title: Case C-237/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 1 July 2009 — État Belge v Nathalie De Fruytier

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 1 July 2009 — État Belge v Nathalie De Fruytier
   (Case C-237/09)
   2009/C 220/39
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État Belge

      Defendant: Nathalie De Fruytier

      Question referred

   Does the activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories constitute the supply of human organs, blood and milk, which is exempt from value added tax under Article 13(A)(1)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment? (1)

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-467/00 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2000 by Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes Priesemann, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main, Germany against the order made on 24 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-27/00 between Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central Bank

text:
24.2.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 61/5
Appeal brought on 27 December 2000 by Staff Com-                          of the ECB do not foresee a time-limit within which an action
mittee of the European Central Bank, established in                       should be brought. Thirdly, the Conditions of Employment of
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes Priesemann, mem-                     the ECB do not require internal procedures to be exhausted
ber of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main,                   prior to the bringing of an action. Lastly, this legal situation is,
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the                        in the view of the Appellants, usual for a private law
ECB, residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany and Maria                     relationship of the type established by the Conditions of
Concetta Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing                  Employment of the ECB. There is no need to construct further
in Frankfurt am Main, Germany against the order made                      limitations for actions in the form of time-limits or internal
on 24 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court                     procedures.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-27/00 (1) between Staff Committee of the European
Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde                      (1) OJ C 135, 13.5.2000, p. 13.
and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central Bank
                        (Case C-467/00 P)
                          (2001/C 61/09)
                                                                          Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission
An appeal against the order made on 24 October 2000 by the                of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             ered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Communities in case T-27/00 between Staff Committee of the                Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de                   pean Communities in case T-178/98 (1) between Fresh
Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central                   Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the Euro-
Bank, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                    pean Communities
Communities on 27 December 2000 by Staff Committee of
the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van                                          (Case C-472/00 P)
de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, represented by
N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwalte, Frank-
                                                                                (2001/C 61/10)
furt am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of A. Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des
Employés de Banque et d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey.                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000
                                                                          by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98
The Appellants claim that:                                                between Fresh Marine A/S and the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, was brought before the Court of
1)    the order be annulled and the claims brought in the first           Justice of the European Communities on 29 December 2000
      instance be accepted as founded,                                    by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by Viktor Kreuschitz, Legal Adviser, and Sinéad Meany, a
      and if this claim cannot be accepted, demand that                   national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service of
                                                                          the Commission, acting as agents, assisted by Nicholas Khan,
      the order be annulled in so far as the Court of First               Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for
      Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible and the case          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
      be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the              Cruz, a member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.
      European Communities
                                                                          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
2)    the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal
      and the action at the Court of First Instance of the                1.    set aside the judgment, dismiss the Application, and order
      European Communities.                                                     the Respondent to pay the costs, or alternatively,
                                                                          2.    set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Court of First Instance.
The admissibility and timeliness of the action has to be judged
on the basis of Article 236 EC in conjunction with Article                Pleas in law and main arguments
36.2 of the Statute. Article 36.2 of the Statute, in turn, refers
to the conditions of employment. Hence, the application and               It is submitted that the judgment appealed is vitiated by a
interpretation of Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment              number of errors of law and should be set aside and the
of the ECB has to be the basis of the ruling. The Appellants              Application dismissed. It is submitted that the Court of First
hold the view that the Court of First Instance overlooked three           Instance erred in law in the following respects:
aspects of law in this respect: first, Article 42 of the Conditions
of Employment of the ECB provides for access to the Court of              —     In holding that the damage arose from the allegedly
Justice in the case of disputes over collective rights. Second, in              unlawful conduct of the Commission when it examined
the pursuit of collective rights the Conditions of Employment                   the October 1997 report.


title: Case F-73/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — Coedo Suárez v Council (Staff case — Officials — Action for damages — Implicit decision rejecting a claim for compensation, followed by an explicit decision rejecting that claim — Lateness of prior complaint against the implicit rejection decision — Not admissible)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 July 2011 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case F-73/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Action for damages - Implicit decision rejecting a claim for compensation, followed by an explicit decision rejecting that claim - Lateness of prior complaint against the implicit rejection decision - Not admissible)
   2011/C 282/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Angel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation and his claim for compensation for material and non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               orders the Council of the European Union to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301 of 6.11.10. p. 63


title: Case C-259/07: Action brought on 31 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/22

         Action brought on 31 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-259/07)
   (2007/C 183/39)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Kukovec and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC (1) of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC (2) and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC (3) of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementation of the Directive expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 257, 1.10.2005, p. 127.

      (2)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114.


title: Case T-151/10: Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV v Commission

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/43

         Action brought on 1 April 2010 — Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV v Commission
   (Case T-151/10)
   2010/C 148/72
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: B. Drijber, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s Decision of 15 December 2009 (C(2009) 9963) in so far as concerns the Commission’s finding that the opportunity for housing corporations to borrow from the Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten NV constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant’s application is for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 concerning State aid No E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — The Netherlands, Existing and special project aid to housing corporations.
   In support of its application the applicant submits, first, that the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission’s conclusion that the applicant’s loans constituted State aid was based on an incorrect interpretation of the condition for liability.
   Second, the contested decision is contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU because the Commission’s conclusion that the applicant’s loans were not in accordance with market conditions, and therefore contained an advantage, was based on an incorrect interpretation of the facts.
   Third, the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons and the principle of care because, despite the submissions concerning the loans which the applicant put forward through the Netherlands authorities, the Commission found, without any investigation, that the loans were State aid.


title: Case C-246/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 May 2013 by Manutencoop Soc. coop., formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. arl and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manuntenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. rl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/25

         Appeal brought on 2 May 2013 by Manutencoop Soc. coop., formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. arl and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manuntenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. rl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-246/13 P)
   2013/C 207/39
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Manutencoop Soc. coop., formerly Manutencoop Soc. coop. r.l. and Astrocoop Universale Pulizie, Manuntenzioni e Trasporti Soc. coop. r.l. (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside and/or vary the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 20 February 2013 and notified on 25 February 2013 in Case T-280/00 and Case T-285/00;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants put forward two pleas in law.
   First, the order of the General Court is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ and Others v Commission regarding the duty to state the reasons for decisions of the Commission relating to State aid. In particular, the General Court did not comply with that judgment in so far as it states that a decision of the Commission ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. However, even though the decision at issue in the present case lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to find any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.
   Second, the order is vitiated by an error of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ regarding the allocation of the burden of proof concerning the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU. On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court in that judgment, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to clarify the ‘modalities’ of any such verification. Consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the information necessary to show that the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic reversed the burden of proof, requiring the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States.


title: Case T-300/15: Order of the General Court of 11 January 2016 — Oase v OHIM — Compo France (AlGo) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/45

         Order of the General Court of 11 January 2016 — Oase v OHIM — Compo France (AlGo)
   (Case T-300/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 098/59)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oase GmbH (Hörstel, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Compo France SAS (Roche-Lez-Beaupré, France) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 (Case R 1409/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Compo France SAS and Oase GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Oase GmbH shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). Compo France SAS shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case T-330/04: Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer against the European Parliament

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/19

         Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer against the European Parliament
   (Case T-330/04)
   (2004/C 284/39)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 August 2004 by Jörg-Michael Fetzer of Tübingen (Germany), represented by Matthias Bauer, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant infringed the rights of the applicant in connection with Competition PE/96/A (Administrators);

               —

               admit the applicant to the second stage of a competition comparable with Competition PE/96/A;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay appropriate compensation, equivalent to at least one month's net salary.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In July 2002, the applicant applied for Competition PE/96/A of the European Parliament. He stated in the application form that he was handicapped, in that his vision is reduced to two per cent of normal. According to the applicant, he was not allowed to write the test with a computer, being told that the examination conditions made no provision for compensating handicapped participants, and he was not given the extension of time which he requested.
   The applicant argues that during the examination, owing to the difficulties arising from his handicap, it was nowhere near possible for him to read through all the questions in the allotted time and select the right answers. He argues that he belonged to the 180 best candidates and would therefore have been admitted to the next stage of the competition, if he had been given the requested compensation for his incapacity. He therefore seeks a declaration that he compensation he applied for was wrongly denied to him.


title: Case C-593/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/9

         Appeal brought on 16 December 2010 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-85/09: Yassin Abdullah Kadi v European Commission
   (Case C-593/10 P)
   2011/C 72/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop, E. Finnegan and R. Szostak, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Yassin Abdullah Kadi, European Commission, French Republic, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court in case T-85/09;

               —

               Dismiss the respondent's application for the annulment of Commission Regulation 1190/2008 (1) in so far as it concerns him, as unfounded;

               —

               Order the respondent to bear the costs of proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this Appeal the Council seeks to challenge several determinations of the General Court. The Council argues that:

               —

               The General Court erred in law in considering that the Contested Regulation did not benefit from an immunity of jurisdiction;

         In the alternative, the Council argues that:

               —

               The General Court misconstrued and misapplied the case-law of the Court of Justice in considering that the review to be carried out should be ‘full and rigorous’ and in requiring the transmission of underlying evidence to the designated person or entity as well as to the Union judicature in order to ensure respect for that person or entity's rights of defence; and

               —

               The General Court erred in law in failing to give due regard to the creation by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1904(2009) of the Office of the Ombudsperson.

      (1)  OJ L 322, p. 25


title: Case C-381/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières — TOS v Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables (Pollution of the aquatic environment — Directive 2006/11/EC — Article 6 — Dangerous substances — Discharges — Prior authorisation — Fixing of emission standards — Declaratory scheme — Fish farms)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières — TOS v Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables
   (Case C-381/07) (1)

   (Pollution of the aquatic environment - Directive 2006/11/EC - Article 6 - Dangerous substances - Discharges - Prior authorisation - Fixing of emission standards - Declaratory scheme - Fish farms)
   (2008/C 327/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association nationale pour la protection des eaux et rivières — TOS

      Defendant: Ministère de l'écologie, du développement et de l'aménagement durables
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État — Interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (OJ 2006 L 64, p. 52) — Need for prior authorisation, laying down emission standards, for all discharges into water which may contain dangerous substances — Compatibility of national rules replacing prior authorisation with a mere declaratory scheme in respect of fish farms coupled, however, with a reference to the applicable environmental quality standards and a right for the competent administrative authority to object to the commencement of operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 6 of Directive 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community cannot be interpreted as allowing the Member States, once programmes to reduce water pollution including environmental quality standards have been adopted under that article, to introduce a declaratory scheme, in respect of facilities regarded as being low-polluting in nature, subject to a reference to those standards and a right for the administrative authority to object to the commencement of the operations or to impose limits on discharges specific to the facility concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case T-272/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Pineapple Trademarks v OHIM — Dalmau Salmons (KUSTOM)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/37

         Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Pineapple Trademarks v OHIM — Dalmau Salmons (KUSTOM)
   (Case T-272/09)
   2009/C 220/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pineapple Trademarks Pty Ltd (Burleigh Heads, Australia) (represented by: N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Angel Custodio Dalmau Salmons (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2009 in case R 383/2008-1 and remit the application for the Community trade mark to OHIM in order to allow it to proceed; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KUSTOM’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CUSTO’ for goods in classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of the rights of defence of the applicant as the Board of Appeal made findings in relation to the aural and conceptual similarity of the trade marks concerned on which the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment and which were unsupported by relevant evidence.


title: Case C-157/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 45 EC — Connection with the exercise of official authority)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-157/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 45 EC - Connection with the exercise of official authority)
   2012/C 32/04
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: D.J.M. de Grave and M.A.M de Ree, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: T. Mihelič, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 45 EC — Access to and practice of the profession of notary — Nationality requirement — Connection with the exercise of official authority

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 EC.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Slovenian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case T-29/01: Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente Martín against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 118/40              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         21.4.2001
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
                                                                         Martı́n against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                      of 30 January 2001
                                                                                (Case T-29/01)
in Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste v Commission of                                               (2001/C 118/110)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1338/2000
— Registration of a protected geographical indication —
‘Canard à foie gras du Sud-Ouest’ — Measure of general                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                application — Inadmissibility)                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 February 2001 by Carlos Puente
                                                                         Martı́n, residing in Madrid, represented by Oscar González
                        (2001/C 118/109)                                 Correas, lawyer.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     annul the Commission’s decision of 8 November 2000
                                                                               (Ref. 2974);
In Case T-215/00: SCEA La Conqueste, established at Morlaas              —     declare that the applicant is entitled to the full installation
(France), represented by A. Lyon-Caen, lawyer with a right of                  allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII to
audience before the Conseil d’État and the Cour de Cassation,                 the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
R. Weber, 3 Rue de la Loge, v Commission of the European                       Regulations, as laid down in Article 71 of those Regu-
Communities (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and X. Lewis) —                    lations;
application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1338/2000 of 26 June 2000 supplementing the Annex to                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 on the entry of certain names in
the Register of protected designations of origin and protected
geographical indications provided for in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indi-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
cations and designations of origin for agricultural products
and foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 154, p. 5), as regards registration as
a protected geographical indication of the name ‘Canard à foie           The applicant in the present dispute is a former Commission
gras du Sud-Ouest’ — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                  official who is disputing the appointing authority’s decision to
Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and R. Garcı́a-              refuse him both an installation allowance for settling in
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an           Belgium, on the ground that he was reinstated in service
order on 30 January 2001, the operative part of which is as              following the withdrawal of his previous status of permanent
follows:                                                                 invalidity, and a resettlement allowance for Spain after his
                                                                         service terminated. The applicant claims that he is entitled
                                                                         to those allowances in accordance with the provisions of
1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                       Article 5(1), the first paragraph of Article 6(1), Article 7(1)(a)
                                                                         and (b) and Article 9(1) and (2) of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                         Regulations.
2.   The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay the costs of
     the Commission.
                                                                         In support of his claims, the applicant submits:
                                                                         —     that a finding of invalidity is a matter governed by the
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.                                                     rules and depends not on the individual but on an
                                                                               objective situation;
                                                                         —     that, according to settled case-law, an established official
                                                                               is entitled to the disputed allowances even when the place
                                                                               in which he has settled has not changed;
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/41
—     that, in any event, a period of three and a half years            —     Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5) and 3(8) of the basic dumping
      elapsed between 1 December 1995, the date on which he                   regulation in determining that the Community industry
      was first found to be suffering from invalidity, and his                has suffered material injury,
      reinstatement in service on 16 June 1999, a fairly long
      period of time during which the applicant’s home in               —     Article 3(6) of the basic dumping regulation in determin-
      Belgium had to be kept up and maintained in order to be                 ing that imports from the targeted countries caused
      ready for use on his return to Belgium. Further, the                    material injury to the Community industry, and
      applicant incurred substantial costs prior to moving to
      Belgium.                                                          —     Articles 20(4), 20(5) and 6(9) of the basic dumping
                                                                              regulation, Article 253 EC as well as the applicant’s right
                                                                              to a fair hearing.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka
Electronic Co. Ltd. against the Council of the European
                              Union
                          (Case T-35/01)
                                                                        Action brought on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel against
                                                                            the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                        (2001/C 118/111)
                                                                                (Case T-36/01)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/112)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 February 2001 by Shanghai Teraoka                                        (Language of the case: English)
Electronic Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under Chinese
Law, represented by Paul Waer, of the Brussels Bar.                     An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 19 February 2001 by Glaverbel,
                                                                        established under the laws of Belgium, represented by Susanne
                                                                        Möbus of Müller-Boré & Parnter, Munich (Germany).
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2605/2000
      of 27 November 2000 in so far as it imposes an anti-
      dumping duty on Shanghai Teraoka Electronic Co. Ltd.,             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      and;
                                                                        —     annul or alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
—     order the Council to pay the costs of the application.                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market of
                                                                              30 November 2000 (case R 0137/2000-1);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
The applicant in the present case is a company incorporated
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
under Chinese Law, whose object is to manufacture high
technology products. It claims that, by imposing anti-dumping
duties on imports of certain retail electronic weighing scales          Trade mark concerned:          A design applied to a surface
manufactured and exported by the applicant, the defendant                                              of the goods in accordance with
has infringed various provisions of the Council Regulation                                             Article 63(1), of the regulation on
No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from                                                    the Community trade mark (Case
countries not members of the European Communities (1) (the                                             R 0137/2000-1).
basic dumping regulation). It is submitted that the Council has
infringed:                                                              Product or service:            Classes 11, 19 and 21.
—     Article 2(7)c of the basic dumping regulation in denying          Challenged        decision     Refusal of registration by the
      that the applicant could be granted market economy                before the Board of            Examiner.
      status,                                                           Appeal:


title: Case T-116/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Bunge Argentina v Council

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/33

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Bunge Argentina v Council
   (Case T-116/14)
   2014/C 129/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bunge Argentina SA (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear 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 that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case T-695/14: Action brought on 26 September 2014  — Omega v OHIM (Representation of a picture in black and white)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/57

         Action brought on 26 September 2014 — Omega v OHIM (Representation of a picture in black and white)
   (Case T-695/14)
   2014/C 409/78
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Omega International GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by J. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 July 2014 in Case R 1037/2014-5 and register the mark as a trade mark under application No 1 2 1 74  215;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark representing a picture in black and white for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 1 74  215

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: The sign is capable of identifying the goods to consumers with an average degree of interest.


title: Case C-173/04 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2004 (Fax: 6.4.04) by Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02 between Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/5

         Appeal brought on 8 April 2004 (Fax: 6.4.04) by Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02 between Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-173/04 P)
   (2004/C 156/09)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02 between Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2004 (Fax: 6.4.04) by Deutsche SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, represented by its lawyer, Anja Franke, Grünecker Kinkeldey Stockmair & Schwanhäusser, Maximilianstr. 58, D-80538, Münich, and by Martin Augenanger, patent attorney, Maximilianstr. 58, D-80538, Münich.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 January 2004 in Joined Cases T-146/02 to T-153/02; (1)

               2.

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal alleges that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law.

               —

               The Court was mistaken as to the relevant sector and consequently the shapes of the packaging, which under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 are to be taken into account as a point of comparison for the purpose of assessing the distinctive character of the trade marks for which registration is sought. The Court's assessment was not based on the shapes of packaging available on the market for the products specifically applied for (‘fruit drinks and fruit juices’) but on the market for ‘liquids for human consumption’ in general. No consideration was given to the question of the extent to which the marks applied for are different from the usual packaging for drinks. The Court's examination was conducted solely by reference to an assumed basic shape of the marks applied for and to the possible future use of stand-up pouches for ‘fruit drinks and fruit juices’.

               —

               By applying that test, the Court of First Instance imposed requirements in relation to the shape of the marks applied for, which were too stringent in view of the low degree of distinctiveness required.

               —

               In its consideration of the general interest for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, the Court focused solely on the general interest of potential competitors and thereby failed to take account of the actual situation, namely that the appellant has been using stand-up pouches for decades without being imitated. The general interest of consumers was not taken into account at all.

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.


title: Case T-702/14: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015  — Hamas v Council

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/44

         Order of the General Court of 27 January 2015 — Hamas v Council
   (Case T-702/14) (1)

   (2015/C 089/53)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-510/14: Action brought on 3 July 2014 — Staywell Hospitality Group v. OHIM — Sheraton International IP (PARK REGIS)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/47

         Action brought on 3 July 2014 — Staywell Hospitality Group v. OHIM — Sheraton International IP (PARK REGIS)
   (Case T-510/14)
   2014/C 303/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sheraton International IP LLC (Stamford, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 30 April 2014 in Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5 insofar as it concerns Case R 240/2013-5; and

               —

               condemn the Defendant to bear its own and pay the Applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘PARK REGIS’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 88  933

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sheraton International IP LLC

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative and word marks ‘ST. REGIS’ for services in Classes 36, 42 and 43, the international trade mark registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘ST. REGIS’ for services in Class 36 as well as the well-known figurative and word marks ‘ST. REGIS’ in the European Union

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeals were dismissed

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


title: Case C-518/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Senatex GmbH v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 167, Article 178(a), Article 179 and Article 226(3) — Deduction of input tax — Invoices not showing a tax number or VAT identification number — Legislation of a Member State excluding the ex tunc correction of an invoice)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — Senatex GmbH v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord
   (Case C-518/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 167, Article 178(a), Article 179 and Article 226(3) - Deduction of input tax - Invoices not showing a tax number or VAT identification number - Legislation of a Member State excluding the ex tunc correction of an invoice))
   (2016/C 419/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Senatex GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Nord

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 167, Article 178(a), Article 179 and Article 226(3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the correction of an invoice in relation to a detail which must be mentioned, namely the value added tax identification number, does not have retroactive effect, so that the right to deduct value added tax exercised on the basis of the corrected invoice relates not to the year in which the invoice was originally drawn up but to the year in which it was corrected.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-250/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Naazneen Investments v OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark SMART WATER — Genuine use — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2015 — Naazneen Investments v OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)
   (Case T-250/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark SMART WATER - Genuine use - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 146/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and D. Stone, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2013 (Case R 1101/2011-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Energy Brands, Inc. and Naazneen Investments Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Naazneen Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-395/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2016 — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 15 July 2016 — DOCERAM GmbH v CeramTec GmbH
   (Case C-395/16)
   (2016/C 419/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DOCERAM GmbH

      Defendant: CeramTec GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a technical function that precludes protection within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1) also exist if the design effect is of no significance for the product design, but the (technical) functionality is the sole factor that dictates the design?

               2.

               If the Court answers Question 1 in the affirmative:
               From which point of view is it to be assessed whether the individual design features of a product have been chosen solely on the basis of considerations of functionality? Is an ‘objective observer’ required and, if so, how is such an observer to be defined?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.


title: Case C-528/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 November 2014  — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 November 2014 — X v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-528/14)
   (2015/C 056/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1)

               Does Regulation 1186/2009 (1) include the possibility that a natural person has at the same time his normal place of residence in both a Member State and a third country and, if so, does the relief from import duties provided for in Article 3 apply to personal property, which, when a person ceases to have his normal place of residence in the third country, is transferred to the European Union?

               2)

               If Regulation 1186/2009 precludes two normal places of residence and an assessment of all the circumstances does not suffice to determine the normal place of residence, on the basis of which rule or which criteria is it necessary to determine, for the purposes of the application of that regulation, in which country the person concerned has his normal place of residence in a case such as the present case in which that person has both personal and occupational ties in the third country and personal ties in the Member State?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23).


title: Case C-111/17 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece) lodged on 7 March 2017 — OL v PQ
   (Case C-111/17 PPU)
   (2017/C 144/42)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Monomeles Protodikeio Athens (Greece)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OL

      Defendant: PQ

      Question referred

   What is the appropriate interpretation of the concept of ‘habitual residence’, within the meaning of Article 11(1) of Regulation (ΕC) No 2201/2003 (1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, in the case of an infant who fortuitously or due to force majeure has been born in a place other than that which her parents with joint parental responsibility for the child intended to be the place of her habitual residence, and was then unlawfully retained by one parent in the State where she was born, or removed to a third State. More specifically, is physical presence a necessary and self-evident prerequisite, in all circumstances, for establishing the habitual residence of a person, and in particular a new-born child?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case T-320/10: Action brought on 2 August 2010 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt/OHMI — Castel Frères (CASTEL)

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/24

         Action brought on 2 August 2010 — Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt/OHMI — Castel Frères (CASTEL)
   (Case T-320/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fürstlich Castell’sches Domänenamt, Albrecht Fürst zu Castell-Castell (Castell, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, Solicitor, G. Würtenberger and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Castel Frères SA (Blanquefort, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2010 in case R 962/2009-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘CASTEL’ for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark registration No 2678167

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) on the one hand correctly acknowledged that ‘Castell’ was a recognised indication of origin in relation to wine, yet, on the other erred in considering that the contested trade mark ‘CASTEL’ was conspicuously different from ‘Castell’ and hence concluded that the contested trade mark could be registered, (ii) by saying that ‘CASTEL’ was a word commonly used for ‘castle’ in the wine industry, failed to draw the conclusion that ‘CASTEL’ could not be registered; Infringement of Articles 63, 64, 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not properly take into account the facts and arguments submitted; Infringement of Article 65 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal acted ultra vires in justifying its decision by a ‘peaceful coexistence’, although this doctrine is not apparent for consideration for the registration of a trade mark.


title: Case C-445/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 13 October 2004 in the case of Possehl Erzkontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt Duisburg

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 13 October 2004 in the case of Possehl Erzkontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-445/04)
   (2004/C 314/09)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Finance Court) (Germany) of 13 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 21 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Possehl Erzkontor GmbH against Hauptzollamt Duisburg on the following question:
   Does fused magnesia of the kind described in detail in this order, which is caustic-burned from natural mined magnesite and obtained in a second processing stage by fusion in an electric arc furnace, come under subheading 2519 90 10 of Annex I to the Combined Nomenclature?


title: Case T-251/12: Action brought on 6 June 2012 — EGL and Others v Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/29

         Action brought on 6 June 2012 — EGL and Others v Commission
   (Case T-251/12)
   2012/C 227/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: EGL, Inc. (Houston, United States), CEVA Freight (UK) Ltd (Ashby de la Zouch, United Kingdom), CEVA Freight Shanghai Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented by: M. Brealey, QC (Queen's Counsel), S. Love, Barrister, M. Pullen, D. Gillespie and R. Fawcett-Feuillette, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final, dated 28 March 2012 in case COMP/39462 — Freight Forwarding, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, insofar as the applicants were found to have been involved in two infringements of Article 101(1) TFEU, consisting of the so-called New Export System (‘NES’) arrangement and the Currency Adjustment Factor (‘CAF’) arrangement;

               —

               Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final, dated 28 March 2012, insofar as it imposes fines on the applicants or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of making the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to define the relevant market affected by the NES and CAF arrangements and has therefore breached the essential requirements of legal certainty. As such, it has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to establish that the NES arrangement had an appreciable effect on trade between EU Member States. As such, it has erred in law and/or in its assessment of the facts in finding such an effect.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has imposed a fine in relation to the NES arrangement when it had no authority to do so as a consequence of Council Regulation (EEC) No 141/62 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 (2). To this extent the contested decision is vitiated by lack of standing and/or an error of law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant, having erroneously awarded Deutsche Post immunity in respect of the CAF arrangement, has failed properly to recognise the intrinsic value of the evidence provided by the applicants in their immunity/leniency application to the Commission’s case in relation to the CAF arrangement.

      (1)  Regulation No 141 of the Council exempting transport from the application of Council Regulation No 17 (OJ 1962 124, p. 2751)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3975/87 of 14 December 1987 laying down the procedure for the application of the rules on competition to undertakings in the air transport sector (OJ 1987 L 374, p. 1)


title: Case T-452/05: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — BST v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market in industrial thread — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation — Non-contractual liability — Disclosure of confidential information — Damage — Causal link)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — BST v Commission
   (Case T-452/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in industrial thread - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Non-contractual liability - Disclosure of confidential information - Damage - Causal link)
   2010/C 148/43
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Belgian Sewing Thread (BST) NV (Deerlijk, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005 and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision and (ii) an order that the Commission pay compensation, on the basis of the non-contractual liability of the European Community, for the loss which the applicant has suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Fixes at EUR 856 800 the fine imposed on Belgian Sewing Thread (BST) NV by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread);

               2.

               For the rest, dismisses the application for annulment;

               3.

               Dismisses the claim for damages.

               4.

               Orders BST to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission, and the European Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by BST.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-770/14: Action brought on 21 November 2014  — Italy v Commission

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/39

         Action brought on 21 November 2014 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-770/14)
   (2015/C 026/50)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the note of 11 September 2014 (reference: Ares (2014) 2 9 75  571) by which the European Commission notified the Italian Republic of the automatic decommitment, on 31 December 2013, of resources relating to ERDF commitments referred to in the Italy-Malta Cross-border Cooperation Programme 2007-2013; and, ruling on the substance, declare the expenditure and the applications for payment at issue in the present case to be eligible.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to state reasons pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that, in tersely confirming in the contested decision that the error in the title of the amending decision of 31 December 2012 had no effect on the content of the decision itself or on the implementation of the programme, the Commission neglected to take into consideration the relevance of the following circumstances: (i) the spending decisions adopted by the Region had to be checked beforehand by the Court of Auditors; (ii) four months had elapsed between the correction being announced and the correction being implemented, without any explanation being provided; (iii) that fact had the potential to arouse the suspicion that the correction to be made was of greater importance than a correction supposedly relating only to the title of the decision of 31 December 2012; and (iv) the Court of Auditors had confirmed that the course of action taken by the Region, which refrained from adopting the commitments until the correction was officially recognised (28 March 2013), was correct, thus giving it to be understood that the opposite course of action would not have been correct.

               2.

               Second plea in law: failure to observe the principle of partnership in the management of structural funds, the principle of cooperation between Member States and EU institutions, and the principle of respecting the constitutional identity of Member States.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission failed to cooperate with the Member State in order to enable that State to implement the operational programme as effectively as possible, avoiding disqualifications, and that it neglected to take into consideration (inter alia) the procedural constraints of the internal checks — in particular those carried out by the Court of Auditors — which the State in question was obliged to undergo.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of Article 96(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in that regard that the situation generated in the circumstances of the case constituted a reason of force majeure preventing the filing of an application for payment in connection with the projects affected by the amending decision. The national administrative authorities were thereby wholly prevented from carrying the project management procedure through to the stage of submitting an application for payment because of the following circumstances: (i) the Commission’s initial error when notifying that decision; (ii) the promise, immediately following that error, that a swift correction would be made to the title alone; and (iii) the silence which was maintained instead for four months, which suggested that there were other, more important, errors and defects to be corrected.

               4.

               As its fourth and final plea in law, the applicant alleges failure to observe the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-352/05: Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/13

         Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-352/05)
   (2005/C 281/24)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Patakia, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service, and B. Schima, a member of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC — Statements made with regard to decommissioning and waste management activities, (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into the national legal system expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 176 of 15.7.2003, p. 37.


title: Case T-326/16: Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark Tafel — Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 June 2017 — Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel v EUIPO — Tiertafel Deutschland (Tafel)
   (Case T-326/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark Tafel - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 65(6) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Decision taken following the annulment by the General Court of an earlier decision))
   (2017/C 249/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: T. Koerl, E. Celenk and S. Vollmer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Tiertafel Deutschland eV (Rathenow, Germany) (represented by: M. Nitschke, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 April 2016 (Case R 248/2016-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Tiertafel Deutschland and Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bundesverband Deutsche Tafel eV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 8.8.2016.


title: Case T-80/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — PT Musim Mas v Council

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/38

         Action brought on 4 February 2014 — PT Musim Mas v Council
   (Case T-80/14)
   2014/C 102/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (Medan, Indonesia) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer, C. Humpe, Solicitor and A. Verdegay Mena, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), in so far as it relates to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs for this action.

      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 breaches of (i) Articles 1(1), 7(2) and 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51) by the Council of the European Union, as well as, a breach of (ii) the principles of good administration, of proportionality and of non-discrimination by the Council of the European Union when ordering the definitive collection of the provisional anti-dumping measures imposed on the applicant, as:

                           —

                           On the basis of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009, no anti-dumping measures can be imposed on exporters, such as the applicant, whose products are found not to be dumped. There is therefore no legal basis for imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on the applicant let alone for ordering the collection of such duties;

                           —

                           The Council breached Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by imposing and definitively collecting a provisional dumping duty of 2,8% on the applicant in excess of its correct provisional margin of dumping;

                           —

                           Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 prohibits the imposition of provisional duties by the Commission where the provisional dumping of margin is less than 2%. The Council breached Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 by ordering the definitive collection of provisional duties imposed on the applicant;

                           —

                           In light of the errors made by the European Commission when calculating the applicant’s provisional margin of dumping, the Council should have concluded that the Commission failed to examine carefully and impartially all the relevant aspects of the case. Such failure amounts to a breach of the principle of good administration;

                           —

                           The Council’s actions in definitively collecting the wrongly imposed provisional duties from the applicant must be considered as disproportionate to the objective of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 and, consequently, a breach of the principle of proportionality;

                           —

                           By requiring the applicant’s wrongly calculated provisional dumping duties to be definitely collected and not requiring P.T. Cilandra Perkasa to pay provisional dumping duties, the Council has discriminated between two undertakings whose situations are comparable. Accordingly, the applicant submits that the Council is in breach of the principle of non-discrimination.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breaches of Articles 20(2), 2(5), 2(8) and 2(l0)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against imports from countries not members of the European Community, as the Council of the European Union:

                           —

                           Failed to disclose the essential facts in connection with the alleged existence of a ‘particular market situation’ against Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

                           —

                           Adjusted the applicant’s costs of production due to the alleged existence of a ‘particular market situation’ within the framework of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

                           —

                           Failed to consider the applicant’s use of Palm Fatty Distillates as a raw material;

                           —

                           Failed to consider the double counting premium as part of the applicant’s export price and breaching Article 2(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009; and

                           —

                           Failed to consider the applicant and its related companies as a single economic entity violating Article 2(10)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.


title: Case T-652/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2016 by HD against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-136/15, HD v Parliament

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/51

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2016 by HD against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016 in Case F-136/15, HD v Parliament
   (Case T-652/16 P)
   (2016/C 419/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: HD (Aach, Germany) (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 21 July 2016, HD v Parliament (F-136/15);

               —

               grant the appellant’s claim for annulment made at first instance;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging distortion of the facts and evidence, manifest error of assessment and infringement of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001, L 8, p. 1).

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging a failure to state reasons for the judgment under appeal.


title: Case C-576/16 P: Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/14

         Appeal brought on 14 November 2016 by TVR Italia Srl against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) made on 9 September 2016 in Case T-277/16, TVR Italia v EUIPO — TVR Automotive (TVR ITALIA)
   (Case C-576/16 P)
   (2017/C 144/19)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: TVR Italia Srl (represented by: F. Caricato, avvocato)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, TVR Automotive Ltd
   By order of 2 March 2017 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered TVR Italia Srl to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-207/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Habanos v OHIM — Tabacos de Centroamérica (KIOWA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KIOWA — Earlier Community and national figurative marks COHIBA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity of signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 May 2011 — Habanos v OHIM — Tabacos de Centroamérica (KIOWA)
   (Case T-207/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark KIOWA - Earlier Community and national figurative marks COHIBA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity of signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 194/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Corporación Habanos, SA (Havana, Cuba) (represented initially by V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López, and subsequently by A. Ruiz López, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain) (represented by: R.M. Caldés Llopis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 March 2008 (Case R 1189/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Corporación Habanos, SA and Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed;

               2.

               Corporación Habanos, SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Tabacos de Centroamérica, SL is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.


title: Joined Cases T-217/07, T-218/07, T-244/07 to T-246/07, T-252/07 to T-255/07, T-258/07 to T-260/07, T-268/07 to T-272/07 and T-394/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — Las Palmeras and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — Las Palmeras and Others v Council and Commission
   (Joined Cases T-217/07, T-218/07, T-244/07 to T-246/07, T-252/07 to T-255/07, T-258/07 to T-260/07, T-268/07 to T-272/07 and T-394/07) (1)

   (2008/C 327/77)

      Language of the case: Spanish

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that Joined Cases T-217/07, T-218/07, T-244/07, T-245/07, T-246/07, T-253/07, T-254/07, T-255/07, T-258/07, T-259/07, T-260/07, T-268/07, T-269/07, T-270/07 and T-394/07 be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2000 in Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Expatriation allowance — Work done for an international organisation established in a place other than the place of employment — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
22.7.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/19
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        of 13 April 2000
                                                                           in Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina v Commission
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                 of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Economic and social cohesion — Structural interventions
                                                                           — Leader II Community initiative — Natural or legal
                                                                           persons — Measures not of individual concern to them —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/39)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                          of 15 June 2000                                  In Case T-263/97: GAL Penisola Sorrentina, established in
                                                                           Naples (Italy), represented by G.L. Lemmo and V. Mormile, of
in Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi v Commission of the                       the Naples Bar, with an address for service at 31 Via del
                    European Communities (1)                               Parco Margherita, Naples, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: J.M. Flett and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) —
                                                                           application for annulment of the Commission’s decision C(97)
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Work done for an                     1261 of 15 May 1997 amending decision C(95) 444/3 of 5
international organisation established in a place other than               April 1995 concerning a grant of aid from the European
the place of employment — Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to                  Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance
                       the Staff Regulations)                              Section, from the European Regional Development Fund
                                                                           (ERDF) and from the European Social Fund (ESF) for use in
                                                                           an operational programme forming part of the Leader II
                          (2000/C 211/38)                                  Community initiative in the region of Campania in favour of
                                                                           areas falling within objective No 1 in Italy — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                    (Language of the case: French)                         President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, made an order on 13 April 2000, the operative part
                                                                           of which is as follows:
In Case T-51/99: Sophia Fantechi, a member of the temporary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                       1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             2. The applicant shall pay all the costs.
the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 (1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
and D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998 refusing to grant the
applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4
of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials and, second,
for payment of that allowance together with default interest
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
of: J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and A.W.H. Meij,                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 June 2000, in which it:                                                  of 5 May 2000
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 7 July 1998;                        in Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
2. Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application
     for payment of the expatriation allowance;                            (Action for failure to act under the EC Treaty — Case not
                                                                                proceeding to judgment)
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
     of the applicant.                                                                             (2000/C 211/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                           In Case T-29/99: VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG, established
                                                                           in Hamburg (Germany), represented by D.A. Fouquet,
                                                                           Rechtsanwältin, Hamburg, with an address for service in