title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation, Belgium (Third Chamber), by judgment of that court of 15 May 1995 in the case of Office National de l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro (Case C-170/95)

text:
No C 208/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                               12 . 8 . 95
      with the rules applying to such aid . Furthermore, by             20 December 1963 to claim that he has preserved his
      reason of the first decision, NN 12/91 , PYRSA was in             entitlement to unemployment benefits but where he
      receipt of aid which was considered compatible by the             demonstrates that, on the date of his application, he satisfied
      Commission when it reviewed it a posteriori. The action           the conditions regarding qualifying periods for acquisition
      for annulment brought in Case C- 198/91 Cook v.                   of entitlement to those benefits ?
      Commission had no suspensory effect. In these
      circumstances, it is perfectly logical that the recipient
                                                                        (') OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 . English Special Edition , 1971(11 ),
      undertaking should have based its legitimate                           p . 416 .
      expectations on the compatibility of that aid, bearing in
      mind , moreover, that the Court, in its judgment in Cook,
      did not even state directly that the aid was incompatible
      but rather that it was illegal by reason of the failure to
      initiate the procedure provided for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of
      the Treaty . Thus, it was not until March 1994 that
      PYRSA found itself in receipt of aid which the
      Commission itself had initially declared compatible and           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
      which was now declared incompatible .                             Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 1 1 April
                                                                        1995 in the case of Recep Tetik v. Land Berlin, intervener:
                                                                             Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— In any event, interest should be calculated solely from
      the date of the Commission's decision declaring the aid                                      ( Case C-171/95 )
      previously granted to PYRSA incompatible, that is, from                                        ( 95/C 208/17 )
      14 March 1995 .
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(M OJ No C 251 , 27. 9 . 1988 , p . 4 .                                 European Communities by an order of the
( 2 ) OJ No C 326 , 11 . 11 . 1992 , p . 5 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht,                 Erster      Senat        ( Federal
                                                                        Administrative Court, First Senate ) of 11 April 1995 ,
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 7 June 1995 ,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Recep Tetik
                                                                        v. Land Berlin, intervener : Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundes
                                                                        verwaltungsgericht, on the following questions :
                                                                         1 . is a Turkish seaman, who was employed from 1980 to
                                                                              1988 on maritime vessels of a Member State, a member
                                                                              of the legitimate labour force of that Member State and
                                                                              legally employed there within the meaning of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                           Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC/Turkey
Cassation, Belgium (Third Chamber), by judgment of that                       Association Council on the development of the
court of 15 May 1995 in the case of Office National de                        Association where his employment relationship was
                   l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro                               governed by national law and he paid income tax and
                         ( Case C-l 70/95 )                                   was affiliated to the social security system in that
                                                                              Member State, but the work permit issued to him was
                           ( 95/C 208/16 )
                                                                              limited to working in shipping and did not authorize
                                                                              him to take up residence on shore ?
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Is it relevant in that connection that under German law
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de                             that activity is not subject to the requirement of a work
 Cassation ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium ( Third Chamber )                  permit and that, to some extent, special statutory
 of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry                    arrangements apply to seamen from the point of view of
 on 6 June 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Office              employment law and social security law ?
 National de l'Emploi v. Calogero Spataro on the following
 question:
                                                                         2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative :
 Must Article 69 (4 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of                     does a Turkish seaman lose his right to be granted a
 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes                   residence permit if he terminates his employment
 to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                         relationship voluntarily, and not, for example, on health
 members of their families moving within the                                  grounds , and 11 days later, after the expiry of his
 Community ( ] ), in the version contained in Regulation                      residence permit, applies for a residence permit for work
 ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 , be construed in the sense               on shore and after the refusal to grant the permit is
 that the requirement that an unemployed person should                         unemployed ?
 have been employed for at least three months since his
 return to Belgium is applicable where the unemployed
 person does not rely on Article 123 of the Royal Decree of


title: Case T-29/13: Action brought on 17 January 2013 — AbbVie e.a. v EMA

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/26

         Action brought on 17 January 2013 — AbbVie e.a. v EMA
   (Case T-29/13)
   2013/C 79/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: AbbVie, Inc. (Wilmington, United States); and AbbVie Ltd (Maidenhead, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Bogaert, G. Berrisch, lawyers, and B. Kelly, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/685471/2012, of 5 November 2012, granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medical product; and

               —

               Order the European Medicines Agency to pay all costs in these proceedings, including the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns a request for annulment under Article 263(4) TFEU of the Decision of the European Medicines Agency EMA/685471/2012, of 5 November 2012, granting access to documents from the marketing authorisation dossier of a medicinal product, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First, the Decision violates Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation and the Applicants’ fundamental right to the protection of confidential commercial information.

               2.

               Second, the Decision violates the obligation to state reasons as regards the application of Article 4(2) of the Transparency Regulation.

               3.

               Third, the Decision violates the principle of legitimate expectations.

               4.

               Fourth, the Decision violates Directive No 2001/29/EC (1) on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, of fundamental rights protecting property rights, including copyright and of the principles of proportionality and of good administration, insofar as access is granted by providing a copy of the documents.

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society


title: Case T-268/01: Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 3/42                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is challenging Commission Decision                         The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1760
C(2001)1765 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises          final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax                 market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral
reductions under the fourth addendum to Norma Foral                      (Regional Law) No 24/1996 of 5 July 1996 on corporation tax
(Regional Law) No 7/1996 of 26 December 1996, and the                    (Boletı́n Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Alava of 9 August
tenth addendum to Norma Foral 4/1998 of 2 December 1998,                 1996), which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 %
which provide for a tax credit of 45 % of the investment in              and 25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax
new fixed material assets in excess of PTA 2 500 million                 applicable during the first four tax years for undertakings
(EUR 15 025 303) made by undertakings in the Territorio                  which set up business in the Territorio Histórico de Alava with
Histórico de Vizcaya.                                                   effect from the entry into force of the Law, provided that they
                                                                         have disbursed capital amounting to more than PTA 20 million
                                                                         (EUR 120 202), invest more than PTA 80 million
                                                                         (EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new jobs.
The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicant
relies are similar to those put forward in Case T-225/01.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                         applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
                                                                         T-225/01.
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                           Communities                                   Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
                                                                         Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                          (Case T-267/01)
                                                                                (Case T-268/01)
                           (2002/C 3/72)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/73)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-                    European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao            ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.                      (Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 on the
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 on the
                                                                               system of State aid applied by Spain to certain newly
      system of State aid applied by Spain to certain newly
                                                                               created undertakings in Vizcaya (Spain);
      created undertakings in Alava (Spain);
                                                                         —     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
—     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s            decision of 11 July 2001 on the system of State aid
      decision of 11 July 2001 on the system of State aid                      applied by Spain to certain newly created undertakings in
      applied by Spain to certain newly created undertakings in                Vizcaya, inasmuch as the obligation to recover the
      Alava, inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts                 amounts not levied by the regional revenue authorities
      not levied by the regional revenue authorities of Alava                  of Vizcaya pursuant to the disputed tax legislation is
      pursuant to the disputed tax legislation is unjustified;                 unjustified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 3/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1763                  The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2001) 1761
final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common             final of 11 July 2001 declaring incompatible with the common
market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral                market the tax reductions under Article 26 of Norma Foral
(Regional Law) No 3/1996 of 26 June 1996 on corporation                  (Regional Law) No 7/1996 of 4 July 1996 on corporation tax
tax, which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 % and              (Boletı́n Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa of 10 July
25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax applicable          1996), which provides for a reduction of 99 %, 75 %, 50 %
during the first four tax years for undertakings which set up            and 25 % of the taxable basis for the aforementioned tax
business in the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya with effect from        applicable during the first four tax years for undertakings
the entry into force of the Law, provided that they have                 which set up business in the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa
disbursed capital amounting to more than PTA 20 million                  with effect from the entry into force of the Law, provided
(EUR 120 202), invest more than PTA 80 million                           that they have disbursed capital amounting to more than
(EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new jobs.                          PTA 20 million (EUR 120 202), invest more than
                                                                         PTA 80 million (EUR 430 810) and create more than 10 new
                                                                         jobs.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
T-225/01.                                                                The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                         applicant are identical with those put forward in Case
                                                                         T-225/01.
Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European                     Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederación
                           Communities                                   Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                          (Case T-269/01)
                                                                                (Case T-270/01)
                           (2002/C 3/74)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/75)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 2001 by the Confeder-
ción Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
                                                                         ación Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is in Bilbao
(Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
                                                                         (Spain), represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 on the              —     annul the defendant’s decision of 11 July 2001 regarding
      system of State aid applied by Spain to certain newly                    State aid granted by Spain to undertakings in Guipúzcoa
      created undertakings in Guipúzcoa (Spain);                              in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the amount
                                                                               invested;
—     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
      decision of 11 July 2001 on the system of State aid                —     in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the defendant’s
      applied by Spain to certain newly created undertakings in                decision of 11 July 2001 regarding State aid granted by
      Guipúzcoa, inasmuch as the obligation to recover the                    Spain to undertakings in Guipúzcoa in the shape of a tax
      amounts not levied by the regional revenue authorities of                credit of 45 % of the amount invested inasmuch as the
      Guipúzcoa pursuant to the disputed tax legislation is                   obligation to recover the amounts not levied by the
      unjustified;                                                             regional revenue authorities of Guipúzcoa is unjustified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-539/10: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Acino v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Suspension of the placing on the market and withdrawal of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel — Variation of the authorisation to place on the market — Prohibition from placing medicinal products on the market — Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Acino v Commission
   (Case T-539/10) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Suspension of the placing on the market and withdrawal of medicinal products containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel - Variation of the authorisation to place on the market - Prohibition from placing medicinal products on the market - Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 and Directive 2001/83/EC - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 114/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Acino AG, formerly Acino Pharma GmbH (Miesbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Buchner and E. Burk, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by: A. Sipos, G. Wilms, B.-R. Killmann and M. Šimerdová, subsequently by: B.-R. Killmann and M. Šimerdová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decisions of 29 March and 16 September 2010 relating to the suspension of the placing on the market of medicinal products for human use containing the active ingredient Clopidogrel manufactured on a certain site, to the withdrawal of batches of those medicinal products from the market, to the variation of the authorisation to place those medicinal products on the market and prohibition from placing them on the market

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Rules that it is not necessary to give judgment on the application to the extent that it is directed against Commission Decisions C(2010) 2204 and C(2010) 2208 of 29 March 2010, and against Commission Decisions C(2010) 6429 and C(2010) 6436 of 16 September 2010;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Acino AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Cases T-273/99 to T-278/99: Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by Autoservice J. van Deursen B.V. and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.2.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 47/31
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of                    of an ‘undertaking’. Each service station or, as the case may be,
the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively, of Cuatrecasas                 each legal entity operating a service station should be regarded
Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.                                 as an undertaking, with the result that the aid granted to each
                                                                           applicant therefor or, as the case may be, to each service
                                                                           station in the present case — which does not exceed the
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              amount specified in the de minimis rule — falls outside the
                                                                           scope of Article 87(1) EC. Consequently, that provision cannot
— Annul the Commission decision of 14 July 1999 in so far                  be applicable, since the aid in question serves in any event to
     as it classifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 87        maintain competition.
     EC the tax credit provided for in Norma Foral de Bizkaia
     (Biscay Regional Law) No 7/1996 of 26 December 1996
     and the subsequent extension thereof;
                                                                           (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
The applicant’s contentions are the same as those put forward
in Case T-269/99.
                                                                           Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by De Haan
                                                                           Minerale Oliën B.V. and Others against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Cases T-279/99 to T-284/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 47/55)
Actions brought on 27 October 1999 by Autoservice J.
van Deursen B.V. and Others against the Commission of
                    the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Cases T-273/99 to T-278/99)
                                                                           Actions against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           were brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                            (2000/C 47/54)                                 Communities on 27 October 1999 by De Haan Minerale Oliën
                                                                           B.V., of Alblasserdam (Netherlands), and others, represented
                                                                           by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
Actions against the Commission of the European Communities
were brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            (a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
Communities on 27 October 1999 by Autoservice J. van                            of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
Deursen B.V., of Budel-Schoot (Netherlands), and others,                        Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
represented by M.J.C. Deriks, of the Rotterdam Bar.                             Germany;
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
     of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
     Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
     Germany;
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Cases
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 T-273/99 to T-278/99.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The applicants claim
inter alia that the Commission has misinterpreted the concept


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2000 in Case T-251/97: T. Port GmbH & Co. v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market — Bananas —Application for allocation of additional import licences — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Action for annulment)

text:
C 149/30                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27.5.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 22 March 2000
                                                                                of 28 March 2000
in Joined Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97: The Coca-Cola
Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc. v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)                           in Case T-251/97: T. Port GmbH & Co. v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration compatible with the common
market — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons —
                            Admissibility)                                (Agriculture — Common organisation of the market —
                                                                          Bananas —Application for allocation of additional import
                                                                          licences — Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 —
                           (2000/C 149/56)                                                      Action for annulment)
                    (Language of the case: English)                                                (2000/C 149/57)
In Joined Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97: The Coca-Cola
Company, established in Wilmington, Delaware, United States,
represented by M. Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and N. Levy, of
the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in                                 (Language of the Case: German)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Côte
d’Eich, Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., established in Atlanta,
Georgia, United States, represented by P. Lasok QC, and M.
Reynolds, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and                   In Case T-251/97: T. Port GmbH & Co., Hamburg, represented
Wales, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for
Chambers of Zeyen, Beghin and Feider, 56-58 Rue Charles                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Baden, 24
Martel v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                   Rue Marie-Adélaïde, against Commission of the European
W. Wils), supported by The Virgin Trading Company Ltd,                    Communities (Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and H. van Vliet),
established in London, represented by I. Forrester QC, of the             supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta)
Scots Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               and French Republic (Agent: K. Rispal-Bellanger) — application
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue, and Federal Republic                    for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 9 July
of Germany, (Agents: W.-D. Plessing C.-D. Quassowski) —                   1997 refusing to allocate additional import licences to the
application for annulment of part of the statement of reasons             applicant by way of transitional measures under the common
for Commission Decision 97/540/EC of 22 January 1997                      organization of the market in bananas — the Court of First
declaring a concentration compatible with the common mar-                 Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President,
ket and with the functioning of the European Economic                     and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Area Agreement (Case IV/M.794 Coca-Cola/Amalgamated                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March 2000, in which
Beverages GB) (OJ 1997 L 218, p. 15) — the Court (First                   it:
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 March              1. Dismisses the application.
2000, in which it:
                                                                          2. Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the
1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible.                                 Commission.
2. Orders the Coca-Cola Company and Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.
     to pay the costs in Cases T-125/97 and T-127/97 respectively.        3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to pay
                                                                               their own costs.
3. Orders The Virgin Trading Company Ltd and the Federal
     Republic of Germany to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2000 in Case T-44/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Commission of the European Communities (Association regime for overseas countries and territories — Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 — Proceedings for interim measures)

text:
C 192/16               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported
                         of 16 May 2000                                   by Government of Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and
                                                                          M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
in Case T-121/99: Sean Irving v Commission of the                         service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Loesch and Wolter,
                   European Communities (1)                               11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union (Agents
                                                                          J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, (Agent T. van Rijn), Kingdom of Spain
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post                    (Agent M. López-Monis Gallego) and French Republic (Agent:
     — Time-limits for proceedings — Rights of the defence)               C. Chavance) — application for partial suspension of the
                                                                          operation of Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November
                         (2000/C 192/27)                                  1997 amending at mid-term Decision 91/482/EEC on the
                                                                          association of the overseas countries and territories with the
                                                                          European Economic Community (OJ 1997 L 329 p. 50) —
                   (Language of the case: English)                        the President of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has made an order on 6 April 2000, the
In Case T-121/99: Sean Irving, a former official of the                   operative part of which is as follows:
Commission, represented by N. Butler, Barrister, and J.
McGuill, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg             1. It is unnecessary to give a decision on the application for interim
at the Chambers of S. Le Goueff, 9 Avenue Guillaume v                         measures.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application for annulment of the decisions of the Com-                  2. Costs are reserved.
mission of 16 July 1998 removing the applicant from his post
and of 26 February 1999 rejecting the complaint lodged by
the applicant against the first decision — the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 May 2000, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;                                             ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 6 April 2000
( 1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
                                                                          in Case T-44/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Association regime for overseas countries and territories —
                                                                          Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 2553/97 — Proceedings for interim measures)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                           INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 192/29)
                         of 6 April 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case T-43/98 R II Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV v
                Council of the European Union                             In Case T-44/98 R II, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established
                                                                          at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, Advo-
(Association regime for overseas countries and territories —              cate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der
Decisions 91/482/EEC and 97/803/EC — Proceedings for                      Nederlanden, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      interim measures — Unnecessary to give a decision)                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 398 Route d’Esch, supported
                                                                          by Government of Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and
                         (2000/C 192/28)                                  M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Loesch and
                                                                          Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Communities, (Agent T. van Rijn), supported by Council of
                                                                          the European Union (Agents J. Huber and G. Houttuin),
In Case T-43/98 R II, Emesa Sugar (Free Zone) NV, established             Kingdom of Spain (Agent M. López-Monis Gallego) and French
at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by G. van der Wal, Advo-               Republic (Agent: C. Chavance) — application, first, for suspen-
cate with a right of audience before the Hoge Raad der                    sion of the operation of the Commission Decision of
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 192/17
23 December 1997 (VI/51329) rejecting an application from                Socredo to comply with Community law and to apply Council
the applicant for the issue of import licences for sugar products        Decisions 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 and 91/482/EEC of
until the Court of First Instance has given judgment on the              25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and
substance, and, second, for interim measures prohibiting the             territories with the European Economic Community (OJ 1986
Commission from applying, for the same period, the pro-                  L 175, p. 1, and OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1, respectively) — the Court
visions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of                      of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences for                President, and M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and                Registrar, made an order on 10 April 2000, the operative part
1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products (OJ                  of which is as follows:
1997 L 349, p. 26) and /or of Article 108b of Council Decision
91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the                     1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
overseas countries and territories with the European Economic
Community (OJ 1991 L 263 p. 1), as amended, in so far as
those provisions have the effect of limiting imports into the            2. The applicant is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs
Community of sugar originating in the overseas territories and               incurred by the European Investment Bank and the Commission.
countries — the President of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has made an order on 6 April 2000,
the operative part of which is as follows:                               (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
1. The application for the present proceedings for interim measures
    to be stayed until final judgment is delivered in the main
    proceedings (Case T-44/98) is rejected;
2. The security provided in accordance with the operative part of the
    orders of 30 April and 29 September 1999, in Case T-44/98
    R II Emesa Sugar v Commission, is released for the benefit of the
    Community;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
3. Costs are reserved.                                                                              INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 April 2000
                                                                         in Case T-11/00 R: Michel Hautem v European Investment
                                                                                Bank
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Proceedings for interim relief — Enforcement of a judgment
                                                                         — Jurisdiction of the judge hearing the application for
                        of 10 April 2000                                      interim measures — Interpretation of the judgment)
in Case T-361/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the                                              (2000/C 192/31)
European Communities and European Investment Bank (1)
                   (Manifest inadmissibility)                                               (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 192/30)                                 In Case T-11/00 R: Michel Hautem, member of the staff of
                                                                         the European Investment Bank, represented by M. Karp and
                                                                         J. Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
                   (Language of the case: French)                        service in Luxembourg at their Chambers, 84 Grand-Rue,
                                                                         v European Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and
                                                                         G. Vandersanden) — application for interim measures — the
In Case T-361/99: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (island of           President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
Raiatea, French Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis, of           7 April 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
the Papeete Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of H. Pakowski, Ambassador of the Federal Republic
of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter, v Commission                      1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
of the European Communities (Agents: B. Martenczuk and
X. Lewis) and European Investment Bank (Agent: L. LaMarca)               2. The costs are reserved.
— application for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant as a result of the failure on the part
of the Commission and the European Investment Bank to
require the local authorities in French Polynesia and Banque


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 284, 20.11.2004

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/55

         (2004/C 300/108)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 284, 20.11.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

      OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

      OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

      OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

      OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

      OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Action brought on 21 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-478/98)

text:
C 48/20               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
While the Greek authorities have transposed Directive              withholding tax which is levied at source from the party
90/675/EEC into national law, they have not adopted the            making the income payments. However, the Belgian State
measures needed in order for Articles 3 and 4 of that              has waived the withholding tax on the interest payable on
directive to be capable of being applied since they have           the loan in the present case. According to the Belgian
not yet laid down at national level the fees for the               State, it is necessary to exclude Belgian residents from the
veterinary and administrative checks, such fees being              issue, in order to prevent such persons from evading tax
necessary for the application of those provisions.                 by not declaring the interest received.
(1) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                    The fiscal reasons advanced cannot justify the restriction
                                                                   in question.
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                 Action brought on 30 December 1998 by the Commission
                           Belgium                                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
                       (Case C-478/98)                                                    (Case C-481/98)
                        (1999/C 48/32)                                                     (1999/C 48/33)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought               An action against the French Republic was brought before
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
on 21 December 1998 by the Commission of the                       30 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
European Communities, represented by HeÂleÁne Michard              Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, acting as
and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as                Agent, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                  Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Kirchberg.
                                                                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that by introducing and maintaining in force
                                                                       rules on value added tax whereby medicaments
Ð declare that, by prohibiting the acquisition by persons              reimbursable by the social security are taxed at the
    resident in Belgium of certificates relating to a loan             rate of 2,1 %, whereas other medicaments are taxed at
    issued abroad, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to                the reduced rate of 5,5 %, the French Republic has
    fulfil its obligations under Article 73(b) of the EC               failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12
    Treaty;                                                            of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (Sixth VAT
                                                                       Directive) (1);
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Pursuant to a Royal Decree of 14 October 1994, the
                                                                   Under the third subparagraph of Article 12(3)(a) of
Kingdom of Belgium has issued a loan of DEM 1 000
                                                                   Council Directive 77/388/EEC, as amended by Council
million underwritten by an international syndicate of
                                                                   Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing
banks and financial institutions led by the Dresdner Bank
                                                                   the common system of value added tax and amending
and the Schweizerische Bankverein.
                                                                   Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates) (OJ
                                                                   L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 1) and Council Directive
The conditions governing the loan issue expressly exclude          92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive
applications to subscribe thereto made by persons resident         77/388/EEC and introducing simplification measures with
in Belgium. That condition constitutes a restriction on the        regard to value added tax (OJ L 384, 30.12.1992, p. 47),
free movement of capital which is incompatible with                a reduced rate of the tax may not be lower than 5 % and
Article 73(b) of the EC Treaty.                                    applicable only to supplies of goods referred to in
                                                                   Annex H, which refers, inter alia, to medicaments.
                                                                   However, under Article 28(2)(a) of the directive, reduced
According to the Belgian authorities, the restriction in           rates of tax below the minimum level thus fixed which
question is necessary for fiscal reasons. Income derived           were applicable on 1 January 1991 and comply with
from movable assets of Belgian origin is subject to                Community law may be retained.


title: Action brought on 5 June 1998 by the International Potash Company (IPC) against the Council of the European Union (Case T-87/98)

text:
25.7.98              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/35
major motor sport championships held under its name,                       Action brought on 5 June 1998 by the International
including the Formula One Championship and the FIA                          Potash Company (IPC) against the Council of the
world Rally Championship.                                                                   European Union
                                                                                (Case T-87/98)
On 22 July 1994, the FIA notified its Statutes and                                            (98/C 234/67)
International Sporting Code to the Commission for
negative clearance or exemption under Article 85 of the
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Treaty. On 5 September 1997, the applicant and Formula
One Administration Limited (FOA) notified for the same
purpose certain agreements concerning the FIA Formula                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
One World Championship. Another agreement between                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
FIA and International Sportsworld Communications                      Communities on 5 June 1998 by the International Potash
Limited (ISC) was also notified, relating to the                      Company (IPC), represented by Jean-FrancËois Bellis and
commercialisation of all sound recordings and moving                  Richard Luff, with an address for service in Luxembourg
picture images pertaining to certain FIA Championships,               at the Chambers of A. F. Brausch, 8 Rue Zithe.
other than the Formula One Championship. After having
received these notifications, the Director-General of
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
competition sent to the applicant a letter and annex
containing a preliminary statement of the objections to the
FIA's rules and to the agreement governing the Formula                Ð annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 449/
One Championship. On the same date similar letters were                    98 of 23 February 1998 amending Regulation (EEC)
sent by the Director-General to FOA and ISC. The events                    No 3068/92 in respect of definitive anti-dumping
with which this application is concerned involve an illegal                duties on imports of potassium chloride originating in
course of conduct by the Commission after the sending of                   Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
these three letters.                                                       p. 15) in so far as it imposes a specific duty on
                                                                           potassium chloride exported by the applicant; and
According to the applicants, the illegal course of conduct
of which complaint is made concerns:                                  Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð the making of a series of highly prejudicial public
    statements, directly attributed to the Commissioner for
    competition, and widely reported in the press,                    The applicant is a Russian company which exports
    expressing the Commissioner's view that the FIA is                potassium chloride produced in Russia and Belarus by the
    guilty of the gravest infringements of EC competition             following production companies which are its
    rules, even though the FIA had not been given the                 shareholders: Production Amalgamation Belaruski', PLC
    opportunity to be heard and the Commission had not                Silinit' and PLC Uralaki'.
    made a decision on the merits;
                                                                      The present application is directed against the
Ð the disclosure to the press, in breach of the obligations           regulation (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
    of professional secrecy and confidentiality, by a                 imports of potassium chloride originating in Belarus,
    member of the Commission's staff of (inter alia)                  Russia and Ukraine.
    the abovementioned letter to the FIA from the
    Director-General of competition, describing alleged               By imposing an anti-dumping equal to a fixed amount in
    infringements of the EC competition rules, together               ECU per tonne or to the difference between a minimum
    with an annex to the letter, giving guidance on                   price and the net, free-at-Community-frontier price per
    changes considered necessary on the FIA's part (and               tonne, whichever is the higher, the Community institutions
    the equivalent letters sent to FOA and ISC in so far as           have infringed Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
    they relate to the FIA's activities); and                         No 384/96 (2) which provides that the amount of the anti-
                                                                      dumping duty is not to exceed the margin of dumping
                                                                      established but should be less than the margin if such
Ð the continuing failure by the Commission and its                    lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the
    servants to take any effective action to rectify the              Community industry.
    situation or mitigate the highly damaging and
    prejudicial effects of these acts upon the FIA.
                                                                      By adopting a specific duty in addition to the variable
                                                                      duty, the Community institutions have also infringed
The applicant submits that this way of acting by the                  Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European
Commission is to be considered as an infringement of                  Community and the principle of proportionality since the
Articles 214 of the EC Treaty and 20(1) and (2) of                    measures go beyond what is necessary to obtain the
Regulation (EEC) 17/62, as well as of the principle of                objective pursued, namely the elimination of the dumping.
good administration.
                                                                      Finally, the Council has infringed Article 190 of the Treaty
                                                                      establishing the European Community by failing to
 ---pagebreak--- C 234/36              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
provide an appropriate steatement of reasons for the                 concerned manufactured and exported to the Community
adoption of an anti-dumping duty in this form, thereby               by the applicants.
denying the applicant its fundamental right to a fair
hearing.                                                             The applicants plead infringement of the following articles
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2):
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 449/98, OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
    p. 15.
(2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.                                       Ð Articles 2(8) and 2(9), in that the export price is
                                                                          determined as the price charged by Tata International
                                                                          to unrelated customers in the Community.
                                                                     Ð Article 2(10) in that, as an adjustment pursuant to
                                                                          Article 2(10)(i), a notional commission payment is
Action brought on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                        deducted from the export price.
Limited and Tata International Limited against the
                Council of the European Union                        Ð Article 18(3), in that, owing to continue reliance on
                        (Case T-88/98)                                    information which was known to be incorrect, any
                                                                          reasonably accurate finding was made impossible and,
                         (98/C 234/68)                                    finally,
                (Language of the case: English)                      Ð Article 20(4), because of failure to give adequate
                                                                          disclosure of the essential facts and considerations.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98, OJ L 50 of 20.2.1998,
Communities on 7 June 1998 by Kundan Industries                          p. 1.
Limited and Tata International Limited, represented by               (2) OJ L 56 of 6.6.1996, p. 1.
Jean-FrancËois Bellis and Philippe De Baere, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     Action brought on 8 June 1998 by National Association
Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 393/98               of Licensed Opencast Operators (NALOO) against the
     of 16 February 1998 imposing a definitive anti-                           Commission of the European Communities
     dumping duty on the imports of stainless steel                                          (Case T-89/98)
     fasteners and parts thereof originating in, inter alia,
     India, in so far as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping                                 (98/C 234/69)
     duty on stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof
     manufactured and exported by the applicants; and                               (Language of the case: English)
Ð order the Council to bear the costs of these                       An action against the Commission of the European
     proceedings.                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  The National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators
                                                                     (NALOO), represented by Mark Cran QC and Mark
                                                                     Hoskins, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The applicants are limited companies established under               Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue Aldringen.
the laws of India. Kundan manufactures stainless steel
fasteners and sells them to Tata International, which,
being an export trading company, exports them to                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
independent importers within the Community.
                                                                     Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
By Article 1(2) of the contested regulation (1) a definitive              1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel fasteners                 submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
and parts thereof originating in the People's Republic of                 void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
China, India, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan                     against the CEGB; and
and Thailand has been imposed. On imports of the
products concerned exported by Kundan Industries Ltd./              Ð declare that the decision of the Commission of 27 April
Tata Export Ltd., Mumbai' a definitive duty of 47.4 % has                 1998 not to act on the Supplemental Complaint
been imposed.                                                             submitted to it by NALOO dated 15 June 1994 is
                                                                          void in so far as it relates to the complaints made
The present application for annulment is directed against                 against British Coal; and
Article 1 of the contested regulation in so far as it imposes
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the products            Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-107/01: Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 227/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.8.2001
Pleas in law                   — The Board of Appeal ignored              becoming established on 1 April 1985. The applicant conse-
                                   the fact that the conflicting          quently pleads infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to
                                   mark consisted not of the term         the Staff Regulations and breach of the general provisions for
                                   ‘miss fifties’ but of a word and       the implementation of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
                                   pictorial mark, containing a           Regulations.
                                   great variety of word and pic-
                                   torial components.
                               — There was no conceptual con-
                                   nection between ‘Fifties’ and
                                   ‘miss fifties’.
                                                                          Action brought on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines S.A.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-107/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/47)
Action brought on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum
          against the Council of the European Union                                          (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (Case T-106/01)
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 May 2001 by Sacilor Lormines
                         (2001/C 227/46)                                  S.A., a mining company established at Puteaux (France),
                                                                          represented by Geneviève Marty, avocat.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —     annul the implicit decision of 21 April 2001 by which
                                                                                the Commission refused to uphold the complaint lodged
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                                by the mining company Sacilor Lormines S.A. and
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                                registered on 21 February 2001 under No SG 01 A/2321;
Communities on 11 May 2001 by Noé Youssouroum, residing
in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                 —     in the alternative, annul the decision of 30 March
Peere, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                      2001 by which the Commission refused to uphold
                                                                                the complaint lodged by the mining company Sacilor
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     Lormines S.A. and registered on 21 February 2001 under
                                                                                No SG 01 A/2321;
—     annul the Council’s decision of 8 June 2000 fixing the              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      calculation of the number of years of pensionable service
      with which he is to be credited pursuant to Article 11(2)
      of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations following the                Pleas in law and principal arguments
      transfer to the Community pension scheme of the
      pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry
      into service;                                                       By letter of 30 March 2001, the Commission refused to
                                                                          uphold the applicant’s complaint requesting the opening of a
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty against the
                                                                          French Government. In support of its action for a declaration
                                                                          of failure to act and for annulment, the applicant pleads
                                                                          infringement by the Commission of Article 88 of the ECSC
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Treaty. According to the applicant, the French Government
                                                                          has infringed Articles 4(c) and 86 of the ECSC Treaty by
                                                                          imposing special charges on the applicant. This constitutes, it
The applicant disputes the salary taken into consideration by             claims, an unlawful act against which the Commission should
the Council when calculating the number of years of pension-              have taken action in accordance with Article 88 of the ECSC
able service to be credited to him following the transfer of the          Treaty. In addition, the applicant pleads, in the context of its
pension rights acquired by him prior to his entry into service.           action for annulment, breach of the essential procedural
According to the applicant, the Council should have taken                 requirements of the decision of 30 March 2001 and violation
into consideration the salary received by him upon his entry              of the principle of sound administration.
into service on 1 November 1983, initially as a member of the
auxiliary staff and subsequently as a member of the temporary
staff, and not the salary corresponding to his grade upon


title: Case T-441/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO — Sebapharma (SeboCalm)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/23

      Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Tetra Pharm (1997) v EUIPO — Sebapharma (SeboCalm)
      (Case T-441/16)
      (2016/C 364/24)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Tetra Pharm (1997) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Gorzkiewicz, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SeboCalm’ — EU trade mark application No 12 014 461

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 May 2016 in Case R 852/2015-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order EUIPO and the other party before EUIPO to bear the costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) in conjunction with Articles 7(2), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-146/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 25 March 2011 — AS Pimix v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Lõuna maksu- ja tollikeskus, Põllumajandusministeerium

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus (Estonia) lodged on 25 March 2011 — AS Pimix v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Lõuna maksu- ja tollikeskus, Põllumajandusministeerium
   (Case C-146/11)
   2011/C 160/15
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Riigikohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AS Pimix

      Defendants: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Lõuna maksu- ja tollikeskus, Põllumajandusministeerium

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in conjunction with Article 58 of the Act of Accession to be interpreted in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice (the judgments in Case C-161/06 Skoma-Lux [2007] ECR I-10841; Case C-560/07 Balbiino [2009] ECR I-4447; and Case C-140/08 Rakvere Lihakombinaat [2009] ECR I-10533) as meaning that an individual can be required to fulfil the obligation deriving from European Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 (1) of 10 November 2003

                           (a)

                           even despite the fact that that regulation had not been published in Estonian in the Official Journal of the European Union by 1 May 2004

                           (b)

                           and the legislature of the Member State concerned has not reproduced in a measure of national law the term ‘agricultural products’ defined in the regulation but has confined itself to referring to Article 4(5) of that regulation, which has not been duly published

                           (c)

                           if the individual has nevertheless fulfilled an obligation deriving from the regulation (he has declared the stock according to the correct goods code) and has not challenged such an obligation

                           (d)

                           and the charge was levied on him by the competent office of the Member State at a time when Regulation No 1972/2003 had already been published in Estonian in the Official Journal of the European Union?

               2.

               Can it be concluded from Article 58 of the Act of Accession in conjunction with Article 297(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the third recital in the preamble to and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 that a Member State can demand a charge on surplus stocks from an individual if Regulation No 1972/2003 had not been published in Estonian in the Official Journal of the European Union by 1 May 2004 but that regulation had indeed been published in Estonian in the Official Journal of the European Union by the time that the competent office of the Member State later levied the charge?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003 on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agricultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia; OJ 2003 L 293, p. 3


title: Case T-69/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/26

         Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Zavvar v Council
   (Case T-69/12)
   2012/C 109/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Seyed Hadi Zavvar (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy and F. Zaiwalla, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC (Queen’s Counsel), and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Decision 2011/783/CFSP (1), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 22 of table A of Annex to Regulation 1245/2011 (2), insofar as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/783/CFSP, inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 16(2) of Regulation 961/2010, as implemented by Regulation 1245/2011, inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the criteria for designation under Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Regulation 961/2010 are not met in the applicant’s case;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant is in manifest violation of the applicant’s human an fundamental rights and is contrary to the principle of proportionality;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that restrictive measures were imposed on the applicant by the Council in violation of the Council’s procedural obligations and the applicant’s right of defence;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that insofar as the listed banks’ respective applications for annulment of their respective designations are successful, the applicant’s own designation must be annulled.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 71)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 319, 2.12.2011, p. 11)


title: Case C-350/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp., and Others v Aivars Lembergs

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 25 June 2013 — Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp., and Others v Aivars Lembergs
   (Case C-350/13)
   2013/C 252/36
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Antonio Gramsci Shipping Corp., Apollo Holdings Corp., Arctic Seal Shipping Co. Ltd, Atlantic Leader Shipping Co. Ltd, Cape Wind Trading Co. Ltd, Clipstone Navigation SA, Dawnlight Shipping Co. Ltd, Dzons Rids Shipping Corp., Faroship Navigation Co. Ltd, Gaida Shipping Corp., Gevostar Shipping Co. Ltd, Hose Marti Shipping Corp., Imanta Shipping Co. Ltd, Kemeri Navigation Corp., Klements Gotvalds Shipping Corp., Latgale Shipping Co. Ltd, Limetree Shipping Co. Ltd, Majori Shipping Co. Ltd, Noella Marītime Co. Ltd, Razna Shipping Corp., Sagewood Trading Inc., Samburga Shipping Co. Ltd, Saturn Trading Corp., Taganroga Shipping Corp., Talava Shipping Co. Ltd, Tangent Shipping Co. Ltd, Viktorio Shipping Corp., Wilcox Holding Ltd, Zemgale Shipping Co. Ltd, Zoja Shipping Co. Ltd

      Respondent: Aivars Lembergs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of proceedings for the recognition of a foreign judgment, infringement of the rights of persons who are not parties to the main proceedings may constitute grounds for applying the public policy clause contained in Article 34(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and for refusing to recognise the foreign judgment in so far as it affects persons who are not parties to the main proceedings?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 47 of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that the principle of the right to a fair trial set out therein allows proceedings for the adoption of provisional protective measures to limit the economic rights of a person who has not been a party to the proceedings, if provision is made to the effect that any person who is affected by the decision on the provisional protective measures is to have the right at any time to request the court to vary or discharge the judgment, in a situation in which it is left to the applicants to notify the decision to the persons concerned?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-243/14: Request submitted by Philippe Adam Krikorian (France) on 13 May 2014

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/16

      Request submitted by Philippe Adam Krikorian (France) on 13 May 2014
      (Case C-243/14)
      (2015/C 016/24)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Grégoire Krikorian and Others

      Request concerning, first, the validity of Article 1(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law (OJ 2008 L 328, p. 55), and, secondly, the interpretation of that Council Framework Decision as well as Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and, finally, Articles 4(3) TEU and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) TEU.


title: Case T-48/13: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Out of the blue v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/12

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2015 — Out of the blue v OHIM — Mombauer (REFLEXX)
   (Case T-48/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 228/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and I. George, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Poch and subsequently S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Meinhard Mombauer (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Vohwinkel, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 November 2012 (Case R 1656/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Out of the blue KG and Meinhard Mombauer

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each of them shall pay half of the costs incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.