carry out such an assessment.
   The appellants maintain that, by interpreting in an abstract and general manner the scheme thus authorised by the 1997 decision, the Court of First Instance omitted to ascertain whether the interpretation which it gave of the approval decision of 1997 could be substituted by another interpretation which complied with the abovementioned principles of law and therefore erred in law, since it infringed the case-law which establishes that if the wording of secondary Community law is open to more than one interpretation, preference should be given to the interpretation which renders the provision consistent with the EC Treaty rather than to the interpretation which leads to its being incompatible with the Treaty.

      THIRD PLEA OF ILLEGALITY: The appellants submit that, in so far as it found that the letter of 29 May 2000 does not contain an untruth, the judgment under appeal (at paragraphs 50 and 51) is vitiated by an error in the interpretation of that letter and by distortion of the facts and should be set aside. The appellants also seek the rejection on its merits of the Commission’s counterclaim, which seeks the removal from the text of the applications the appellants’ allegation that the Commission told an ideologically motivated untruth in drafting the letter of 29 May 2000 in such a way as to give the impression that it was the Italian authorities which had failed even to mention at the meeting held on 16 May 2000 the existence of undertakings within the category of the third tender procedure


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 November 1995 in Case T-395/94 R II: Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
20 . 1 . 96           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 16/13
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and H. J.                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
Bronkhorst, advocate with a right of audience before the           8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, and European Community
Supreme Court of the Netherlands, instructed by Burges             Shipowners' Associations, having its head office in Brussels,
Salmon, Solicitors, with an address for service in                 represented by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Frieden, 62 Avenue               an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Guillaume, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents: A.           Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of
Brautigam and M. Bishop ) and Commission of the                    the European Communities ( Agents : B. Langeheine and R.
European Communities ( Agents: G. Rozet and C. Docksey )           Lyal ), supported by Freight Transport Association Ltd,
— application for annulment of Articles 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 14 ( 4 ) having its head office in Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom,
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993           Association des utilisateurs de transport de fret, having its
providing for an offer of compensation to certain producers        head office in Paris, and European Council of Transport
of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from               Users ASBL, having its head office in Brussels, represented
carrying on their trade — the President of the First Chamber       by Mark Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
( extended composition ) of the Court of First Instance made       with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
an order on 10 November 1 995 , the operative part of which        of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue — application for an order
is as follows :                                                    preventing an anticipated decision of the Commission —
                                                                   withdrawing from the applicants their immunity from fines
1 , the name of M. Craig is removed from the list of               in respect of practices prohibited, pursuant to Article 85 of
     applicants in Case T-554/93;                                  the EC Treaty, by a Commission decision operation of
                                                                   which has been suspended under Article 185 of the EC
                                                                   Treaty, and continuing within the framework of a new
2 , the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.               agreement notified to the Commission — from entering into
                                                                   effect as long as the Court of First Instance has not given
(M OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                  final judgment on an application for its annulment the
                                                                   President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                   22 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                   follows :
                                                                   1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           2 , costs are reserved.
                    of 22 November 1995
in Case T-3 95/94 R II: Atlantic Container Line AB and
   Others v. Commission of the European Communities
                         ( 96/C 16/29 )
                                                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                (Language of the case: English)                                        of 13 November 1995
                                                                   in Case T-126/95 : Dumez v. Commission of the European
In Case T-3 95/94 R II, Atlantic Container Line AB,                                       Communities ( 1 )
established in Gothenburg, Sweden, Cho Yang Shipping               (Refusal by the Commission to initiate Treaty infringement
Company Ltd, established in Seoul, DSR-Senator Lines               proceedings — Action for annulment — Action for
GmbH, established in Bremen, Germany, Hapag Lloyd AG,                      declaration of failure to act — Inadmissible)
established in Hamburg, Germany, MSC Mediterranean                                          ( 96/C 16/30 )
Shipping Company SA, established in Geneva, Switzerland,
A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen,
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, established in Rotterdam, the                                 (Language of the case: French)
Netherlands, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd ( NOL ), established
in Singapore, Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line ),                     In Case T-126/95 : Dumez, established at Nanterre ( France ),
established in Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK )         represented by Alexandre Carnelutti and Jean-Pierre
Ltd, established in Levington, United Kingdom, P & O               Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, v. Commission of the European
Containers Ltd, established in London, Polish Ocean Lines,         Communities ( Agent: Henrik van Lier ) — application,
established in Gdynia, Poland, Sea-Land Service Inc.,              primarily, for the annulment of the decision of the
established in Jersey City, New Jersey, United States of           Commission of 29 March 1995 not to initiate proceedings
America , Tecomar SA de CV, established in Mexico DF, and          against the Hellenic Republic for infringement of
Transportación Maritima Mexicana SA, established in                Community law with respect to the award of the public
Mexico DF, represented by John Pheasant, Nicholas                  contract for the new Athens airport on the Spata site,
Bromfield and Suyong Kim, Solicitors, with an address for          alternatively, for a declaration that the Commission has
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &                  failed to act — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
Wolter, 11 rue Goethe, supported by Japanese Shipowners'           composed of C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A.
Association, having its head office in Tokyo, represented by       Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Nicholas J. Forwood QC, of the Bar of England and Wales,            13 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as
and Philip Ruttley, Solicitor, with an address for service in      follows :


title: Case T-157/06: Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/24

         Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-157/06)
   (2006/C 190/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 2984 of 31 March 2006 concerning the PEP Sicilia Programme (claim for payment No 2005 0601) containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the eligibility of payments on account made in the contex of aid schemes’, together with all connected and prior acts.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.


title: Case C-224/06: Order of the President of the Court of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-224/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/56)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)   OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case C-442/99 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 1999 by Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH against the judgment delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-612/97 between Cordis Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by French Republic

text:
19.2.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/15
    — Article 6, third paragraph, subparagraphs 3 and 4,                    — it must be non profit-making;
         Article 8, second paragraph, and Article 11(a), (b), (c)
         and (d) of Regional Law No 43 of Emilia-Romagna of                 — it must comply with particularly stringent deadlines as
         26 May 1980;                                                           part of the compulsory administrative procedure for
                                                                                authorisation;
    — Article 5(2) and (5), Article 10(4), Article 11(2) and (3)
         and Article 15(1) of Regional Law of Lombardy No 45                — it must be listed in the official calendar;
         of 29 April 1980;
                                                                            — exhibitors must be producers, which impliedly
    — Article 5, Article 13, Article 14 and Article 15(a) of                    excludes suppliers of services as opposed to goods.
         Regional Law No 10 of Friuli Venezia Giulia No 10 of
         23 February 1981;                                              (C) The Commission maintains that the provisions laying
                                                                            down the following requirements are contrary to Com-
                                                                            munity law:
    — Article 7 of Regional Law No 75 of Abruzzo of
         13 November 1980;
                                                                            — the appointment, in whole or in part, of trade fair
                                                                                bodies — such as the governing council, the manage-
    — Article 6, Article 7 and Article 23 of Provincial Law                     ment board, the auditors, the Chairman, the Secretary
         No 35 of the Autonomous Province of Trento of                          General, etc — requires the participation of the public
         2 September 1978;                                                      authorities or various local bodies;
3. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-              — the organisation of trade fairs requires the partici-
    ings.                                                                       pation, even in a purely consultative capacity, of bodies
                                                                                comprising businessmen already operating in the area
                                                                                concerned for the purposes of recognition and author-
                                                                                isation of the organiser, and the grant of public funds
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 to the organiser;
(A) The Commission maintains that the following provisions                  — the organisation of trade fairs, markets and exhibitions
    of Italian law create a serious obstacle to the organisation                requires that at least one local body be represented in
    of trade fairs especially for those undertakings — mostly                   the body of founders or members.
    non-Italian — which have no stable infrastructure in Italy
    and therefore intend to conduct business in Italy on a
    purely temporary and occasional basis:
    — those requiring the organiser of a trade fair to obtain
         official recognition from the Italian regional or local
         authorities;
                                                                        Appeal brought on 22 November 1999 by Cordis Obst
    — those requiring the organiser of a trade fair to take a           und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH against the judgment
         particular legal form, thereby excluding other categori-       delivered on 28 September 1999 by the Fifth Chamber of
         es of trader;                                                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        in Case T-612/97 between Cordis Obst und Gemüse
                                                                        Großhandel GmbH and the Commission of the European
    — those requiring the organiser of a trade fair to have                    Communities, supported by French Republic
         headquarters, an office or some source of ongoing
         structural support at national or local level;
                                                                                (Case C-442/99 P)
    — those requiring trade fairs to be periodic;
                                                                                (2000/C 47/23)
    — those requiring trade fairs to conform with the agenda
         set by a region in the context of regional projects.           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
                                                                        1999 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
(B) The Commission maintains that it is manifestly inconsist-           the European Communities in Case T-612/97, between Cordis
    ent with the principle of the freedom to provide services to        Obst und Gemüse Großhandel GmbH and the Commission of
    require that the organisation of trade fairs and exhibitions        the European Communities, supported by French Republic,
    satisfy the following conditions:                                   was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 22 November 1999 by Cordis Obst und
                                                                        Gemüse Großhandel GmbH, represented by Dr Gert Meier,
    — it must represent the sole business pursuit;                      Rechtsanwalt, of 313 Berrenrather Straße, D-50937 Cologne.
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        19.2.2000
The appellant claims that the Court should:                             the European Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli,
                                                                        of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
1. Set aside the contested judgment;                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. Annul the contested hardship decision of the Commission
    of 24 October 1997;
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        — Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 on the
                                                                             framework agreement on parental leave, the Italian Repub-
The appeal is directed against the judgment of 28 September                  lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
1999 by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the
application for annulment of the decision refusing an appli-            — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
cation for additional ripening licences as a transitional measure
to compensate for a situation of hardship not its own fault
                                                                        Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
under Article 30 of the organisation of the market in bananas
(Council Regulation No 404/93 (1)). Breach of Community law
is complained of, namely:                                               By virtue of Article 249 EC (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
                                                                        under which a directive is binding on the Member State to
— Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93: The Court of First                which it is addressed as regards the result to be achieved,
    Instance fails to recognise that the case of hardship as            Member States are required to observe time-limits for the
    found by the Court of Justice in Case C-68/95 T. Port is            transposition of directives. The prescribed period expired on
    only one of the cases to which Article 30 is applicable, and        3 June 1998 and the Italian Republic has not yet adopted the
    that the conditions laid down by the Court of Justice for           provisions needed to comply with the directive to which the
    the Commission to be obliged to compensate a case of                Commission refers in its application.
    hardship do not automatically apply. In the present
    case the transitional difficulties did not arise from the
                                                                        (1) OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.
    applicant’s conduct, but were structural difficulties which
    had arisen for new undertakings such as the applicant
    and had been made worse by the introduction of the
    organisation of the market in bananas. The structural
    disadvantage of the applicant as a new undertaking in the
    former GDR — as that of all other new undertakings —
    consisted in the fact that in 1989 and 1990, the years
    which Regulation No 404/93 determined as the reference              Action brought on 23 November 1999 by the Com-
    period for 1993 and 1994, it had not been able to carry             mission of the European Communities against the Repub-
    out any relevant transactions for reference purposes;                                            lic of Austria
— the principle of equal treatment: For new undertakings in                                        (Case C-446/99)
    the territory of the former GDR — as the only group in
    the Community — the aforesaid reference years were                                              (2000/C 47/25)
    necessarily simply immaterial. The principle of equal
    treatment required the Community institutions to take
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
    account of this exceptional situation, since different situ-
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    ations were otherwise treated in the same way.
                                                                        23 November 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, a
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                         member of the Legal Service of the European Commission,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                        European Commission, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg,
                                                                        Luxembourg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 23 November 1999 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                 1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and communicate to
                             Republic                                        the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to ensure compliance with
                        (Case C-445/99)                                      Article 9(2), (4) and (6) of Directive 97/13/EC (1) of the
                                                                             European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997
                         (2000/C 47/24)                                      on a common framework for general authorisations and
                                                                             individual licences in the field of telecommunications
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                services, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
Court of Justice on 23 November 1999 by the Commission of                    obligations under that Directive;


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2001 in Case T-6/99: ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty — State aid — Investment aid — Operating aid — Scope of the ECSC Treaty — Principle of protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
C 3/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
3.     Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       own costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                           of 5 June 2001
                                                                          in Case T-6/99: ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          (ECSC Treaty — State aid — Investment aid — Operating
                                                                          aid — Scope of the ECSC Treaty — Principle of protection
                          of 12 July 2001                                                     of legitimate expectations)
in Case T-3/99: Banatrading GmbH v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/35)
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
— Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Possibility of relying on
WTO rules — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC                                         (Language of the case: German)
Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article
                  307 EC) — Action for damages)
                           (2002/C 3/34)
                    (Language of the case: German)                        In Case T-6/99: ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH, established
                                                                          in Riesa, Germany, represented by W.M. Kühne and S. Bauer,
                                                                          avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported
                                                                          by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and
In Case T-3/99: Banatrading GmbH, established in Hamburg                  C.-D. Quassowski) and by the Freistaat Sachsen, represented
(Germany), represented by G. Meier, lawyer, against the                   by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, avocats, with an address for
Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and                   service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
J.P. Hix) supported by the French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-            Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and P. Nemitz) —
Bellanger, C. Vasak, S. Seam and F. Million) and by the                   application for annulment of Commission Decision
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K.-D. Bor-                 1999/580/ECSC of 11 November 1998 concerning aid granted
chardt) — application for compensation for the loss which the             by Germany to ESF Elbestahlwerk Feralpi GmbH, Riesa, Saxony
applicant has suffered as a result of the Council introducing,            (OJ 1999 L 220, p. 28) — the Court of First Instance (Third
under Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February                   Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi,
1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas                  President, and P. Mengozzi, K. Lenaerts, R.M. Moura Ramos
(OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), provisions which are alleged to conflict            and M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
with Article I.1 and Article XIII of the General Agreement on             Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 5 June 2001 in which
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — the Court of First Instance                    it:
(Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
which it:                                                                 1.    Annuls the first paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision
                                                                                1999/580/ECSC of 11 November 1998 concerning aid
                                                                                granted by Germany to EF Elbestahlwerk Feralpi GmbH, Riesa,
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                                Saxony, in so far as the part of the investment grant granted to
                                                                                the applicant in 1995 relating to investments in its cold wire
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs;                                   rod drawing plant is declared incompatible with Decision
                                                                                No 2496/96/ESC and the common market for coal and steel;
3.     Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their
       own costs.
                                                                          2.    Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision
                                                                                1999/580, in so far as it states that the aid element of the
( 1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                                guarantees covering the operating loans of DEM 7.2 million
                                                                                and DEM 4.8 million granted at the end of 1994 was not
                                                                                authorised;
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 3/23
3.    Annuls Article 2 of Decision 1999/580, in so far as the               1.    Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of 13 November
      Federal Republic of Germany is required to recover from the                 1998 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of
      applicant the part of the investment grant make to the applicant            stainless steel bars originating in India and collecting definitively
      in 1995 in respect of investment in its cold wire rod drawing               the provisional duty imposed, in so far as it concerns imports
      plant and the aid element of the guarantees covering the                    into the European Community of products manufactured by
      operating loans of DEM 7.2 million and DEM 4.8 million                      Mukand Ltd, Isibars Ltd, Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd and
      granted at the end of 1994;                                                 Viraj Impoexpo Ltd;
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                           2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
5.    Orders the applicant to pay two-thirds of its costs;                  3.    The Council shall bear its own costs together with those incurred
                                                                                by the applicants. The Commission shall bear its own costs.
6.    Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, one
      third of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
7.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 86, 27.3.1999
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 10 October 2001
                       of 19 September 2001
                                                                            in Case T-171/99: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-58/99: Mukand Ltd and Others v Council of the
                         European Union (1)
                                                                            (Action for damages — Recovery of undue payments —
                                                                              Harm suffered by reason of a partially annulled decision)
(Anti-subsidy proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 2450/98
    — Stainless steel bright bars — Injury — Causal link)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/37)
                            (2002/C 3/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-171/99: Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc,
In Case T-58/99: Mukand Ltd, established in Mumbai (India),                 then British Steel Ltd, established in London, represented by
Isibars Ltd, established in Mumbai, Ferro Alloys Corporation                P.G.H. Collins and M. Levitt, Solicitors, with an address for
Ltd, established in Nagpur (India), Viraj Impoexpo Ltd, estab-              service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
lished in Mumbai, represented by K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer,                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils) — application
and J. Branton, Solicitor, with an address for service in                   seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the
Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents:                  applicant through the Commission’s refusal to pay it interest
S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch), supported by                     on the amount repaid pursuant to a judgment of the Court of
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-                    First Instance reducing the level of the fine imposed on it —
schitz and N. Khan) — application for annulment of Council                  the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
Regulation (EC) No 2450/98 of 13 November 1998 imposing                     B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel              G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
bars originating in India and collecting definitively the pro-              judgment on 10 October 2001, in which it:
visional duty imposed (OJ 1998 L 304, p. 1) — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, J. Pirrung,               1.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-                     EUR 3 016 608, together with simple interest on that sum at
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September                   the fixed rate of 5.75 % per annum, for the period from
2001, in which it:                                                                24 April 1999 to the date of the present judgment;


title: Case C-75/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Alessandria — Italy) — Agra Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 221(3) and (4) — Post-clearance recovery of the customs debt — Limitation period — Act which could give rise to criminal court proceedings)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Alessandria — Italy) — Agra Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria
   (Case C-75/09) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 221(3) and (4) - Post-clearance recovery of the customs debt - Limitation period - Act which could give rise to criminal court proceedings)
   2010/C 221/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Alessandria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agra Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Alessandria — Interpretation of Article 221(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Recovery of the customs debt — Exceeding the time-limit for communicating the amount of duty to be recovered in the case of a debt resulting from an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings — National legislation providing for the suspension of that time-limit until the decision given on the criminal proceedings initiated because of the act that caused the customs debt has become definitive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 221(3) and (4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which, where the failure to pay customs duty has its origins in a criminal offence, time for the purposes of the limitation period for recovery of the customs debt is to run from the date on which the order or judgment in the criminal proceedings becomes final.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-225/06: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero Deutschland GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Similarity between two trade marks — Likelihood of confusion — Application for a Community figurative mark featuring the word element FERRÓ — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark FERRERO — Partial refusal of registration)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/24

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Ferrero Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-225/06) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Similarity between two trade marks - Likelihood of confusion - Application for a Community figurative mark featuring the word element ‘FERRÓ’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark FERRERO - Partial refusal of registration)
   (2007/C 315/42)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE (represented by: A. Tsavdaridis, dikigoros)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, acting as Agent) Ferrero Deutschland GmbH, successor in title to Ferrero OHG mbH (represented by: M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 15 March 2006 in Case T-35/04 Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in which the Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘FERRÓ’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 42 against Decision R 460/2002-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 1 December 2003, dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division's decision refusing in part to register that mark in the opposition proceedings filed by the holder of the national word mark ‘FERRERO’ for goods in Classes 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia AVEE is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case F-23/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2007 — Giraudy v Commission (Officials — Actions — Action for damages — Investigation by the European anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) — Reassignment — Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 — Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom — Fault — Damage — Occupational disease — Account to be taken of the benefits provided for under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 May 2007 — Giraudy v Commission
   (Case F-23/05) (1)

   (Officials - Actions - Action for damages - Investigation by the European anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) - Reassignment - Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 - Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom - Fault - Damage - Occupational disease - Account to be taken of the benefits provided for under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 129/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Jean-Louis Giraudy (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Voillemot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and G. Berscheid, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision refusing to acknowledge the liability of its departments and the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant in the context of an investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in the Commission's Office in France and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay Mr Giraudy damages in the amount of EUR 15 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him in the form of an attack on his reputation and integrity.

               2.

               The remainder of the application is dismissed.

               3.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its own costs and two thirds of Mr Giraudy's costs

               4.

               Mr Giraudy shall bear one third of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171 of 9.7.2005, p. 29 (case initially registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-169/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15 December 2005).


title: Case T-376/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 July 2005 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission (Action for annulment — Council decision determining the Community's position — Decision of the EEA Joint Committee — Objection of inadmissibility — Challengeable act — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/11

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 July 2005 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission
   (Case T-376/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Council decision determining the Community's position - Decision of the EEA Joint Committee - Objection of inadmissibility - Challengeable act - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 257/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by K. van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by J.-P. Hix and B. Hoff-Nielsen, as Agents) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Forman and M. Wilderspin, Agents)
   Application for:
   Annulment of the defendants' acts permitting the Kingdom of Norway to apply more stringent concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the European Community and set out in Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 59/2004 of 6 April 2004 amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2004 L 277, p. 30), and annulment of the Community's position relating to that decision.
   Operative part of the Order:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and the Council.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-207/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Panevėžio apygardos teismas lodged on 20 May 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Edgar Babanov

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Panevėžio apygardos teismas lodged on 20 May 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Edgar Babanov
   (Case C-207/08)
   (2008/C 209/31)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Referring court
   Panevėžio apygardos teismas
   Party to the main proceedings
   Edgar Babanov
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 265 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, in so far as it imposes criminal liability unconditionally for the cultivation of any type of hemp without exception, irrespective of the amount of active substance in it, contrary to provisions of the European Union and, specifically, which ones?

               2.

               If it is contrary to those provisions, may a court of the Republic of Lithuania adopt a decision applying national law (Article 265 of the Criminal Code), if the active substance in the hemp cultivated does not exceed 0,2 %?


title: Case C-89/11 P P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — E.ON Energie AG v European Commission (Appeals — Action for annulment of a Commission decision relating to a fine for breach of seal — Burden of proof — Distortion of the evidence — Obligation to state reasons — Amount of the fine — Unlimited jurisdiction — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — E.ON Energie AG v European Commission
   (Case C-89/11 P P) (1)

   (Appeals - Action for annulment of a Commission decision relating to a fine for breach of seal - Burden of proof - Distortion of the evidence - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Principle of proportionality)
   2013/C 26/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: E.ON Energie AG (represented by: A. Röhling, F. Dietrich and R. Pfromm, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — E.ON Energie v Commission (T-141/08) in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 377 final of 30 January 2008 relating to a fine pursuant to Article 23(1)(e) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 for breach of seal — Breach of general principles of law, such as the presumption of innocence, the principle of ‘in dubio pro reo’ and of proportionality, and the rules relating the burden and taking of evidence — Breach of the obligation to state reasons

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders E.ON Energie AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case T-348/16 OP: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (Arbitration clause — Application to have a judgment set aside — Stay of execution of a judgment by default — Interlocutory judgment)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA
   (Case T-348/16 OP) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Application to have a judgment set aside - Stay of execution of a judgment by default - Interlocutory judgment))
   (2017/C 300/35)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant in the main proceedings: Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant in the main proceedings: European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) (represented by: M. Pesquera Alonso and F. Sgritta, acting as Agents, and E. Kourakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to have the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16, not published, EU:T:2017:268) set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Execution of the judgment of 6 April 2017, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis v ERCEA (T-348/16), is stayed pending the outcome of the application made by the European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA) to have that judgment set aside.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/1

         2010/C 37/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

      OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

      OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

      OJ C 282, 21.11.2009

      OJ C 267, 7.11.2009

      OJ C 256, 24.10.2009

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


title: Case C-103/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale de Paris made on  22 February 2006  — Philippe Derouin v Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région Parisienne

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale de Paris made on 22 February 2006 — Philippe Derouin v Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région Parisienne
   (Case C-103/06)
   (2006/C 108/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal des Affaires de Sécurité Sociale de Paris
   Date lodged: 22 February 2006
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Philippe Derouin.

      Defendant: Union pour le recouvrement des cotisations de sécurité sociale et d'allocations familiales de Paris — Région Parisienne (Urssaf).
   Questions referred
   Is Regulation 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1) to be interpreted as precluding a convention, such as the United Kingdom/France Taxation Convention of 22 May 1968, from providing that income received in the United Kingdom by workers resident in France and covered by social insurance in that State is excluded from the basis on which the ‘contribution sociale généralisée’ (CSG — general social contribution) and the ‘contribution pour le remboursement de la dette sociale’ (CRDS — social debt repayment contribution) levied in France are assessed?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-358/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Prohibition on marketing under the name "limpiador con lejía" ("cleaner with bleach") of goods lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States where their active chlorine content is less than 35 g/l)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                     C 7/13
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                               (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                       of 6 November 2003
                                                                             in Case C-363/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-358/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main): Flughafen
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa
                                                                                AG (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28
EC — Prohibition on marketing under the name ‘limpiador                      (Air transport — Access to the groundhandling market in
con lejía’ (‘cleaner with bleach’) of goods lawfully manufac-                Community airports — Directive 96/67/EC — Article 16 —
tured and marketed in other Member States where their                        Collection of a fee for access to airport installations —
           active chlorine content is less than 35 g/l)                                                    Conditions)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/21)
                           (2004/C 7/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-363/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for a
In Case C-358/01, Commission of the European Communities                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz                court between Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH and
Abad): Application for a declaration that, by refusing access to             Deutsche Lufthansa AG on the interpretation of Article 16(3)
the Spanish market under the name of ‘limpiador con lejía’                   of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access
(‘cleaner with bleach’) or similar to products lawfully manufac-             to the groundhandling market at Community airports (OJ
tured and marketed in other Member States where their active                 1996 L 272, p. 36), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
chlorine content is less than 35 grams per litre, the Kingdom                J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC,           V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward                        Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
A. La Pergola and P. Jann, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;               16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November
2003, in which it:
                                                                             Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to
                                                                             the groundhandling market at Community airports, in particular
                                                                             Article 16(3) thereof, precludes the managing body of an airport
1.    Declares that, by refusing access to the Spanish market under
                                                                             from making access to the groundhandling market in the airport
      the name of ‘limpiador con lejía’ (cleaner with bleach) or similar
                                                                             subject to payment by a supplier of groundhandling services or self-
      to products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other
                                                                             handler of an access fee as consideration for the grant of a commercial
      Member States where their active chlorine content is less than
                                                                             opportunity, in addition to the fee payable by that supplier or self-
      35 grams per litre, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             handler for the use of the airport installations. On the other hand,
      obligations under Article 28 EC.
                                                                             that body is entitled to collect a fee for the use of airport installations,
                                                                             of an amount, to be determined according to the criteria laid down in
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                          Article 16(3) of the Directive, which takes account of the interest of
                                                                             that body in making a profit.
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Case T-106/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2008 — CPEM v Commission (Applications for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Further application — New fact — None — Inadmissibility — Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/18

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 April 2008 — CPEM v Commission
   (Case T-106/08 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Suspension of operation - Further application - New fact - None - Inadmissibility - Article 109 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)
   (2008/C 158/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): CPEM (Marseille, France) (represented by: C. Bonnefoi, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and A Steiblytė)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of debit note No 3240912189 of 17 December 2007 relating to Commission Decision C(2007) 4645 of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF) granted to CPEM by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-413/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 July 2017 — UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’ v VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 10 July 2017 — UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’ v VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika
   (Case C-413/17)
   (2017/C 309/39)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UAB ‘Roche Lietuva’

      Other party: VšĮ Kauno Dainavos poliklinika

      Question referred

   Should the provisions of Articles 2 and 23 of, and of Annex VI to, Directive 2004/18 (1) (whether together or separately, but without limitation to those provisions), be interpreted and understood as meaning that, in the case where a contracting authority — a human health care institution — intends to acquire supplies (medical diagnostic equipment and materials) or specific rights thereto by way of a public procurement procedure in order to be able to carry out tests by itself, its discretion includes the right to lay down in the technical specifications only such requirements for those supplies as do not describe in isolation the individual operational (technical) and use-related (functional) characteristics of the equipment and/or materials but instead define the qualitative parameters of the tests to be carried out as well as the performance of the testing laboratory, the content of which must be separately described in the specifications of the public procurement procedure in question?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


8.3.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 55/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-489/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-492/99 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/40)                                                         (2003/C 55/43)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-489/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-492/99 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Immobiliare Flavia Srl, in        ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Colleoni Giacomo e Figli
liquidation, v Ministero delle Finanze.                                Srl v Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-490/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-134/00 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/41)                                                         (2003/C 55/44)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-490/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-134/00 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Azzini SpA v Ministero            ruling by the Tribunale di Trento): Ministry of Finance v
delle Finanze.                                                         Merkur Chemical s.r.l..
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
        Removal from the register of Case C-491/99 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-88/01 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/42)                                                         (2003/C 55/45)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-491/99 (Reference for a preliminary        from the register of Case C-88/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Falegnameria Carminati di         ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Agricola Torriani Sas v
Franco e Domenico Carminati Snc v Ministero delle Finanze.             Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 79 of 18.03.2000.                                            (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.


title: Case C-48/08: Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-48/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/64)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-595/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Othman v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/59

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Othman v Council
   (Case T-595/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/77)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-298/98 P: Metsä-Serla Sales Oy v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount — Statement of reasons — Cooperation during the administrative procedure)

text:
C 45/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 16 November 2000                                                        of 16 November 2000
in Case C-297/98 P: SCA Holding Ltd v Commission of                        in Case C-298/98 P: Metsä-Serla Sales Oy v Commission
                 the European Communities (1)                                             of the European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty                     (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Liability for the infringement —                  (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the
Fines — Statement of reasons — Mitigating circumstances)                   amount — Statement of reasons — Cooperation during the
                                                                                administrative procedure)
                           (2001/C 45/07)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/08)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-297/98 P, SCA Holding Ltd, established in Aylesford
(United Kingdom), represented by J. Pheasant and N. Bromfield,             In Case C-298/98 P, Metsä-Serla Sales Oy, formerly Finnish
solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               Board Mills Association (Finnboard), established in Espoo
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal                        (Finland), represented by H. Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                 and H.-J. Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Mannheim, with an address
European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and
sition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-327/94 SCA Holding v                      Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — appeal against the judgment of the
Commission [1998] ECR II-1373, seeking to have that judg-                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
ment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                   Chamber, Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                     T-338/94 Finnboard v Commission [1998] ECR II-1617,
J. Currall, Legal Adviser, and R. Lyal, acting as Agents — the             seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President               proceedings being Commission of the European Communities,
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,                   represented by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                assisted by D. Schroeder — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November                   composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
2000 in which it:                                                          M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
                                                                           L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                which it:
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders SCA Holding Ltd to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders Metsä-Serla Sales Oy to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-108/95

text:
13 . 4 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 108/ 13
      Removal from the register of Case T-444/93 ( )                       Removal from the register of Case T-107/95 ( )
                          ( 96/C 108/27                                                        ( 96/C 108 /30 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-444/93 : Stichting               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Glazenwassers- en                     Case T-l 07/95 : Benjamin Laurence Lay v . Council of
Schoonmaakbedrijf ( Fondation Bedrijfspensioenfonds du               the European Union and Commission of the European
Secteur des Entreprises de Lavage de Vitres et de Nettoyage )        Communities .
v . Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities .                                               (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
      Removal from the register of Case T-355/94 ( 1 )                     Removal from the register of Case T-l 08/95 (')
                          ( 96/C 108/28 )                                                      ( 96/C 108 /31 )
              (Language of the case: English)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 16 February 1 996 the President of the Third             By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
from the register of Case T-355/94 : Norsk Hydro A/S v .
                                                                     T-l 08/95 : Donald George Gage and David John Gage v.
Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-83/95 ( ] )
                          ( 96/C 108/29 )
               (Language of the case: English)                             Removal from the register of Case T-182/95 (')
                                                                                96/C 108/32 )
By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Fifth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                             (Language of the case: French)
from the register of Case T-83/95 : Associaçâo dos
Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ), Alcantara                By order of 7 February 1996 the President of the Second
Refiniarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reunidas SA v . Commission of the European                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Communities .
                                                                     T- 1 82/95 : Champing Qualité France v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .