title: Action brought on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-14/97)

text:
No C 94/20            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22 . 3 . 97
in Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Celona, of the           — order the defendant to pay the costs .
Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 rue Philippe II.                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          In support of her application, the applicant pleads
                                                                     infringement of Articles 31 ( 2 ) and 32 of the Staff
primarily:                                                           Regulations of officials, as well as a manifest error of
                                                                     assessment .
— declare the application admissible in as much as it
     seeks the annulment of a decision that adversely                She maintains in that regard that she has, since 1981 ,
     affects the applicant directly and individually,                acquired exceptional professional experience in the fields
— annul Commission Decision No C(96 ) 2780 of                        of diplomacy, agricultural policy and environmental
     8 October 1996 (*),                                             policy, and that that experience has been recognized both
                                                                     by her previous employers and by her present assessor. It
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant all the                is, moreover, an established fact, in her view, that she was
     costs associated with these proceedings;                        immediately able to perform her duties and that she has
                                                                     enabled her unit to make real progress in the field of
in the alternative :                                                 agricultural policy.
— find and declare that the said decision does not affect
                                                                     The applicant concludes from this that the Commission
     the applicant's right not to have to pay the post              has committed a manifest error of assessment, first, by
     clearance duties in question;                                   taking the view that neither her experience nor her
in the further alternative :                                         qualifications are sufficiently exceptional to justify her
                                                                     recruitment in a higher grade and, second, by considering
— in the event that, for whatever reason, the above                  that the post which she filled did not require the
     decision should not be annulled, order the                      recruitment of a particularly well-qualified official.
     Commission to reimburse the applicant for the entire
     amount that the latter will be required to pay in
     respect of post-clearance duties, penalties and ancillary
     charges; in any event, annul the contested decision in
     so far as it relates to Invoice No 7338F, which has
     already been settled, and in so far as it concerns              Action brought on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
     interest payments .                                                       against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-14/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/43 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those already relied on in Case T- 10/97 Unifrigo Gadus Sri                          (Language of the case: French)
v. Commission of the European Communities.                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Unpublished.
                                                                     Communities on 21 January 1997 by Sofivo, established
                                                                     at Conde sur Vire (France ), Sofivo Production, established
                                                                     at Brece ( France ), Sovinor, established at Conde sur Vire
                                                                     ( France ), Denkavit France, established at Montreuil-Bellay
                                                                     ( France ), Sobeval Viande, established at Périgueux
Action brought on 20 January 1997 by Anna Barnett                    ( France ), Serval, established at Sainte Eanne ( France ),
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Besnier Industrie, established at Bourgbarre ( France ),
                         (Case T-12/97)                              Sovida, established at Chateaubriand ( France ), Sica Ouest
                                                                     Elevage, established at Ploudaniel ( France ), Guinde,
                          ( 97/C 94/42 )                             established at Montauban de Bretagne ( France ),
                                                                     Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot ( France ),
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon (France ),
An action against the Commission of the European                     Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau ( France )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    and Collet et Compagnie, established at Chateaubourg
Instance of the European Communities on 20 January                   ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
1997 by Anna Barnett, residing in Brussels, represented by           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of             Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30               The applicants claim that the Court should:
rue de Cessange .
                                                                     — annul Regulation (EC) No 2222/96 adopted on
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                          institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
— annul the decision of the appointing authority fixing                   the act being separable from its other provisions,
     at grade A 7 the applicant's classification in grade
     upon her recruitment,                                           — order the Council to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 94/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA, having
                                                                      its registered office at Saint Jacut du Mene ( France), and
The applicants, French companies producing veal for                   Vals SA, having its registered office in Champagne
human consumption, contest Council Regulation ( EC )                  ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( EEC ) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                   Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
market in beef and veal ( J ), in particular Article 1 (4 )
thereof, in as much as it requires the Member States to               The applicants claim that the Court should:
pay an early marketing premium the conditions and
methods of calculation of which have caused them serious
                                                                      — annul Regulation (EC ) No 2222/96 adopted on
damage .                                                                   18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                           institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
They state in that regard that, as a result of the fact that
                                                                           the act being separable from its other provisions,
Article 1 (4 ) provides, in the implementation of the said
premium, for the uniform application of a 15% reduction
in the slaughter weight in each country, based on a                   — order the Council to pay the costs .
reference parameter deriving from statistics drawn up for
1995 , the carcase premium reference figure obtainable by             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the applicants amounts to 108 kg, which weight is totally
incompatible with the normal marketing of such a carcase,             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
since the carcase weight produced prior to that measure               those relied on in Case T- 14/97 Sofivo and Others v.
was 127 kg.                                                           Council .
They further state that,
at the same time, their competitors in the Netherlands,
which is the second largest producer in Europe and
exports 95% of its production, enjoy the highest                      Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Atlantic Container
reference, enabling them to obtain the premium on the                 Line AB and others against the Commission of the
basis of a carcase weight of 138 kg, which places them in                                 European Communities
a particularly favourable competitive position in the
                                                                                Case T-18/97)
French market. Since the carcase premium weight in that
country ( less than 138 kg) is very close to that for which                                     ( 97/C 94/45 )
demand exists in the French market, producers established
there are able to produce calves of the type sought after in                          (Language of the case: English)
the French market and to receive the premium of ECU 65
per carcase, resulting, in their view, in total disparity             An action against the Commission of the European
between both prices and products. Furthermore, the speed              Communities was brought before the Court of First
with which the measure has been introduced interferes
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 27 January
with the production previously planned, relating to                   1997 by Atlantic Container Line AB, represented by John
periods of between 22 and 24 weeks, whereas the                       Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Shaun Goodman, with
reference resulting in the premium weight of 108 kg                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
brings the fattening period down to between 15 and 17                 Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe .
weeks .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should
In support of their claims, the applicant companies plead
a breach of the principle of equality of treatment, as well
as the existence, in the present case, of an anti-competitive         — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 3414 of
situation, contrary to the second subparagraph of                          26 November 1996 relating to the Trans-Atlantic
Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                                            Conference Agreement,
(') OJ No L 296 , 21 . 11 . 1996 , p. 50 .                            — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      The applicants are 16 of the 17 liner shipping operators
                                                                      which are party to the Trans-Atlantic Conference
Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA and                   Agreement, pursuant to which they together provide
     Vals SA against the Council of the European Union                westbound and eastbound containerized liner services
                          (Case T-15/97)                              across the Atlantic Ocean for the carriage of cargo
                            ( 97/C 94/44 )                            between inland points and ports in Northern Europe and
                                                                      the United States of America .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
An action against the Council of the European Union was               Commission decision, in which the Commission withdrew
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            the applicants' immunity from fines conferred by


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-12/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht, Hamm): Uelzena Milchwerke eG v. Willi Antpöhler GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 - Aid for cream, butter, and concentrated butter - Conditions governing the grant of aid - Composition of the product)

text:
23 . 9 . 95          | EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 248/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       flour-based biscuits with an average flour content of
                       ( Second Chamber)                                   46 % of the weight of the constituents, and intended for
                                                                           baking by the end-user cannot ' qualify for aid.
                       of 11 August 1995
in Case C-12/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the         (')   OJ No  C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
Oberlandesgericht, Hamm): Uelzena Milchwerke eG v.                   (2)   OJ No  L 55 , 1 . 3 . 1988 , p . 31 .
            Willi Antpöhler GmbH & Co. KG ( ! )                      (3 )  OJ No  L 111 , 22 . 4 . 1989 , p . 24 .
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 4 of                   (4 )  OJ No  L 112 , 4 . 5 . 1991 , p . 57 .
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 — Aid for
cream, butter, and concentrated butter — Conditions
governing the grant of aid — Composition of the
                             product)
                          ( 95/C 248/04 )
                                                                     Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                (Language of the case: German)                            European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-232/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/05 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice on 5 July 1995 by the Commission
In Case C-12/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        of the European Communities, represented by Maria
the EC Treaty from the Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional           Kontou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
Court ) Hamm ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
proceedings pending before that court between Uelzena                Cruz, also of its Legal Service , Wagner Centre .
Milchwerke eG and Willi Antpohler GmbH & Co . KG —
on the interpretation of Article 4 of Commission Regulation          The applicant claims that the Court should :
( EEC ) No 570/88 of 16 February 1988 on the sale of butter
at reduced prices and the grant of aid for cream, butter and         ( 1 ) declare that,
concentrated butter of use in the manufacture of pastry
products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (2 ), as amended
by Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1048/89 (-1 ) and                       — by failing to establish programmes to include
Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1157/91 (4 ) — the Court                       quality objectives and time-limits for achieving
( Second Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,                            those objectives, in order to reduce pollution of
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ) and                      Lake Vegoritis and the Soulos River by the
G. Hirsch, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate General; H. von                        dangerous substances within List II of Directive
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                      76/464/EEC ( ] ) of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused
judgment on 11 August 1995 , in which it rules :                                by certain dangerous substances discharged into the
                                                                                aquatic environment of the Community, and
A. Article 4 ( 1 ), Formula A (a), of Commission Regulation                 — by not subjecting discharges from industries and
     (EEC) No 570/88 of 16 February 1988 on the sale of                         installations in the area which are liable to contain
     butter at reduced prices and the grant of aid for cream,                   substances within List II to prior authorization
     butter and concentrated butter for use in the                              by the competent authority in which emission
     manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other                        standards are to be laid down,
     foodstuffs, as amended by Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 1 1 57/91 , must be interpreted as meaning that               the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     butter from intervention stocks incorporated into                      under the Treaty and Council Directive 76/464/EEC, in
     deep-frozen, oven-ready sticks of short pastry made                    particular Articles 2 and 7 thereof;
     With butter, in the form of flour-based biscuits with an
     average flour content of 46 % of the weight of the              ( 2 ) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
     constituents, and intended for baking by the end-user
     cannot qualify for aid. The flour content ofsuch sticks is
     not relevant for the purposes of the application of that        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     provision;
                                                                     following complaints on the matter, the Commission
                                                                     requested information from the Greek authorities as to the
2 . Article 4 (3), Formula C (a) (1 ), of Regulation (EEC)           quality of water of Lake Vegoritis and the Soulos River and
     No 570/88, as amended by Commission Regulation                  the likely sources of their pollution . Since it was not satisfied
     (EEC) No 1048/89 and Commission Regulation (EEC)                by the reply given by the Greek authorities, in a reasoned
     No 1 157/91 , must be interpreted as meaning that butter        opinion of 16 October 1992 it called upon them to apply
     incorporated into deep-frozen, oven-ready sticks of             within two months Directives 76/464/EEC, 75/442/EEC
     short pastry made with butter, in the form of                   and 78/319/EEC in respect of the said waters. In answer to


title: Case T-358/99: Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 102/29
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94           cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
                                                                                media), 16 (including printing
                              — Incorrect      application      of                                    products), 41 (including pub-
                                  Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation                                       lishing services) and 42 (including
                                  (EC) No 40/94                                                       editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                                                                — Incorrect       application    of
Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch                                                      Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                                   (EC) No 40/94
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-358/99)
                        (2000/C 102/58)
                                                                        Action brought on 24 December 1999 by Community
                  (Language of the case: German)                        Concepts AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                  (Case T-360/99)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of                                              (2000/C 102/59)
Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in                            (Language of the case: German)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             24 December 1999 by Community Concepts AG, of Munich
                                                                        (Federal Republic of Germany) (formerly: Touchdown
— amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the                  Gesellschaft für erfolgsorientiertes Marketing mbH), represent-
    Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in            ed by Friederike Bahr, Rechtsanwältin, of BBLP Beiten Burk-
    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal             hardt Mittl & Wegener, Munich, with an address for service in
    No R 351/1999-3, in such a way that there are no                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Decker, Braun &
    obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community            Wagner, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse.
    Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
    trade mark UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
    NIS (application No 455873);
                                                                        — partially annul the decision adopted on 15 October
— alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October                   1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
    1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
    Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                   Designs) in case No R 204/1999-3;
    Designs) in appeal No R 351/1999-3;
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The trade mark con-           The verbal mark ‘investorworld’
                                                                        cerned:                       — application No 924670
The trade mark con-           verbal      mark      ‘UNIVERSAL-
cerned:                       KOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICH-                   Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Class 36
                              NIS’ — application No 455873              cerned:                       (including insurance and finance)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-310/94: Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co. KG v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Proof of participation in collusion - Fine - Determination of the amount - Statement of reasons - Products concerned by the infringement)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 209/31
2. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining                   agreement or concerted practice which may have the
     claims.                                                            same or a similar object or effect, including any
                                                                        exchange of commercial information:
3. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
     one-half of the Commission's costs.                                a) by which the participants are directly or indirectly
                                                                            informed of the production, sales, order backlog,
                                                                            machine utilisation rates, selling prices, costs or
4. Orders the Commission to bear one-half of its own                        marketing plans of other individual producers.
     costs.
                                                                        Any scheme for the exchange of general information
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.
                                                                        to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its
                                                                        successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any
                                                                        information from which the behaviour of individual
                                                                        producers can be identified.'.
                                                                    3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 730 000.
                       of 14 May 1998
in Case T-310/94: Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co. KG v.                   4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                      claims.
(Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Proof
of participation in collusion Ð Fine Ð Determination of             5. Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their
the amount Ð Statement of reasons Ð Products                            own costs.
                concerned by the infringement)
                         (98/C 209/66)                              (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.
               (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-310/94: Gruber & Weber GmbH & Co. KG,
established at Gernsbach-Obertsrot, Germany, represented
by Holger-Friedrich Wissel and Joachim Schütze,                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                                 of 14 May 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue
                                                                    in Case T-311/94: BPB de Eendracht NV (formerly
Goethe v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV) v. Commission of the
(Agents: Bernd Langeheine, Richard Lyal and Dirk
                                                                                European Communities (1)
Schroeder) Ð application for annulment of Commission
Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a                    (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Rights
proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/                 of the defence Ð Proof of participation in collusion Ð
33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð                Information exchange Ð Order Ð Fine Ð Statement of
the Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),                    reasons Ð Determination of the amount Ð Cooperation
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P.                      during the administrative procedure)
BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                                    (98/C 209/67)
given a judgment on 14 May 1998 in which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
     Article 1 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                  In Case T-311/94: BPB de Eendracht NV, formerly
     13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85         Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV, established at
     of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard).                  Appingedam, Netherlands, represented by Alexandre
                                                                    Vandencasteele, of the Brussels Bar, and Gordon Boyd
                                                                    Buchanan Jeffrey, Solicitor, Liverpool, with an address for
2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
     paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                    Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of
     601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                    the European Communities (Agents: initially Richard Lyal
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
                                                                    and Rosemary Caudwell, then subsequently Richard Lyal
     Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:
                                                                    and James Flynn) Ð application for annulment of
                                                                    Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating
     The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith           to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/
     bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not        33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1), the
     already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in              Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
     relation to their cartonboard activities from any              of B. Vesterdorf, President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt,


title: Case T-670/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/30

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — Milchindustrie-Verband and Deutscher Raiffeisenverband v Commission
   (Case T-670/14)
   (2014/C 431/53)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Milchindustrie-Verband e.V. (Berlin, Germany), Deutscher Raiffeisenverband e.V. (Berlin) (represented by: I. Zenke and T. Heymann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s Communication 2014/C 200/01 of 28 June 2014 on the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, in so far as the dairy processing industry (NACE 10.51) is not mentioned in Annex 3 although it satisfies the criteria set out in Section 3.7.2 of the guidelines;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers due to a manifest error of assessment in the choice of the reference period

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicants submit that, in establishing the Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (1), the defendant infringed elementary principles relating to the exercise of discretion by relying on obsolete data in calculating the trade intensity of the industries, although new data was available.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers due to an insufficient examination of the factual situation

                           —

                           The applicants submit that the defendant also misused its powers because it did not, in calculating the trade intensity, identify and take into account all of the products that are actually produced by the dairy industry. That results in a distorted presentation of the competitive position.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicants further submit that, in classifying the economic sectors under Annex 3 or 5 of the guidelines on State aid, the defendant infringes Article 296 TFEU because it does not state anywhere how and on the basis of what data the criterion of trade intensity is calculated and determined. As a result the parties concerned are prevented from effectively exercising their rights.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1).


title: Case T-513/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Seated figure) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a seated figure — Earlier Community figurative mark — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Different overall impression — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Seated figure)
   (Case T-513/09) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a seated figure - Earlier Community figurative mark - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Different overall impression - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2011/C 46/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Herbert Neuman (Tarifa, Spain) and Andoni Galdeano del Sel (Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel, on the one hand, and José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA, on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 October 2009 (Case R 1323/2008-3);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA., and orders Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-114/09: Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 29 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-114/09) (1)

   2009/C 282/62

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-443/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 August 2015 — Dr David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from The Labour Court, Ireland (Ireland) made on 13 August 2015 — Dr David L. Parris v Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills
   (Case C-443/15)
   (2015/C 354/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   The Labour Court, Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr David L. Parris

      Defendants: Trinity College Dublin, Higher Education Authority, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation, contrary to Article 2 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1), to apply a rule in an occupational benefit scheme limiting the payment of a survivor’s benefit to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on their death, by a requirement that the member and his surviving civil partner entered their civil partnership prior to the member’s 60th birthday in circumstances where they were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date.

         If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative,

               2.

               Does it constitute discrimination on grounds of age, contrary to Article 2, in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC, for a provider of benefits under an occupational benefit scheme to limit an entitlement to a survivor’s pension to the surviving civil partner of a member of the scheme on the member’s death, by a requirement that the member and his civil partner entered their civil partnership before the member’s 60th birthday where

                           (a)

                           The stipulation as to the age at which a member must have entered into a civil partnership is not a criterion used in actuarial calculations, and

                           (b)

                           The member and his civil partner were not permitted by national law to enter a civil partnership until after the member’s 60th birthday and where the member and his civil partner had formed a committed life partnership before that date

         If the answer to questions 2 is in the negative:

               3.

               Would it constitute discrimination contrary to Article 2 in conjunction with Article 6(2) of Directive 2000/78/EC if the limitations on entitlements under an occupational benefit scheme described in either question 1 or question 2 arose from the combined effect of the age and sexual orientation of a member of the scheme?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ L 303, p. 16.


title: Case C-354/10: Action brought on 13 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/34

         Action brought on 13 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-354/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/57
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafillou and B. Stromsky)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, since it did not take within the prescribed period all the measures necessary for the refund of the aid that was found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, under Article 1(1) (except as referred to in Article 1(2) and Articles 2 and 3) of the Commission decision of 18 July 2007 (C(2007) 3251) concerning the tax-exempt reserve fund (aid number C 37/2005), or in any event has not informed the Commission sufficiently of the measures which it has taken under the article, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4, 5 and 6 of that decision and under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Greek authorities have not pleaded an absolute inability to implement the Commission decision and, three years on, have not demonstrated exactly what they have checked, in which instances recovery has been sought and in which instances recovery has taken place. More specifically:

               they have not explained for every recipient what sort of expenditure it carried out so as to be entitled to aid on the basis of a regulation concerning a general exemption;

               they have not calculated the extent of the aid in respect of each recipient;

               they have extended the exemption from the obligation to refund aid to instances beyond those provided for in the decision;

               they have miscalculated the amount of ‘de minimis’ aid which is exempt from refund;

               they have not examined any cumulation with other aid;

               they have not calculated correctly the amount to be recovered, proceeding from a mistaken basis;

               they have not produced documentation for those refunds which have been effected.


title: Case C-111/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-111/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)
   2014/C 45/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, B. Stromsky and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents), Hungary (represented by: G. Koós, M. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/983/EU of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Lithuania for the purchase of State-owned agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 338, p. 93) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania, Hungary and the Republic of Poland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-596/11: Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Bricmate v Council

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/63

      Action brought on 24 November 2011 — Bricmate v Council
      (Case T-596/11)
      (2012/C 25/120)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Bricmate AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Dackö, A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Declare the action admissible;

                  —

                  Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1), insofar as it applies to the applicant;

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs;

                  —

                  In the event the action was rejected as inadmissible or dismissed on merits, order each party to pay its own costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that

                              —

                              the injury and causation analysis are vitiated by errors of fact and a manifest error of assessment and further, that the European Commission and the Council (referred to as ‘Institutions’) violated the principle of due care and Articles 3(2) and 3(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (‘basic anti-dumping regulation’) (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by failing to objectively examine the claims that the data provided by Eurostat had been inaccurate;

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging

                              —

                              failure to state reasons, violation of the right of defence and further, violation of Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping regulation as regards the differences in the level of processing between ceramic tiles from China and those produced in the EU.


title: Case C-179/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 18 April 2011 — CIMADE, Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) v Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-Mer, des Collectivités Territoriales et de l’Immigration

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 18 April 2011 — CIMADE, Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) v Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-Mer, des Collectivités Territoriales et de l’Immigration
   (Case C-179/11)
   2011/C 186/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: CIMADE, Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI)

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Intérieur, de l’Outre-Mer, des Collectivités Territoriales et de l’Immigration

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 (1) guarantee the minimum reception conditions to which it refers to applicants in respect of whom a Member State in receipt of an application for asylum decides, under Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, (2) to refer a request to another Member State which it deems to have jurisdiction to examine that asylum application, throughout the duration of the procedure for taking charge of them or for taking them back by that other Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to that question is in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           Does the obligation, incumbent on the first Member State, to guarantee the minimum reception conditions cease at the moment of the acceptance decision by the State to which the referral was made, upon the actual taking charge or taking back of the asylum seeker, or at some other date?

                           (b)

                           Which Member State should thus assume the financial burden of providing the minimum reception conditions during that period?

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 23 November 1995 in Case C-285/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München): Dominikanerinnen-Kloster Altenhohenau v. Hauptzollamt Rosenheim (Additional levy on milk - Reference quantity for direct sales)

text:
3 . 2 . 96               EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 31 /3
2 . In order to be regarded as 'special' within the meaning of           1 . Article 12 (h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84
     Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , it is                    of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
     sufficient — without there being any need to take other                 application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
     factors into consideration — that the social security                   Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
     scheme in question is different from the general social                 products sector must be interpreted as meaning that
     security scheme applicable to employed persons in the                   milk deliveries made by an agricultural holding to the
      Member State concerned and that all, or certain                        pupils and boarders of a school against payment of the
      categories of, civil servants are directly subject to it, or           price of the milk indirectly by inclusion in the boarding
      that it refers to a social security scheme for civil servants          fees must be described as direct sale within the meaning
     already in force in that Member State.                                  of that provision where the agricultural holding, the
                                                                             school and the boarding facilities are run by the same
3 . Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted                  institution .
     as precluding refusal to take into account, for the
     acquisition of the right to a pension, periods of                   2 . Consideration of Article 4 (1 ) of Commission
      employment completed by a person subject to a special                  Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84 of 16 May 1984 laying
      scheme for civil servants or persons treated as such, such             down detailed rules for the application of the additional
      as an IKA staff doctor, in public hospitals in another                 levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No
      Member State, where the relevant national legislation                  804/68 has disclosed no factor ofsuch a kind as to affect
      allows such periods to be taken into account if they have              its validity in so far as it does not allow for account to be
      been completed in comparable establishments within                     taken of changes in the financial needs of the producer
      that State.                                                            which are linked to the holding after expiry of the
                                                                             time-limit for registration for the purpose of obtaining a
(') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .                                             reference quantity for direct sales.
                                                                         3 . Article 4(1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1371 /84, cited
                                                                             above, must be interpreted as meaning that a producer
                                                                             who has not complied with the time-limit laid down by
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       that provision may be allocated a reference quantity in
                          ( Second Chamber )                                 application of the principle of restoration to the status
                       of 23 November 1995
                                                                             quo ante under the rules of national law, provided,
                                                                             however, that there is no discrimination in applying the
in Case C-285/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                   national rule in comparison with the way in which cases
the Finanzgericht Miinchen ): Dominikanerinnen-Kloster                       of non-compliance with national time-limits are treated
         AltenHohenau v. Hauptzollamt Rosenheim ( l )                        and that it is not applied in a way that would undermine
(Additional levy on milk — Reference quantity for direct                     the purposes of the milk quota scheme.
                                   sales)
                                                                         (') OJ No C 175 , 26 . 6 . 1993 .
                              ( 96/C 31 /05 )
                  (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
In Case C-285/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                of 23 November 1995
of the EEC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Miinchen
 ( Finance Court, Munich ) for a preliminary ruling in the               in Case C-394/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 proceedings pending before that court between                           the Landessozialgericht Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz): Gabriel
 Dominikanerinnen-Kloster Altenhohenau v. Hauptzollamt                            Alonso-Perez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit ( 1 )
 Rosenheim — on the interpretation of Article 12 ( h ) of                 (Social security for workers moving within the Community
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984                    — Family benefits — Member State limiting the retroactive
 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred                  effect of an application for family benefits)
 to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk
 and milk products sector ( OJ 1984 , No L 90, p. 13 ), and on                                       ( 96/C 31 /06 )
 the interpretation and validity, in particular in the light of
 the general principles of Community law, of Article 4 ( 1 ) of                          (Language of the case: German)
  Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1371 /84 of 16 May
  1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )            published in the Reports of Cases before the Court)
 No 804/68 ( OJ 1 984, No L 1 32 , p. 1 1 ) — the Court ( Second
  Chamber ), composed of G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), President              In Case C-394/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler,                   of the EEC Treaty from the Landessozialgericht ( Higher
 Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                    Social Court) Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz ( Germany), for a
  Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 23 November 1995 ,                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  in which it ruled :                                                     court between Gabriel Alonso-Perez and Bundesanstalt fur


title: Case T-443/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014  — Aprovechamientos Energéticos JG v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/61

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Aprovechamientos Energéticos JG v Commission
   (Case T-443/14)
   2014/C 253/83
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aprovechamientos Energéticos JG, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.


title: Case C-601/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v Nersant — Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, Núcleo Inicial — Formação e Consultoria Lda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/18/EC — Public service contracts — Conduct of the procedure — Contract award criteria — Qualifications of the staff assigned to performance of the contract)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA v Nersant — Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, Núcleo Inicial — Formação e Consultoria Lda
   (Case C-601/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - Conduct of the procedure - Contract award criteria - Qualifications of the staff assigned to performance of the contract))
   (2015/C 171/07)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ambisig — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica SA

      Defendants: Nersant — Associação Empresarial da Região de Santarém, Núcleo Inicial — Formação e Consultoria Lda

      Operative part of the judgment

   With regard to procurement contracts for the provision of services of an intellectual nature, training and consultancy, Article 53(1)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts does not preclude the contracting authority from using a criterion enabling evaluation of the teams specifically put forward by the tenderers for the performance of the contract and which takes into consideration the composition of the team and the experience and academic and professional background of the team members.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case C-199/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Material change in the use of any buildings or other land — Action inadmissible)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-199/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Material change in the use of any buildings or other land - Action inadmissible)
   (2007/C 82/04)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C.-F. Durand and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, and A. Howard, Barrister)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Bethell and E. O'Neill, acting as Agents, D. Elvin QC and J. Maurici, Barrister)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Consents granted without an assessment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.


title: Joined Cases C-308/13 P and C-309/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 September 2014  — Società Italiana Calzature SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vicini SpA (Appeals — Community trade marks — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Registration of figurative marks containing the word elements ‘GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN’ and ‘BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI’  — Opposition by the proprietor of word and figurative, national and community, trade marks, containing the word element ‘ZANOTTI’  — Opposition dismissed by the Board of Appeal)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 September 2014 — Società Italiana Calzature SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vicini SpA
   (Joined Cases C-308/13 P and C-309/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Community trade marks - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Registration of figurative marks containing the word elements ‘GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI DESIGN’ and ‘BY GIUSEPPE ZANOTTI’ - Opposition by the proprietor of word and figurative, national and community, trade marks, containing the word element ‘ZANOTTI’ - Opposition dismissed by the Board of Appeal))
   2014/C 421/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (represented by: A. Rapisardi and C. Ginevra, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock acting as agent), Vicini SpA (represented by: M. Franzosi and C. Giorgetti, avvocati)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders Società Italiana Calzature SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.08.2013.


title: Case C-604/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — H. N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status — Directive 2005/85/EC — Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status — National procedural rule under which an application for subsidiary protection may be considered only after an application for refugee status has been refused — Lawfulness — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principle of effectiveness — Right to good administration — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 41 — Impartiality and expeditiousness of the procedure)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — H. N. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General
   (Case C-604/12) (1)

   ((Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection status - Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status - National procedural rule under which an application for subsidiary protection may be considered only after an application for refugee status has been refused - Lawfulness - Procedural autonomy of the Member States - Principle of effectiveness - Right to good administration - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 41 - Impartiality and expeditiousness of the procedure))
   2014/C 202/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H. N.

      Defendants: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland, Attorney General

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Application for subsidiary protection status made by a person who had not previously made an application for refugee status

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refuges or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, the principle of effectiveness and the right to good administration do not preclude a national procedural rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for subsidiary protection may be considered only after an application for refugee status has been refused, provided that, first, it is possible to submit the application for refugee status and the application for subsidiary protection at the same time and, second, the national procedural rule does not give rise to a situation in which the application for subsidiary protection is considered only after an unreasonable length of time, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-429/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Saintes, France) — Max Rampion, Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard v Franfinance SA, K par K SAS (Directive 87/102/EEC — Consumer credit — Right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit for non-performance or performance not in accordance with the contract relating to the goods or services financed by the credit — Conditions — Indication in the offer of credit of the goods or service being financed — Credit facility enabling the credit granted to be used on a number of occasions — Possibility for the national court to raise of its own motion the right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance de Saintes, France) — Max Rampion, Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard v Franfinance SA, K par K SAS
   (Case C-429/05) (1)

   (Directive 87/102/EEC - Consumer credit - Right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit for non-performance or performance not in accordance with the contract relating to the goods or services financed by the credit - Conditions - Indication in the offer of credit of the goods or service being financed - Credit facility enabling the credit granted to be used on a number of occasions - Possibility for the national court to raise of its own motion the right of the consumer to pursue remedies against the grantor of credit)
   (2007/C 297/10)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal d'instance de Saintes
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Max Rampion, Marie-Jeanne Rampion, née Godard

      Defendants: Franfinance SA, K par K SAS
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal d'instance de Saintes — Interpretation of Articles 11 and 14 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48) — National legislation making application of the rules on interdependence between a credit agreement and a sale contract conditional on an indication being made, in the credit offer, of the goods being financed — Credit facility arrangement which does not indicate the goods being financed but is clearly linked to the contract of sale — Whether possible for the national courts to raise of their own motion arguments relating to the regulation of consumer credit.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 11 and 14 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended by Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that the right to pursue remedies, provided for in Article 11(2) of Directive 87/102, as amended, which the consumer enjoys against the grantor of credit, may not be made subject to the condition that the prior offer of credit must indicate the goods or services being financed.

               2.

               Directive 87/102, as amended by Directive 98/7, must be interpreted as allowing national courts to apply of their own motion the provisions transposing Article 11(2) of Directive 87/102 into national law.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case T-496/07: Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades and Others v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/49

         Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades and Others v Commission
   (Case T-496/07)
   (2008/C 64/80)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicants: Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades SA (Madrid, Spain) Repsol Petróleo, SA (Madrid, Spain), Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision [C(2007) 4441] to the extent that it

                           —

                           Attributes joint and several liability for the infringement to Repsol Petróleo, SA;

                           —

                           Attributes joint and several liability and affiliate liability to Repsol YPF, SA;

                           —

                           Determines the basic amount in a manner contrary to the principle of proportionality by not taking into account either the restricted geographic extent and economic value of the market affected or the effects on the market (which failing, the slight impact);

                           —

                           applies incorrectly the Notice on leniency, in particular in relation to the percentage reduction of the fine granted to Repsol: and

                           —

                           treats leadership as an aggravating factor

               —

               Reduce the fine imposed on Repsol in the exercise of the Court's unlimited jurisdiction to an appropriate amount;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is directed against Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007in the Case COMP/38710 — Bitumen Spain. In the contested decision, the Commission declared that the applicant, together with other companies, had infringed Article 81 EC by having taken part, over a certain period, in a set of agreements and concerted practices in the market for penetration bitumen, namely agreements for sharing the market and coordinating prices. In respect of those infringements the Commission imposed a fine for which the applicants are jointly and severally liable.
   In support of their claims, the applicants allege first an error of assessment of the facts and an error of law in the incorrectly attribution of responsibility for the infringement to the parent companies of Repsol YPF Lubricantes y especialidades SA. In that context, the applicants consider that the attribution of affiliate liability contravenes Community law.
   Secondly, the applicants allege that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality in calculating the initial amount.
   Thirdly, the applicants allege a manifest error of assessment or alternatively an infringement of the general principles of protection of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment in determining the percentage reduction of the fine in accordance with the Notice on cooperation of 2002 (1).
   Lastly, the applicants consider that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in relation to the evaluation leadership of the cartel jointly with another company as an aggravating factor.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002, C 45, p. 3).


title: Case T-577/11: Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/57

      Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon v European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
      (Case T-577/11)
      (2012/C 25/110)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Gkaripis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (Solna, Sweden)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  uphold the present action;

                  —

                  establish the infringement, committed by the Committee for the evaluation of tenders in the contested decision, of the conditions of contract notice OJ/27/05/2011-PROC/2011/041 of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC);

                  —

                  annul Decision ADM-11-1737-AAbema of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 25 August 2011 taken against the applicant;

                  —

                  order the defendant European body to re-examine the tender submitted on 22 July 2011 by the Ethniko kai Kapodistriako Panepistimio Athinon in the procedure at issue;

                  —

                  order the defendant body to pay the applicant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Decision ADM-11-1737-AAbema of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) of 25 August 2011, by which the defendant rejected the applicant’s tender in response to notice OJ/27/05/2011-PROC/2011/041 for the conclusion of a public works contract with the defendant concerning ‘Systematic review and expert guidance on the public health effectiveness of molecular typing of viral pathogens’.
      In support of its pleas in law, the applicant puts forward the following arguments:

                  1.

                  Misappraisal of the facts concerning the applicant’s tender
                  The defendant body rejected the University of Athens’ tender on the ground that the proposed members of the project team did not possess the requisite technical and professional ability for the work covered by the contract notice and it ruled out further examination of its proposal. In reality, however, the professional and technical activities of the members of the project team demonstrate their professional and technical sufficiency for performing the work covered by the contract notice.

                  2.

                  Error in the decision as regards the assessment criteria
                  The committee considered that the members of the project team in the applicant’s proposal would not be able to perform a systematic review of the contract’s subject-matter. However, not only did the members of the project team possess such experience, but even if that were not so the relevant condition regarding adequacy in systematic analysis had not been laid down in the contract notice as a condition which would determine the result of the assessment as an essential precondition for the award of the contract, that condition instead concerning a quality that would be assessed together with the other qualities.

                  3.

                  Unlawful statement of reasons — lack of legal basis for the reasons stated
                  The second ground of the contested measure refers to the applicant’s lack of ability to implement an evidence-based medicine approach. However, that method is not referred to at any point in the text of the contract notice as one of the criteria for selecting the most suitable contractor for performing the work put out to tender.

                  4.

                  Unlawful failure to provide in the contract notice and the contested decision for the possibility of seeking administrative redress
                  The fact that the contract notice and the contested decision do not provide for the possibility of seeking redress before an administrative body designated by them in order to have the measure of the defendant body’s committee annulled or amended is unlawful because it is contrary to the principles of good administration and legality that are enshrined in European Union law.


title: Case C-332/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2011 — Prorail NV v Xpedys NV and Others

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België (Belgium) lodged on 30 June 2011 — Prorail NV v Xpedys NV and Others
   (Case C-332/11)
   2011/C 269/59
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Appellant: Prorail NV
   Respondents:

               Xpedys NV

               FAG Kugelfischer GmbH

               D B Schenker Rail Nederland NV

               Nationale Maatschappij der Belgische Spoorwegen NV

      Question referred

   Must Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 (1) of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, in the light, inter alia, of European legislation concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil or commercial matters, and of the principle expressed in Article 33(1) (2) that a judgment given in a Member State is to be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required, be interpreted as meaning that the court which orders an investigation by a judicial expert whose task is to be carried out partly in the territory of the Member State to which the court belongs, but partly also in another Member State, must, for the direct performance of the latter part of the task, make use only and therefore exclusively of the method created by Regulation No 1206/2001 as referred to in Article 17 thereof, or as meaning that the judicial expert assigned by that country may also be charged with an investigation which is to be partly carried out in another Member State of the European Union, outside the provisions of Regulation No 1206/2001?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1.

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


title: Case T-133/02: Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar Chawdhry against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 156/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   29.6.2002
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar                           In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
Chawdhry against Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          —    infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations;
                         (Case T-133/02)                                  —    infringement of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;
                         (2002/C 156/66)                                  —    breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
                                                                          —    breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                    (Language of the case: French)                             officials;
                                                                          —    breach of the rules on the free movement of workers;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —    breach of the obligation to state reasons.
European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar
Chawdhry, residing in Sangiano (Italy), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the authority empowered to                    Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
      conclude contracts of employment (AECCE) of 2 May                   Fernández against the Commission of the European Com-
      2001 classifying the applicant in Grade A 6, step 3, and,                                       munities
      in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 14 December
      2001, served on 8 January 2002, rejecting the applicant’s                                   (Case T-134/02)
      complaint;
                                                                                (2002/C 156/67)
—     order the defendant to pay the balance of the salary
      consisting in the difference between the remuneration
      corresponding to classification in Grade A 6, step 3,                                 (Language of the case: French)
      and the remuneration corresponding to a higher grade,
      together with default interest at the rate of 5,75 % per
      annum, with effect from 1 April 2001;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-             European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
      sed, ex æquo et bono, at EUR 1;                                     Fernández, residing in Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium, represent-
                                                                          ed by Lucas Vogel, lawyer, with an address for service in
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —    annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Janu-
                                                                               ary 2002, notified to the applicant on 15 January 2002,
                                                                               rejecting the applicant’s claim of 3 October 2001 for
The applicant, a temporary agent employed by the Com-                          annulment of the decision refusing him promotion to
mission, contests the decision of the AECCE classifying him in                 grade B2 for the 2001 promotions year, and annulment
Grade A 6, step 3.                                                             of the proposals for promotion to that grade;
                                                                          —    in so far as is necessary, annul the decision refusing the
                                                                               applicant promotion to grade B2 for the 2001 pro-
The applicant claims that the AECCE ought to have specifically
                                                                               motions year, and the proposals for promotion to that
assessed the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
                                                                               grade;
Regulations to the applicant and that such an assessment
should have led to the actual application of that provision to
the applicant, that is to say to his classification in Grade A 5.         —    order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-462/08: Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (OFTAL CUSI)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/38

         Action brought on 13 October 2008 — Winzer Pharma v OHIM — Alcon (OFTAL CUSI)
   (Case T-462/08)
   (2008/C 327/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Dr. Robert Winzer Pharma GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: S. Schneller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alcon, Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 July 2008 (R 1471/2007-1) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 16 July 2007 (B 809 899);

               —

               Reject the Community trade mark application No 003679181 ‘Oftal Cusi’;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Alcon Cusì, S.A (subsequently, Alcon, Inc.)

      Community trade mark applied for: the word mark ‘OFTAL CUSI’ for goods in Class 5.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Winzer Pharma

      Mark or sign cited in opposition:‘Ophtal’ (No 489 948) for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 (1) in that on account of their similarity there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-451/01: Action brought on 21 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 17/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.1.2002
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt          It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.                   measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic             The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-         has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.                         ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(1) OJ L 50, 26.2.1999, p. 26.                                          (1) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999, p. 22.
Action brought on 21 November 2001 by the Com-                          Action brought on 22 November 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-                 mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
                            ic Republic                                                               ic Republic
                         (Case C-451/01)                                                           (Case C-453/01)
                          (2002/C 17/16)                                                            (2002/C 17/17)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 No-
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 No-
                                                                        vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
—      declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/58/EC (1)
       necessary to comply with Commission Directive                           of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals
       1999/78/EC (1) of 27 July 1999 amending Directive                       kept for farming purposes, the Hellenic Republic has
       95/10/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
       obligations under the Treaty and that directive;                        directive;
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                    —      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon           directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.                          each Member State to which they are addressed.
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are           Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,        to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty       to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the               or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.                                                              Community.