title: Case C-191/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court, Dublin, by decision of that court dated 14 April 2003, in the case of North Western Health Board against Margaret McKenna

text:
C 158/12                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   The requirement for a fee for the issue of this proof is,
                                                                                moreover, an extra financial burden that is incompatible
                                                                                with Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
—     First and second objection: compulsory permits for firms
      and their staff                                                       —     Fourth objection: recognition of professional qualifi-
                                                                                cations
      The requirement that a private security firm wishing to
                                                                                Under Netherlands legislation, it is a requirement that staff
      provide services in the Netherlands must have a permit is
                                                                                members of a security firm have a diploma (Algemeen
      equivalent to a restriction on the freedom to provide
                                                                                Beveiligingsmedewerker — diploma) from a Netherlands
      services by the undertakings concerned. Such a restriction
                                                                                organisation. Furthermore, installers of alarms are
      is justified solely where there are overriding reasons of
                                                                                required to have certain qualifications, but no account is
      public interest, that interest cannot be guaranteed in the
                                                                                taken of diplomas acquired in another Member State.
      Member State in which the undertaking is established and
                                                                                Nowhere is there express reference to a procedure for the
      the national measure does not exceed what is necessary
                                                                                recognition of diplomas and qualifications acquired in
      to achieve the objective sought.
                                                                                another Member State for the exercise of the professions
                                                                                in question. The legislation in question does not appear
      However, as regards, first, the appropriateness of the                      to have a provision referring to the machinery for the
      measure to achieve the general interest objective, said to                  recognition of professional qualifications, such as those
      be the protection of customers for the services, there is                   included in the relevant national legislation. Such a
      no evidence from which to conclude that the obligation                      situation is incompatible with existing Community legis-
      for a permit as required in the Netherlands constitutes an                  lation, namely Directive 89/48/EEC and Directive 92/51/
      appropriate measure.                                                        EEC which together form a general framework for the
                                                                                recognition of professional qualifications obtained in
                                                                                other Member States.
      Moreover, the Netherlands legislation does not take into
      account the requirements which the foreign provider of
      services must already satisfy in his Member State of
                                                                            (1 ) OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.
      establishment, in particular where he already has a permit
                                                                            (2 ) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.
      to carry out his activities in that State.
      Furthermore, the requirement for a permit is combined
      with costs for the foreign undertaking. This is an extra
      financial burden for foreign undertakings which are
      already required in their country of origin to apply for a
      permit and to pay such costs. Those charges in such
      circumstances also appear to be incompatible with
      Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Labour Court,
                                                                            Dublin, by decision of that court dated 14 April 2003, in
      Just like the obligation that an undertaking have a permit,           the case of North Western Health Board against Margaret
      the requirement that managers must also obtain specific
                                                                                McKenna
      approval is not an appropriate measure which can be
      justified by one of the reasons on which the Netherlands
      authorities rely. In any case, as the firm itself must already
                                                                                (Case C-191/03)
      satisfy an obligation to have a permit in the Netherlands,
      the requirement for approval of managers is a dual
      measure which is thus certainly not necessary. The
                                                                                (2003/C 158/21)
      separate approval of managers therefore infringes the
      principle of proportionality and, thus, Article 49 of the
      EC Treaty.
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—     Third objection: proof of identity                                    European Communities by a decision of the Labour Court,
                                                                            Dublin, dated 14 April 2003, which was received at the Court
                                                                            Registry on 12 May 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
      Foreign undertakings are obliged to ensure that staff                 of North Western Health Board and Margaret McKenna on the
      seconded to the Netherlands from outside their country
                                                                            following questions:
      of establishment are in possession of a proof of identity
      issued by the Netherlands authorities. That applies also
      for the temporary provision of services. As the seconded              1.    Does the operation of a sick leave scheme which treats
      staff must already, in accordance with Community law,                       employees suffering from pregnancy related illnesses and
      possess an identity card or passport, it is disproportionate                pathological illness in an identical fashion come within
      to require a proof of identity.                                             the scope of Directive 76/207 ( 1)?
 ---pagebreak--- 5.7.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 158/13
2.     If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, is it              was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       contrary to Directive 76/207 for an employer to offset                Communities on 12 May 2003 by Alcon Inc., formerly
       against an employee’s total entitlement to benefit under              Alcon Universal Ltd, established in Hünenberg (Switzerland),
       an occupational sick-leave scheme, a period of absence                represented by S. Clark, Solicitor, and C. Morcom QC, with an
       from work due to incapacity caused by a pregnancy                     address for service in Luxembourg.
       related illness arising during pregnancy?
3.     If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does
       Directive 76/207 require an employer to have in place                 The Appellant claims that the Court should:
       special arrangements to cover absence from work due to
       incapacity caused by pregnancy related illness arising                —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
       during pregnancy?                                                           delivered on 5 March 2003, and that the contested
                                                                                decisions of the Cancellation Division dated 15 December
4.     Does the operation of a sick leave scheme which treats                      1999 and of the First Board of Appeal dated 13 July
       employees suffering from pregnancy related illness and                      2001 be annulled;
       pathological illness come within the scope of Article 141
       of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117 (2) ?
                                                                             —     make an order for the payment of its costs.
5.     If the answer to question 4 is in the affirmative, is it
       contrary to Article 141 of the Treaty and Directive 75/
       117 for an employer to reduce a woman’s pay after she
       has been absent from work for a designated period where
       the absence is caused by incapacity due to a pregnancy                Pleas in law and main arguments
       related illness arising during pregnancy in circumstances
       in which a non pregnant woman or a man absent from
       work for the same period as a result of incapacity due                The appellant submits that the decision of the Court of First
       to purely pathological illness would suffer the same                  Instance of 5 March 2003 was wrong in law in a number of
       reduction?                                                            respects. In particular the Court
( 1) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                  (i)   failed to consider adequately or at all the specific require-
     implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and                ments of Article 7(1)(d) of the Community Trade Mark
     women as regards access to employment, vocational training and                Regulation as to customary use, in the current language
     promotion, and working conditions (OJ L 039, 14.2.1976, p. 40-                or in the bona fide and established practices of the trade;
     42).
( 2) Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the          (ii)  wrongly proceeded upon the assumption that mere
     application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ               entries in directories or other reference sources by
     L 045, 19.2.1975, p. 19-20).                                                  themselves satisfied the requirements of Article 7(1)(d);
                                                                             (iii) wrongly took into consideration material not published
                                                                                or not shown to have been published within the European
                                                                                Union prior to 1 April 1996 and in so doing failed to
                                                                                address the distinction between the requirements of
                                                                                Articles 7(1)(d) and 50(1)(b) of the Regulation, the former
Appeal brought on 12 May 2003 by Alcon Inc., formerly                              alone being material for the purposes of the application
Alcon Universal Ltd, against the judgment delivered on                             for a declaration of invalidity;
5 March 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in case T-237/
01 (1) between Alcon Inc., formerly Alcon Universal Ltd                      (iv) failed to take into account the evidence of Alcon’s
and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market                            substantial policing of the trade mark BSS over a very
               (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                    considerable period of time;
                          (Case C-192/03 P)                                  (v)   alternatively wrongly rejected the case put forward on
                                                                                behalf of Alcon, that the mark BSS had in fact acquired
                           (2003/C 158/22)                                         distinctive character as a result of use, thus meeting the
                                                                                requirements of Article 51(2) of the Regulation.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 5 March 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 369, 22.12.2001, p. 13.
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in case T-237/01 between Alcon Inc.,
formerly Alcon Universal Ltd and the Office for Harmonization
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),


title: Case T-86/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark DEITECH — Earlier national and international figurative trade marks DEI-tex — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Deichmann-Schuhe v OHIM — Design for Woman (DEITECH)
   (Case T-86/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark DEITECH - Earlier national and international figurative trade marks DEI-tex - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG (Essen, Germany) (initially represented by O. Rauscher, lawyer, then by O. Rauscher and A. Schulz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Design for Woman SA (Bogotá, Colombia)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Heinrich Deichmann-Schuhe GmbH & Co. KG and Design for Woman SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Partially annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 January 2007 (case number R 791/2006-2) in so far as it finds that genuine use of the earlier marks has not been proven in respect of ‘shoes’ in Class 25 covered by the application for a Community trade mark;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case T-412/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Roca v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Economic crisis — 2002 Leniency Notice — Reduction of the fine — Significant added value)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Roca v Commission
   (Case T-412/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Economic crisis - 2002 Leniency Notice - Reduction of the fine - Significant added value)
   2013/C 325/50
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Roca (Saint Ouen l’Aumône, France) (represented by: P. Vidal Martínez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and F. Castilla Contreras, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre, A. Antoniadis and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), and for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(4)(b) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as the European Commission set the amount of the fine to be imposed on Roca jointly and severally without taking account of its cooperation;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Roca in Article 2(4)(b) of Decision C(2010) 4185 final at EUR 6 298 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay one third of the costs incurred by Roca and to bear its own costs;

               5.

               Orders Roca to bear two thirds of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-38/07 P: Appeal brought on 1 February 2007 by Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-382/04 Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/18

         Appeal brought on 1 February 2007 by Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading against the judgment delivered on 30 November 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-382/04 Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-38/07 P)
   (2007/C 82/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: Heuschen & Schrouff Oriëntal Foods Trading (represented by: H. de Bie, advocaat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment delivered on 30 November 2006 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-382/04;

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 17 June 2004 (REM 19/2002), in which the Commission held that remission of import duties was not justified in that particular case;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant challenges the judgment under appeal on the following grounds:

               Breach of Article 239 of the Customs Code (1), in conjunction with Articles 899 to 909 inclusive of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) (‘the implementing regulation’) and inadequate reasoning of the Court's findings, or at least reasoning which cannot support those findings.

               The test relating to the nature of the mistake, the appellant's professional experience and the degree of care which it exercised ought, when considered together, to lead to the conclusion that remission was inevitable. The Court of First Instance incorrectly based its judgment on the supposition that the legislation applicable in this case in regard to the classification of so-called rice paper in the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the common customs tariff under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (3) was not complex. The appellant challenges the classification of unbaked rice paper as determined by the Court of First Instance, the Commission and the Netherlands customs authorities. The Court of First Instance, it submits, was wrong to conclude that Heuschen & Schrouff had extensive professional experience in the domain of imports and exports. In that connection the Court of First Instance incorrectly categorised Heuschen & Schrouff as being an experienced trader and thus as being well-versed in regard to import and export formalities. In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance placed excessively high requirements with regard to the duty of care resting on Heuschen & Schrouff, even if it were an experienced trader. In addition, the Court of First Instance wrongly identified Heuschen & Schrouff with the direct representative which it had engaged.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, p. 1).


title: Case T-381/15: Action brought on 14 July 2015 — IMG v Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/20

         Action brought on 14 July 2015 — IMG v Commission
   (Case T-381/15)
   (2015/C 337/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: International Management Group (IMG) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 8 May 2015 strengthening audit and monitoring measures, issuing a verification warning in accordance with the Commission decision of 13 November 2014 on the early warning system to be used by authorising officers of the Commission and by the executive agencies, and denying IMG the status of an international organisation under the Financial Regulation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay for the material and non-material damage incurred;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law concerning different aspects of the contested decision.

               —

               Regarding the contested decision as a whole

                           1.

                           First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter and the right to a fair hearing.

                           2.

                           Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality.

               —

               Regarding the decision denying the applicant the status of an international organisation within the meaning of the Financial Regulation

                           3.

                           Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1) and Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 (2) and a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Commission decided that the applicant no longer qualified as an international organisation within the meaning of the abovementioned regulations.

                           4.

                           Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons.

                           5.

                           Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty in so far as the Commission does not explain (i) why it considers that the applicant no longer satisfies the requirements of the definition of an international organisation or (ii) the substantial change in its interpretation and application of the Financial Regulation in regard to a factual and legal situation (that of the applicant) which has remained unchanged.

                           6.

                           Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of legitimate expectations in so far as the applicant’s status as an international organisation was revoked abruptly and without a transitional period.

               —

               Regarding the decision to issue a verification warning in the context of the early warning system (EWS)

                           7.

                           Seventh plea in law, alleging illegality of Decision 2014/792/EU (3) in so far as there is no legal basis for its adoption.

                           8.

                           Eighth plea in law, put forward in the alternative, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter, of the right to a fair hearing and of the duty to state reasons and a manifest error of assessment.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Decision 2014/792/EU of 13 November 2014 on the early warning system to be used by authorising officers of the Commission and by the executive agencies (OJ 2014 L 329, p. 68).


title: Case T-236/04: Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/29

         Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-236/04)
   (2004/C 217/52)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau, Brussels, Belguim and Stichting Natuur en Millieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Partially annul Commission Decision 2004/248/EC (1) insofar as it concerns article 2 para 3 and article 3 sub b;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings;

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision the Commission decided not to amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Atrazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by Member States. By refusing to include Atrazine in Annex I the Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protection products containing this substance.
   The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June 2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk certain limited uses of products containing Atrazine. In the preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transitional measures through the current absence of efficient alternatives and the need to allow time for their development.
   In support of their application the applicants submit that the contested provisions violate Directive 91/414. Article 8 of this directive provides that Member States may continue to authorise, for a 12-year period, substances which had already been on the market two years after the notification of the directive. Atrazine is such a substance. However, if in the meantime such substances have not been included in Annex I, then according to the applicants there is no legal basis in Directive 91/414 for allowing continued use after the expiry of the 12-year transitional period. The applicants thus submit that by the contested provisions the Commission created a new basis for a continued authorisation of Atrazine, even though it had no power to do so under Directive 91/414.
   The applicants also claim that the Commission violated Directive 92/43 (3), by not including in the contested decision further restrictions related to the Special Areas of conservation, more specifically the Natura 2000 network of article 3 of Directive 92/43.

      (1)  OJ L 78 16.3.2004, p. 53.

      (2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

      (3)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.


title: Case T-622/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Lauritzen Holding v EUIPO — DK Company (IWEAR) (European Union trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for European Union word mark IWEAR — Earlier European Union word mark INWEAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — Lauritzen Holding v EUIPO — DK Company (IWEAR)
   (Case T-622/14) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for European Union word mark IWEAR - Earlier European Union word mark INWEAR - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 129/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lauritzen Holding AS (Drøbak, Norway) (represented by: P. Walsh and S. Dunstan, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and subsequently by D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

      Intervener: DK Company A/S (Ikast, Denmark) authorised to replace the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO (represented initially by M. Nielsen and E. Skovbo, and subsequently by E. Skovbo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 June 2014 (Case R 1935/2013-2), concerning opposition proceedings between IC Companys A/S and Lauritzen Holding.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lauritzen Holding AS to pay the costs, including the costs necessarily incurred by IC Companys A/S for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case F-48/15: Action brought on 27 March 2015 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/36

         Action brought on 27 March 2015 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-48/15)
   (2015/C 190/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2013 and the recovery plan adopted on the basis of that report, together with a claim for damages in respect of the non-pecuniary loss allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the staff report drawn up concerning the applicant for 2013;

               —

               Annul the recovery plan adopted on the basis of the staff report;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant, assessed at EUR 10  000, reserving the right to increase or reduce that sum during the proceedings;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.


title: Case F-80/08: Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Wenig v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/59

         Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Wenig v Commission
   (Case F-80/08)
   (2008/C 313/107)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwe Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented by: G.-A. Dal, D. Voillemot, D. Bosquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 18 September 2008 to suspend the applicant and to order EUR 1 000 per month to be withheld from his remuneration, pursuant to Articles 23 and 24 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-226/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 — Common organisation of the market in wine — Protection of traditional terms — Amendment of classification of certain additional traditional indications — Use in labelling of wine originating in third countries — Procedural defect — Principle of proportionality — TRIPs Agreement)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-226/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 - Common organisation of the market in wine - Protection of traditional terms - Amendment of classification of certain additional traditional indications - Use in labelling of wine originating in third countries - Procedural defect - Principle of proportionality - TRIPs Agreement)
   (2006/C 108/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Nolin and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16), in so far as it amends Articles 24, 36 and 37 of Commission Regulation No 753/2002 (OJ 2002 L 118, p. 1), concerning the protection of traditional terms
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/32

         Action brought on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union
   Case C-122/04
   (2004/C 94/73)
   An action against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 March 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C.-F. Durand and M. van Beek, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (1), in so far as it makes the adoption of implementing measures for the Forest Focus programme subject to the regulatory procedure laid down in Article 5 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 (2);

               —

               maintain the effects of the above regulation until its amendment, which should be carried out as soon as possible after the judgment of the Court;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested provision is in contravention of Article 2 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC, the second comitology decision, which sets out the criteria governing the choice of one or other type of committee (management, regulatory or advisory), with a view to achieving greater consistency and predictability. The criteria laid down by that provision have not been observed in this case. Unless it can be shown that the implementing measures envisaged are not management measures for a programme, only the management procedure or, if appropriate, the advisory procedure are generally applicable for the implementation of Community programmes.
   In this case, the implementing measures to be taken pursuant to the Forest Focus regulation are management measures for an action programme with only limited budgetary implications. On that ground, the Community legislature's choice was confined to either a management committee or an advisory committee, to the exclusion of a regulatory committee. The contested provision makes the adoption of implementing measures for the Forest Focus programme subject to the regulatory procedure. Where the legislature derogates from the typology prescribed by Article 2 of the second comitology decision, it must include in the act a statement of reasons which, first, is accurate and consistent with the facts of the case and, second, adequately explains the particular reasons why it is appropriate to depart from the fixed criteria. The European Parliament and the Council have not fulfilled their obligations to identify the specific features of the present case and to explain the particular reasons justifying the need to use the regulatory procedure.

      (1)  OJ L 324, p.1.

      (2)  OJ L 184, p. 23, decision laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission.


title: Case C-305/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Genova (Italy) lodged on 2 July 2007 — Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) v PTV Programmazioni Televisive SpA

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Genova (Italy) lodged on 2 July 2007 — Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI) v PTV Programmazioni Televisive SpA
   (Case C-305/07)
   (2007/C 211/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale civile di Genova (Italy)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI)

      Defendant: PTV Programmazioni Televisive SpA
   Questions referred

               1.

               Assessed at both national and local level, does the fiscal obligation imposed, for the purpose of funding the public television service, on all owners of appliances capable of receiving radio and television signals constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC?

               2.

               If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative: is the Commission decision notified to the Italian Foreign Minister on 20 April 2005 incompatible with Community law by reason of factual errors or misappraisal of the facts, inasmuch as it considers the derogation under Article 86(2) EC to be applicable to the RAI licence fee but fails to take into consideration that: — the broadcaster holding the concession is providing a public radio and television service at regional level in the absence of any definition, contained in regional legislation and specific service contracts, of the tasks which the broadcaster is required to perform in relation to broadcasting time and network planning for the broadcast of programmes at regional level; — given the failure to define the public-service obligations, it is not possible to ascertain whether the State resources intended for public service at local level are being used exclusively for such public-service activities; — the broadcaster holding the concession has not been entrusted, by means of an official act, with the performance of specific public-service obligations but has merely been generally authorised to provide a regional public service?

               3.

               In general, does Article 86 EC preclude a national rule which, on the local markets, accords the individual Regions the legislative power to establish further regional public-service tasks, to be subsidised by way of State resources, by providing for the exclusive award of those further tasks to RAI SpA, without any public tendering procedure?


title: Case C-149/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 April 2008 — Aktor Anonimi Tekhniki Etairia (Αktor A.T.E.) v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 11 April 2008 — Aktor Anonimi Tekhniki Etairia (Αktor A.T.E.) v Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis
   (Case C-149/08)
   (2008/C 142/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Aktor Anonimi Tekhniki Etairia (Αktor A.T.E.)

      Defendant: Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

      Intervener: Mikhaniki A.E.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Accepting that a national provision in accordance with which only all the members of a consortium without legal personality which has participated unsuccessfully in a public procurement procedure can bring a legal action against the act awarding the contract, and not consortium members individually, is not in principle contrary to Community law and specifically to Directive 89/665, and that that still applies where the legal action has initially been brought by all the members of the consortium but ultimately proves, as regards some of them, to be inadmissible, is it in addition necessary, from the viewpoint of application of that directive, to examine, in order to make a declaration of inadmissibility, whether those individual members thereafter retain the right to claim before another national court any damages which may be envisaged by a provision of national law?

               2.

               When it has been held by settled case-law of a national court that an individual member of a consortium may also bring an admissible legal action against an act falling within a public procurement procedure, is it compatible with Directive 89/665/EEC, interpreted in the light of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights as a general principle of Community law, to dismiss a legal action as inadmissible, because of a change to that settled case-law, without the person who has brought that legal action first being given either the opportunity to cure the inadmissibility or, in any event, the opportunity to set out, pursuant to the adversarial principle, his views relating to that issue?


title: Case T-169/12: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — CHEMK and KF v Council (Dumping — Imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia — Partial interim review — Calculation of the dumping margin — Change of circumstances — Lasting nature)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2015 — CHEMK and KF v Council
   (Case T-169/12) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia - Partial interim review - Calculation of the dumping margin - Change of circumstances - Lasting nature))
   (2015/C 198/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) (Chelyabinsk, Russia); and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) (Novokuznetsk, Russia) (represented by: B. Evtimov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, lawyers, and subsequently by G. Berrisch and N. Chesaites, Barrister, and lastly by D. Gerardin, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. van Vliet, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, and subsequently by M. França, A. Stobiecka-Kuik and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents); and Euroalliages (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Prost and M.-S. Dibling, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment in part of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 60/2012 of 16 January 2012 terminating the partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Russia (OJ 2012 L 22, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Chelyabinsk electrometallurgical integrated plant OAO (CHEMK) and Kuzneckie ferrosplavy OAO (KF) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

               4)

               Orders Euroalliages to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-412/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2015 — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2015 — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar
   (Case C-412/15)
   (2015/C 398/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 132(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the supply of human blood also encompasses the supply of blood plasma obtained from human blood?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does this also apply to blood plasma that is not intended to be used directly for therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for manufacturing medicinal products?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the negative: is classification as blood solely dependent on the intended purpose of the blood plasma, or also on the uses to which the blood plasma may theoretically be put?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


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 .


title: Case C-147/13: Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/16

         Action brought on 22 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-147/13)
   2013/C 171/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and E. Chamizo Llatas, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation No 1260/2012 (1) of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements and order the Council to pay the costs

               —

               Alternatively, annul Articles 4, 5, 6(2), and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements and order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination by introducing a scheme to the detriment of persons whose mother tongue is not English, French or German, the scheme being disproportionate to the objective pursued.

               2.

               Lack of legal basis for Article 4 by regulating translation in the event of a dispute, which does not directly affect the language arrangements for the intellectual property right referred to in the second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU.

               3.

               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty.

               4.

               Failure to have regard to the case-law in Meroni by delegating the administration of the compensation scheme (Article 5) and the publication of the translations (Article 6(2)) to the European Patent Office.

               5.

               Infringement of the principle of the autonomy of European Union law by making the application of the Regulation dependent on the entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 361, p. 89


title: Case T-574/15: Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Kozmetika Afrodita v OHIM — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (KOZMETIKA AFRODITA)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/38

         Action brought on 28 September 2015 — Kozmetika Afrodita v OHIM — Núñez Martín and Machado Montesinos (KOZMETIKA AFRODITA)
   (Case T-574/15)
   (2015/C 406/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: Kozmetika Afrodita d.o.o. (Rogaška Slatina, Slovenia) (represented by: B. Grešak, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pedro Nuñez Martín (Madrid, Spain) and Carmen Guillermina Machado Montesinos (Madrid)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant for the contested mark: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘KOZMETIKA AFRODITA’ — Registration No 11 798 253

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2015 in Case R 2577/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 50(2)(h) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 May 2000 in Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of the European Communities (Action for failure to act under the EC Treaty — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
22.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/19
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        of 13 April 2000
                                                                           in Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina v Commission
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                 of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Economic and social cohesion — Structural interventions
                                                                           — Leader II Community initiative — Natural or legal
                                                                           persons — Measures not of individual concern to them —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/39)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          of 15 June 2000                                  In Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina, established in
                                                                           Naples (Italy), represented by G.L. Lemmo and V. Mormile, of
in Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi v Commission of the                       the Naples Bar, with an address for service at 31 Via del
                    European Communities (1)                               Parco Margherita, Naples, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: J.M. Flett and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) —
                                                                           application for annulment of the Commission’s decision C(97)
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Work done for an                     1261 of 15 May 1997 amending decision C(95) 444/3 of 5
international organisation established in a place other than               April 1995 concerning a grant of aid from the European
the place of employment — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to                  Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance
                       the Staff Regulations)                              Section, from the European Regional Development Fund
                                                                           (ERDF) and from the European Social Fund (ESF) for use in
                                                                           an operational programme forming part of the Leader II
                          (2000/C 211/38)                                  Community initiative in the region of Campania in favour of
                                                                           areas falling within objective No 1 in Italy — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                    (Language of the case: French)                         President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, made an order on 13 April 2000, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
In Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi, a member of the temporary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                       1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             2. The applicant shall pay all the costs.
the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
and D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998 refusing to grant the
applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials and, second,
for payment of that allowance together with default interest
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
of: J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it:                                                  of 5 May 2000
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998;                        in Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application
     for payment of the expatriation allowance;                            (Action for failure to act under the EC Treaty — Case not
                                                                                proceeding to judgment)
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
     of the applicant.                                                                             (2000/C 211/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG, established
                                                                           in Hamburg (Germany), represented by D.A. Fouquet,
                                                                           Rechtsanwältin, Hamburg, with an address for service in
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/20               EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.7.2000
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                          Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/267/EC of 7 April
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European                         1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC
Communities (Agent: V. Kreuschitz), supported by Federal                     Treaty [IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct] (OJ 1999 L 106,
Republic of Germany (Agent: C.-D. Quassowski) and RAG                        p. 14) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented              order on 14 April 2000, the operative part of which is as
by M. Hansen and S.B. Völcker, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  follows:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch
and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — application for a declaration                    1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
that the Commission unlawfully refrained from examining the
alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the
context of the amalgamation carried out, and authorised by                   2. The costs are reserved.
the Commission, within the German coal industry — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and J. Azizi, A. Potocki,
M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 5 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. There is no need to give a ruling in the present case.
2. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    incurred by the applicant, apart from those relating to the grant
    to the two interveners of leave to intervene.
                                                                                of 12 April 2000
3. The interveners are to bear their own costs.
                                                                             in Case T-328/99 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                             (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE                                         In Case T-328/99 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
                                                                             Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by Raymond St John
                         of 14 April 2000                                    Murphy, Solicitor, of 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple,
                                                                             London, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: Richard Lyal) — application for compensation for
in Case T-144/99 R: Institute of Professional Representa-                    damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result
tives before the European Patent Office v Commission of                      of the Commission’s refusal to adopt interim measures with
                  the European Communities                                   respect to the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales
                                                                             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
                                                                             V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, R.M. Moura Ramos and
(Competition — Application for interim relief — Suspension
                                                                             P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
        of operation of a measure — Urgency — None)
                                                                             12 April 2000 in which it:
                         (2000/C 211/41)                                     1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the
                    (Language of the case: French)                               proceedings for interim relief before the President of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance.
In Case T-144/99 R: Institute of Professional Representatives
before the European Patent Office, established in Munich
(Germany), represented by R. Collin and M.-C. Mitchell, of the               (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Decker and Braun, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gippini
Fournier) — application for suspension of operation of


title: Case T-590/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2012 — Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB (Access to documents — Decision 2004/258/EC — Documents concerning the government debt and government deficit of a Member State — Refusal of access — Exception relating to the economic policy of the Union or of a Member State — Partial refusal of access)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2012 — Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB
   (Case T-590/10) (1)

   (Access to documents - Decision 2004/258/EC - Documents concerning the government debt and government deficit of a Member State - Refusal of access - Exception relating to the economic policy of the Union or of a Member State - Partial refusal of access)
   2013/C 26/78
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gabi Thesing (London, United Kingdom); and Bloomberg Finance LP (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Stephens, R. Lands, Solicitors, and T. Pitt-Payne QC)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented initially by A. Sáinz de Vieuña Barroso, M. López Torres and S. Lambrinoc, and subsequently by M. López Torres and S. Lambrinoc, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the ECB’s Executive Board, which was notified to Ms Thesing by letter of the President of the ECB of 21 October 2010, rejecting an application by Ms Thesing for access to two documents concerning the government deficit and debt of the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Joined Cases T-313/08 to T-318/98 and T-320/08 to T-328/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore and Others v Commission (Application for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 — Recovery of bluefin tuna stock — Fixing the TAC for 2008 — Measure of general application — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2009 — Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-313/08 to T-318/98 and T-320/08 to T-328/08) (1)

   (Application for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 - Recovery of bluefin tuna stock - Fixing the TAC for 2008 - Measure of general application - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 24/94
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore Snc (Catania, Italy) and the sixteen other applicants of which the names appear in the annex to the order (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008 establishing emergency measures as regards purse seiners fishing for bluefin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean, east of longitude 45 °W, and in the Mediterranean Sea (OJ 2008 L 155, p. 9)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants, Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore Snc and the sixteen other applicants of which the names appear in the annex, shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 272 of 25.10.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2001 in Case T-182/00 Marco Pannella v European Parliament (Expenses and allowances of Members of the European Parliament — Absence from Parliamentary sessions — Justification — Rejection of application — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to give a ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
10.11.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 317/25
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 6 July 2001                                                             of 5 July 2001
in Case T-161/00 Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of
                                                                          in Case T-182/00 Marco Pannella v European Parliament (1)
                 the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Action for annulment and damages — With-                     (Expenses and allowances of Members of the European
drawal of the contested decision in the course of proceedings             Parliament — Absence from Parliamentary sessions —
— Adoption of a new decision — No need to give a ruling                   Justification — Rejection of application — Withdrawal of
                        — Inadmissibility)                                the contested measure — No need to give a ruling —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
                         (2001/C 317/49)
                                                                                (2001/C 317/50)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-161/00: Vassilios Tsarnavas, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for               In Case T-182/00: Marco Pannella, a Member of the European
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                 Parliament, residing in Rome, represented by P.A.M. Ferrari,
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin) —                  avvocato, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
application, in the first place, for annulment of the decision of         European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and A. Caiola) —
13 August 1999 not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4                  application for annulment of the decision of the College of
in the promotions for 1999 and for annulment of the                       Quaestors of the European Parliament of 15 March 2000,
Commission’s decision of 22 September 2000 refusing to                    notified to the applicant by letter of 17 April 2000, rejecting
promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the promotions for                  the applicant’s request to be allowed to justify his absence
1999 and, second, for reparation of alleged non-material                  during the period of the session of the European Parliament
damage — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),                    from 17 to 21 January 2000, pursuant to Article 28(2) of the
composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura              regulations governing the expenses and allowances of Mem-
Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 July            bers of the European Parliament — the Court of First Instance
2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                          (Second Chamber), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President,
                                                                          A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
                                                                          an order on 5 July 2001, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
1.    There is no longer any need to give a ruling on the forms of
      order seeking annulment.
                                                                          1.    There is no need to give a ruling in the present action.
2.    The remainder of the action is inadmissible.
                                                                          2.    The Parliament shall bear its own costs together with those of
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs and those incurred by             the applicant.
      the applicant up to 10 November 2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.


title: Case T-477/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER — Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER)
   (Case T-477/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER - Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 232/44
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented initially by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, H. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and G. Mannucci, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghidini, M. Mergati and C. Signorini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1008/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1008/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Action brought on 13 May 1996 by Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus Aktiengesellschaft, the Zentralverband der deutschen Seehafenbetriebe e.V. and the Unternehmensverband Hafen Hamburg e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-69/96)

text:
20 . 7 . 96           EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 210/ 19
Action brought on 13 May 1996 by Hamburger Hafen                         — promoted 'coordination of transport' within the
und Lagerhaus Aktiengesellschaft, the Zentralverband                          meaning of Article 77 of the Treaty and Article 3 ( 1 ) of
der      deutschen     Seehafenbetriebe          e.V.     and   the           Regulation ( EEC ) No 1107/70, that is to say, a rational
Unternehmensverband Hafen Hamburg e.V. against the                            division of tasks between the different methods of
         Commission of the European Communities                               transport ( transport by road on the one hand and by rail
                          Case T-69/96 )                                      and sea on the other ) and, in particular,
                          ( 96/C 210/47 )
                                                                          — whether it promoted combined transport, that is to say,
                                                                              whether it resulted in container transport being switched
               (Language of the case: German)                                 from carriage by road to carriage by rail or sea .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         The Commission contravened the right to a fair hearing of
Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1996 by                    competitors of the undertakings in receipt of the aid and
( 1 ) Hamburger Hafen- und Lagerhaus Aktiengesellschaft,                  breached the principle of sound administration . It should
(2 ) the Zentralverband der deutschen Seehafenbetriebe e .V.              have afforded those competitors, including the first
and ( 3 ) the Unternehmensverband Hafen Hamburg e.V. ,                    applicant, the opportunity, in the procedure under
Hamburg, represented by Dr Erik A. Undritz and Dr Gerrit                  Article 93 ( 3 ) of the Treaty ('the preliminary procedure ') to
Schohe, Rechtsanwàlte , Hamburg, with an address for                      inspect the files in the matter and to comment on the facts
                                                                          and evidence on which it based its decision .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 34b
rue Philippe II .
                                                                          The Commission infringed the procedural requirements
The applicants claim that the Court should :                              relating to the adoption of its decision . The contested
                                                                          decisions were not adopted by the Commission on a
— annul the decisions of the Commission of 26 January                     collegiate basis but by a single Commissioner and by the
                                                                          Director-General        of  Directorate-General   VII  of    the
      1996 contained in the Commission's communication
      No SG(95 ) D/13294 of 25 October 1995 to the                        Commission respectively. Neither the Commissioner nor
      Netherlands Government concerning aid project                       the Director-General were empowered by the Commission,
      N 618/95 and in the Commission's undated                            as a collegiate body, so to act.
      communication No HC/cb/ 1693 to the Netherlands
      Government concerning aid project N 484/95 ,                        The contested decisions were based on a manifest error of
                                                                          assessment and were adopted in breach of Article 1 ( 3 ) ( e ) of
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 1107/70 . They were clearly
                                                                          inappropriate for the promotion of combined transport.
Pleas in law and. main arguments                                          They did not result in the switch of a single tonne of freight
                                                                          from road to rail or sea transport. Moreover, in adopting the
                                                                          decision in Case N 618/95 , the Commission approved aid
The applicants state that the first applicant is engaged in the
                                                                          which was not due to be granted until 1996 , or the grant of
handling and storage of goods in the port of Hamburg and
                                                                          which was to continue during that year . According to
in all other business relating to seaport operations; the
                                                                          Article 3 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1107/70, in the
second and third applicants are associations of undertakings
                                                                          version thereof applying at the time when the decision was
representing the interests of German seaports . The two                   adopted and on which it was based, the Commission was
grants of aid to the Netherlands which are contested in the
                                                                          authorized to approve only aid to be granted ('paid') until
present case were intended to promote the handling and                    31 December 1995 .
storage of goods by competitors of the first applicant in the
port of Rotterdam. The Commission approved the two
grants of aid without initiating the procedure provided for               The Commission breached its obligation to provide a
in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty ('the main examination               statement of reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the
procedure ').                                                             Treaty .
The contested decisions should be annulled on the following               The Commission committed a manifest error in its
grounds .                                                                 determination and/or assessment of the facts . It overlooked
                                                                          the fact that the geographical distance between Prague and
The      Commission      should    have       initiated   the  main
                                                                          Rotterdam is much further than that between Prague and
examination procedure ( pursuant to the first paragraph of                the North Sea ports ( such as Hamburg ), and that, contrary
Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty ), since it was apparent, on a             to the common transport policy, the aid in question
 preliminary appraisal of the matter, that the assessment of              protracts, rather than shortens, the provision of transport
 the aid at issue presented certain difficulties . This was               services within the Community, thereby running counter to
 because it was necessary for the aid in question to comply               an important principle of the common transport policy,
 not merely with the letter but also with the purpose of the              namely the switch of freight ' from road to sea'.
 legal basis relied on ( Article 3 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Regulation ( EEC )
 No 1 107/70 ). In order to take that purpose into account, the
 Commission should have examined whether, as regards its
 basis and level, the aid in question


title: Case C-623/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 November 2013 — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 28 November 2013 — Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter
   (Case C-623/13)
   2014/C 31/08
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Defendant: Gérard de Ruyter

      Question referred

   Do the tax levies on income from assets, such as the social contribution on income from assets, the social debt repayment contribution based on that same income, the social levy of 2 % and the additional contribution to that levy, have, by virtue of the mere fact that they contribute to the financing of compulsory French social security schemes, a direct and relevant link with some of the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) and do they thus fall within the scope of that regulation?

      (1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.


title: Case F-1/08: Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/68

         Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-1/08)
   (2008/C 64/111)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Béreldange, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Firstly, annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee not to promote the applicant to Grade A*11 in the 2005 promotion year and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the applicant's 2005/06 evaluation report, including Decision No 1/2007 of the Appeals Committee to confirm that report, received by the applicant on 2 March 2007;

               —

               annul the connected and subsequent decisions, in particular the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 11 in 2007;

               —

               annul the decision of the restrictive meeting of the Court of Auditors of 8 March 2007 to renew the term of office of Mr Michel Hervé from 1 July 2007 for a period of six years;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to make good the non-material damage suffered of EUR 10 000 and to make good the material damage, consisting of the difference between the salary received by the applicant since the effective date of the last promotion decisions, announced on 3 April 2007, and that to which he would have been entitled had he been promoted on the effective date of those decisions;

               —

               order the European Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case T-79/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM — Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark POLARIS — Earlier Community word mark POLAR — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 June 2008 — SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM — Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS)
   (Case T-79/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark POLARIS - Earlier Community word mark POLAR - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 197/39)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Polaris Software Lab Ltd (Chennai, India)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2007 (Case R 658/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL and Polaris Software Lab Ltd.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-371/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC — Articles 11 and 15(2) — Public service contracts — Award of IT services of the municipality of Mantova (Italy) — Direct award without prior publication of a notice to tender)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-371/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - Articles 11 and 15(2) - Public service contracts - Award of IT services of the municipality of Mantova (Italy) - Direct award without prior publication of a notice to tender)
   (2008/C 223/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, C. Zadra, L. Visaggio and C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent and G. Fiengo, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11 and Article 15(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1) — Award of IT services for the Commune di Mantova — Direct award without prior publication of a contract notice
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.