title: Case C-175/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 8 March 2002 in the case of F. J. Pape against Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries

text:
C 169/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
3.   In the event that the answer to the previous question is               has been any disturbance of trade between Member States
     in the negative: Where a connection as described in the                which can (partly) be attributed to the levy as the method
     final sentence of point 3.4.3 can be identified between                of financing the aid measure? If the answer to this
     the increase in a particular tax whose proceeds are paid               question depends on the closeness of the connection
     into the public coffers and a proposed aid measure within              between the levy and the aid measure, or on the time
     the meaning of the last sentence of Article 93(3) of the               when the revenue from the levy is actually used for the
     EC Treaty (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC),                 aid measure, or on other circumstances, what circum-
     must the introduction of that increase be regarded as a                stances are relevant in that regard?
     (start on the) putting into effect of that aid measure
     within the meaning of this provision? If the answer to
     this question turns on the intensity of that connection,          2.   If the prohibition on implementing the aid measure also
     what circumstances are of relevance in this respect?                   applies to the earmarked levy, can the person on whom
                                                                            the levy is imposed then, by relying on the direct effect of
4.   If the prohibition on implementation of the aid measure                Article 93(3), oppose in legal proceedings the full amount
     also relates to the tax, does a final decision by the                  levied on him or only that portion which corresponds to
     Commission declaring the aid measure compatible with                   the part of the revenue which is expected to be spent or
     the common market not mean that the unlawfulness of                    has actually been spent during the period in which the
     the tax is retroactively corrected?                                    implementation of the aid measure is or was prohibited
                                                                            under that provision?
5.   If the prohibition on implementation also relates to the
     tax, can persons on whom the tax is levied oppose such            3.   Do specific requirements arise from Community law with
     tax in law by relying on the direct effect of Article 93(3)            regard to the method of determining what portion of a
     of the EC Treaty in respect of the total amount of the tax             levy falls under the prohibition laid down in the last
     or only in respect of part thereof?                                    sentence of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty in the case of a
                                                                            levy the revenue from which is earmarked for various
6.   In the latter case, do specific requirements stem from                 purposes for which there are also other sources of
     Community law as regards the manner in which it must                   financing in addition to the levy and which are not all
     be determined which part of the tax is covered by the                  covered by Article 93 of the EC Treaty, where no
     prohibition in the last sentence of Article 93(2) of the EC            apportionment formula is specified in the national pro-
     Treaty?                                                                vision instituting the levy? In such a case, must the
                                                                            portion of the levy which can be allocated to financing
                                                                            the aid measure falling under Article 93 of the EC Treaty
                                                                            be determined on an estimated basis according to the
                                                                            time when the levy was imposed or must it be based on
                                                                            subsequently available data relating to the total revenue
                                                                            from the levy and to the actual expenditure for each of
                                                                            the various purposes?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 8 March 2002
in the case of F. J. Pape against Ministry of Agriculture,
             Nature Management and Fisheries
                        (Case C-175/02)
                        (2002/C 169/39)
                                                                       Appeal brought on 13 May 2002 by Laboratoire Monique
                                                                       Rémy against the order delivered on 26 March 2002 by
                                                                       the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-218/01 between
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
                                                                       Laboratoire Monique Rémy and Commission of the Euro-
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 8 March
                                                                                pean Communities
2002, received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of F. J. Pape against Ministry of
Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries on the follow-                                  (Case C-176/02 P)
ing questions:
1.   For so long as the implementation of an aid measure is                                   (2002/C 169/40)
     not permitted under the last sentence of Article 93(3) of
     the EC Treaty (now the last sentence of Article 88(3) EC),
     does the prohibition laid down in that provision also
     apply to the introduction of a levy the revenue from
     which is earmarked under the relevant law in part for the         An appeal against the order delivered on 26 March 2002 by
     financing of that measure, regardless of whether there            the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 December 1998 in Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Milk - Producers having entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings - Compensation paid during the course of proceedings - Cause not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 71/24              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.3.1999
      Removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-262/98 (1)
                       (1999/C 71/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/44)
By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-370/98 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Immigration Appeal                    By order of 12 January 1999 the President of the Court of
Tribunal): Secretary of State for the Home Department v             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Mustafa Saglam.                                                     removal from the register of Case C-262/98: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
         (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
                    of 15 December 1998                             2. The defendants are to pay the costs.
in Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse v Council of the
European Union and Commission of the European                       3. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                       Communities (1)                                  Ireland is to bear its own costs.
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
Community Ð Milk Ð Producers having entered into                    (1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.
non-marketing       or    conversion     undertakings      Ð
Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
                       (1999/C 71/45)
               (Language of the case: English)                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition)
In Case T-247/93: D. J. Stenhouse, residing in Netherbury
(United Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green,                                        of 15 December 1998
Graham Hughes and Martin Rawstorne, Barristers, and                 in Case T-277/93: John Meakin v Council of the
Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,                 European Union and Commission of the European
Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of                                         Communities (1)
the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the                (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability of the
European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey,                  Community Ð Milk Producers having entered into
GeÂrard Rozet and Hans-Jürgen Rabe), supported by                   non-marketing       or     conversion    undertakings     Ð
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                Compensation paid during the course of proceedings Ð
(Agent: John Colahan) Ð application for compensation                            Cause not proceeding to judgment)
pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of                                         (1999/C 71/46)
Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of            In Case T-277/93: John Meakin, residing in Leigh (United
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                     Kingdom), represented by Nicholas Green, Barrister, and
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1989, p. 13), as                      Bevan Ashford (Solicitors), Gotham House, Tiverton,
supplemented by         Commission Regulation (EEC)                 Devon, EX16 6LT, United Kingdom, against Council of
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11               the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, John
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended             Carbery and Ann-Mara Colaert), and Commission of the
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,                        European Communities (Agents: Christopher Docksey and
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.        Hans-Jürgen Rabe) Ð application for compensation
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made             pursuant to Article 178 and the second paragraph of
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of                 Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses sustained by
which is as follows:                                                the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-257/97: Hans C. Herold v Commission of the European Communities (Official - Partial permanent invalidity - Aggravation of injuries - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Admissibility - Principle of equal treatment - Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials - Lack of diligence)

text:
C 246/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 11 March 1999
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                 in Case T-257/97: Hans C. Herold v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Official — Partial permanent invalidity — Aggravation of
                                                                          injuries — Action for annulment — Action for damages —
                                                                          Admissibility — Principle of equal treatment — Duty to
                                                                          have regard for the welfare and interests of officials — Lack
                                                                                of diligence)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          (1999/C 246/53)
                          of 4 May 1999
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-161/97: Massimo Marzola v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-257/97: Hans C. Herold, an official of the Com-
(Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Time-limit for                  mission of the European Communities, represented by Bernd
submitting a request — Acquired knowledge — Admissi-                      Potthast, Hans-Josef Rüber and Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte,
bility — Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of             Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        officials — Provision of a statement of reasons)                  Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Christine
                                                                          Berardis-Kayser and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application, first,
                         (1999/C 246/52)                                  for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 20
                                                                          November 1996 rejecting the applicant’s request for an
                                                                          increase in the capital sum paid by way of compensation for
                    (Language of the case: French)                        partial permanent invalidity and, second, for the payment of
                                                                          damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                          composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
In Case T-161/97: Massimo Marzola, an official of the                     Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                 judgment on 11 March 1999, in which it:
sels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Thierry Demaseure,
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v            1. Orders the Commissions to pay to the applicant a sum
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                      corresponding to the interest accrued on the compensation received
Valsesia and Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for                   by him on 25 April 1996 (BEF 1 320 157), covering a period
annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting as out of                     of twenty months, calculated at the rate of 5 % per annum,
time the request submitted by the applicant for the transfer to                together with default interest on that sum, likewise calculated at
the Community scheme of the pension rights acquired by him                     the rate of 5 % per annum, for the period from 25 April 1996
in a private pension scheme in the United States of America                    until actual payment of that sum to the applicant;
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.
Vesterdorf, President, and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 May 1999, in                   2. For the rest, dismisses the application;
which it:
1. Dismisses the application;                                             3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of
                                                                               the costs of the applicant.
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-154/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment — Contract with an embassy of a third State — Immunity of the employing State — Concept of branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 18(2) — Compatibility with Article 21 of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the third State)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Germany) — Ahmed Mahamdia v People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria
   (Case C-154/11) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment - Contract with an embassy of a third State - Immunity of the employing State - Concept of branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of Article 18(2) - Compatibility with Article 21 of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of the third State)
   2012/C 295/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ahmed Mahamdia

      Defendant: People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg — Interpretation of Articles 18, 19 and 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Determination of jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerning the validity of the termination of the employment contract of the applicant, a national of a Member State and of a non-member country, who had been employed as a driver in the Member State of which he is a national by the embassy of the non-member country of which he is also a national pursuant to an employment contract which provided that the courts of that latter State would have jurisdiction in the event of a dispute

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 18(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an embassy of a third State situated in a Member State is an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of that provision, in a dispute concerning a contract of employment concluded by the embassy on behalf of the sending State, where the functions carried out by the employee do not fall within the exercise of public powers. It is for the national court seised to determine the precise nature of the functions carried out by the employee.

               2.

               Article 21(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an agreement on jurisdiction concluded before a dispute arises falls within that provision in so far as it gives the employee the possibility of bringing proceedings, not only before the courts ordinarily having jurisdiction under the special rules in Articles 18 and 19 of that regulation, but also before other courts, which may include courts outside the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011.


title: Case T-188/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GentleCare — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Grundig Multimedia v OHIM (GentleCare)
      (Case T-188/14) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark GentleCare - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
      (2015/C 073/39)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Grundig Multimedia AG (Stansstad, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Walter and M. Neuner, lawyers)

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

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2014 (Case R 739/2013-5) confirming rejection of the application for registration of the word sign GentleCare as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Grundig Multimedia AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case T-410/05: Action brought on  14 November 2005  — Eerola v Commission

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/34

         Action brought on 14 November 2005 — Eerola v Commission
   (Case T-410/05)
   (2006/C 48/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Iiro Eerola (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance provided for in Article 4(1) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, of Finnish nationality, was appointed an official of the Commission on 1 October 2004. The Commission refused to grant him the expatriation allowance, considering that during the reference period, from 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2004, the applicant was living in Belgium.
   The applicant contests that decision, claiming that the period from 1 April 2003 to 31 December 2003, during which he worked in Brussels as scientific advisor at the Academy of Finland, should not be taken into account since the Academy does not have a distinct legal personality but is part of the Finnish State. On that basis, the applicant pleads infringement of the first paragraph of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, and an error of law.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/64

         Removal from the Register of Case T-385/02 (1)

   (2005/C 217/136)

      (Language of the case: English)

   By order of 10 June 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-385/02, Marta Andreasen v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case T-355/06: Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/23

         Action brought on 5 December 2006 — Koninklijke BAM Groep v Commission
   (Case T-355/06)
   (2007/C 20/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimant: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final) or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it finds that BAM breached Article 81 EC, a fine is imposed on BAM in that regard, BAM is enjoined to put an end to that breach and to refrain in future from any of the acts or conduct referred to in Article 1, and from any acts or conduct having the same or similar objective or consequences, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to BAM;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant is challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimant for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of its action, the claimant submits that the Commission acted contrary to Article 81 EC and to Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 by concluding that the claimant had breached Article 81 EC. According to the claimant, the Commission wrongly attributed to it, as the parent company, the breach allegedly committed by a subsidiary.
   In the alternative, the claimant submits that the Commission incorrectly determined the amount of the fine imposed on it. The Commission imposed a fine based on a period of two years and five months during which the claimant allegedly held 100 % of the shares in BAM NBM, whereas that period in fact amounted only to one year and five months.


title: Case T-311/08: Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Fitoussi v OHIM — Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/32

         Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Fitoussi v OHIM — Loriot (IBIZA REPUBLIC)
   (Case T-311/08)
   (2008/C 272/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Fitoussi (Vincennes, France) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, T. van Innis and G. Glas, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot (Ibiza, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 May 2008 in Case R 1135/2007-2;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Bernadette Nicole J. Loriot

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘IBIZA REPUBLIC’ for goods in Classes 25, 41 and 43 — application No 3 868 072

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark in the form of a five-pointed star surrounded by a circle, for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in as much as i) the earlier mark consists of a representation of a five-pointed star surrounded by a circle and not only a star; ii) the earlier mark is an intrinsically strong mark and not a mark with little distinctive character; and iii) the graphic element of the earlier mark dominates the word element and not vice versa.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 June 2005 in Case T-254/04: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials — Recruitment — Post of Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions — Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision — Annulment by the institution of the vacancy notice and commencement of a new recruitment procedure)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/42

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 29 June 2005
   in Case T-254/04: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Post of Secretary General of the Committee of the Regions - Enforcement of a judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an appointment decision - Annulment by the institution of the vacancy notice and commencement of a new recruitment procedure)
   (2005/C 217/92)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-254/04: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by X. Gousta, lawyer, against Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Agent: P. Cervilla, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — action for annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions of 8 October 2003 annulling procedure 2000/C 28 A/01 for recruitment of a Secretary General for the Committee of the Regions and commencing a new procedure for the same post — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, V. Tiili and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as, in part, inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1996 in Case T-509/93: Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Invitation to tender - Action for annulment - Admissiblity)

text:
No C 336/26           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  9 . 11 .
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Patrick Chabrier, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
                    of 24 September 1996                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt,
                                                                       8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the European
in Case T-491 /93 : Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission
                                                                       Communities ( Agents : Marie-Jose Jonczy and Nicholas
              of the European Communities ( ! )                        Khan ) — application for, first, annulment of the decision of
(Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States             the Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
of the former Soviet Union — In vitation to tender — Action            Vnesheconombank and, second, restoration of its rights
for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages —                   against Credit Lyonnais — the Court of First Instance
                          Admissibility)                               ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and
                          ( 96/C 336/54 )                              B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                       24 September 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
In Case T-491 /93 : Richco Commodities Ltd , established at
Hamilton ( Bermuda ), represented by P. V. F. Bos and J. G.
A. van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for               2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1
Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       (') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .
( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber, Nicholas Khan and, at the
hearing, Marie-Jose Jonczy ) — application for, first,
annulment of the decision of the Commission of 1 April
1993 addressed to the Vnesheconombank and , second ,
damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant by
reason of the contested decision — the Court of First
Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J.
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:                                       of 24 September 1996
                                                                       in Case T-5 09/93 : Richco Commodities Ltd v. Commission
 1 . dismisses    the     application     for    annulment     as
     inadmissible ;                                                                  of the European Communities f 1 )
                                                                       (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
2 . dismisses the objection of inadmissibility inasmuch as it          of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
     concerns the claim for compensation for the damage                               for annulment — Admissiblity)
     allegedly suffered by the applicant;                                                        ( 96/C 336/56 )
3 . orders the procedure relating to that claim for
     compensation to be continued in relation to the                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
     substance:
4.   reserves the costs .                                              In Case T-509/93 : Richco Commodities Ltd, established at
                                                                       Hamilton ( Bermuda ), represented by P. V. F. Bos and J. G.
(') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .                                      A. van Zuuren, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch , 1 1
                                                                       Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       ( Agents : Berend Jan Drijber, Nicholas Khan and, at the
                                                                       hearing, Marie-Jose Jonczy ) — application for annulment of
                                                                       the decision of the Commission of 12 July 1993 addressed to
                                                                       the State Export-Import Bank of Ukraine — the Court of
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
                    of 24 September 1996                               President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges ; J.
                                                                       Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
in Case T-494/93 : Compagnie Continentale ( France ) v.
                                                                       given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:
        Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
 (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
 of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action             1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible;
               for annulment — Admissiblity)
                          ( 96/C 336/55 )                              2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)                          (!) OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 .
In Case T-494/93 : Compagnie Continentale ( France ),
established at Levallois-Perret ( France ), represented by


title: Case C-355/13: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria — Italy) — Umbra Packaging srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Perugia (Request for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Articles 53(2) and 99 — Possible to infer the answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling clearly from the case-law — Request manifestly inadmissible — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) — Article 3 — Imposition of a government authorisation charge when a telephone subscription is taken out — Charge not applied to the use of prepaid telephone cards — Article 102 TFEU)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/24

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria — Italy) — Umbra Packaging srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Perugia
   (Case C-355/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Articles 53(2) and 99 - Possible to infer the answer to a question referred for a preliminary ruling clearly from the case-law - Request manifestly inadmissible - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive) - Article 3 - Imposition of a government authorisation charge when a telephone subscription is taken out - Charge not applied to the use of prepaid telephone cards - Article 102 TFEU)
   2014/C 52/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Umbra Packaging srl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale di Perugia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione Tributaria Regionale dell’Umbria — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) and of Article 102 TFEU — National legislation imposing a fee on mobile telephone operators — Imposition of a government authorisation charge when a telephone subscription is taken out — Charge not applied to the use of prepaid telephone cards

      Operative part of the order

   Article 3 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation such as that relating to the charge on activities carried out in the context of a government concession.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-358/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords, United Kingdom) — Aventis Pasteur SA v OB (Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Articles 3 and 11 — Mistake in the classification of producer — Judicial proceedings — Application for substitution of the producer for the original defendant — Expiry of the limitation period)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords, United Kingdom) — Aventis Pasteur SA v OB
   (Case C-358/08) (1)

   (Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Articles 3 and 11 - Mistake in the classification of ‘producer’ - Judicial proceedings - Application for substitution of the producer for the original defendant - Expiry of the limitation period)
   2010/C 24/17
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   House of Lords

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aventis Pasteur SA

      Defendant: OB

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — Action brought against a company wrongly considered to be the producer of the allegedly defective product — Whether another party may be substituted for the defendant after the ten-year limitation period laid down in Article 11 of the Directive — Person designated as defendant in the proceedings brought during the ten-year period not a ‘producer’ as defined in Article 3 of the Directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 11 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, which allows the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings, from being applied in a way which permits a ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3 of that directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.
   However, first, Article 11 must be interpreted as not precluding a national court from holding that, in the proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly-owned subsidiary of the ‘producer’, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, that producer can be substituted for that subsidiary if that court finds that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, determined by that producer.
   Second, Article 3(3) of Directive 85/374 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the person injured by an allegedly defective product was not reasonably able to identify the producer of that product before exercising his rights against the supplier of that product, that supplier must be treated as a ‘producer’ for the purposes, in particular, of the application of Article 11 of that directive, if it did not inform the injured person, on its own initiative and promptly, of the identity of the producer or its own supplier. That is for the national court to determine in the light of the circumstances of the case.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-574/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014 — EAEPC v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/47

         Action brought on 1 August 2014 — EAEPC v Commission
   (Case T-574/14)
   2014/C 409/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Buendía Sierra, L. Ortiz Blanco, Á. Givaja Sanz and M. Araujo Boyd, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the European Commission’s decision of 27 May 2014 in Case No COMP/AT.36957 Glaxo Wellcome;

               —

               order the European Commission to bear its own costs as well as those which the EAEPC may incur in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 3654 final of 27 May 2014 in Case COMP/AT.36957 — Glaxo Wellcome, whereby the Commission rejects the applicant’s complaint thereby refusing a further investigation into the alleged infringement by Glaxo Wellcome SA, now GlaxoSmithKline SA, of Article 101 TFEU in the light of the judgments of 27 September 2006, GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (T-168/01, ECR, EU:T:2006:265) and of 6 October 2009, GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (C-501/06 P, C-513/06 P, C-515/06 P and C-519/06 P, ECR, EU:C:2009:610).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in breach of Articles 101, 105 and 266 TFEU and Article 7 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in holding that the effect of the judgment GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (EU:C:2009:610) is that the initial decision of 2001 was considered null and void and that the situation was to be regarded as if the Commission had never adopted the 2001 Decision. The applicant further alleges that the Commission infringed its duty to give sufficient reasons and its obligation to hear the applicant on this issue before adopting a definitive decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision infringes Article 101 TFEU or that the Commission failed to comply with its duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU when assessing the existence of an EU interest in the case. The applicant further submits that the Commission has infringed the applicant’s fundamental right to be heard.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that all matters of fact and law are not analysed in the contested decision.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-450/05: Action brought on  21 December 2005  — Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/25

         Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Automobiles Peugeot and Peugeot Nederland v Commission
   (Case T-450/05)
   (2006/C 74/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Automobiles Peugeot SA (Paris, France) and Peugeot Nederland NV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: O. d'Ormesson and N. Zacharie, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision in the entirety of its operative part and the grounds supporrting it;

               —

               alternatively, vary Article 3 of the Decision and the grounds supporting it by reducing the fine of EUR 49.5 million;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In this action the applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2005)3683 final of 5 October 2005 adopted as part of a procedure under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Cases 36.623, 36.820 and 37.275 — SEP and Others/Automobiles Peugeot SA) by which the Commission found the practices applied by them intended to restrict exports of automobiles to be anti-competitive. The contested decision covers, in particular, the individual measures adopted by the applicants with regard to dealers: bonus system for dealers, policy restricting promotional campaigns, limited supplying of dealers, direct instructions. The applicants claim, in addition, alternatively, the reduction of the fine imposed by the Commission.
   In support of their claims, the applicants submit that in its decision the Commission infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty, in that it found that the measures adopted by the applicants could be regarded as an ‘agreement’ within the meaning of that article.
   In the alternative, they rely on pleas in law alleging errors of fact, erroneous assessment of the facts and error of law in that the Commission held that the system of payment of dealers had an anti-competitive object within the meaning of Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty. Moreover, the applicants call in question the determination of the length of the infringement made by the Commission in the contested decision in that the Commission made an error of fact and an erroneous assessment of the facts which led it, according to the applicants, to contradictions in the grounds of its decision.
   The following plea in law covers the alleged insufficiency of the grounds of the contested decision so far as concerns the analysis of the effects of the measures alleged by the Commission. In addition, as part of that plea, the applicants accuse the Commission of having made errors of fact and an erroneous assessment of the facts and of having contradicted in the grounds of its decision.
   In support of their alternative claim for the reduction of the fine imposed by the Commission, the applicants rely on a plea in law alleging infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 and of the Guidelines on the setting of fines (1) in the application of those provisions by the Commission.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and of Article 65(5) of the EC Treaty (OJ C 9 of 14 January 1998, p. 3).


title: Case T-322/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Musumeci v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/36

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Musumeci v Commission
   (Case T-322/08)
   (2008/C 272/70)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Antonio Musumeci (Bagnara Calabra, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case T-447/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Catinis v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an OLAF investigation concerning the implementation of a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria — Access refused — Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Catinis v Commission
   (Case T-447/11) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an OLAF investigation concerning the implementation of a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria - Access refused - Exception concerning the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits))
   2014/C 212/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lian Catinis (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and F. Clotuche Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 10 June 2011 refusing, first, to grant the purported request to close OLAF’s investigation concerning a project for the modernisation of infrastructure in Syria and, second, to grant access to certain documents in the file relating to that investigation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders Mr Lian Catinis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10. 011.


title: Case C-46/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Datenschutzkommission (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2013 — H v E

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Datenschutzkommission (Austria) lodged on 28 January 2013 — H v E
   (Case C-46/13)
   2013/C 147/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Datenschutzkommission

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H

      Defendant: E

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7(c) of Directive 2006/24/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that natural persons affected by the retention of data within the meaning of the Directive do not fall into the category of ‘specially authorised personnel’ within the meaning of that provision and may not be granted a right to receive information on data relating to their own person from the provider of a publicly available communications service or a public communications network?

               2.

               Is Article 13(1)(c) and (d) of Directive 95/46/EC (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the right of natural persons affected by the retention of data within the meaning of Directive 2006/24/EC to receive information on data relating to their own person pursuant to Article 12(a) of Directive 95/46/EC from the provider of a publicly available communications service or a public communications network can be excluded or restricted?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered at least partly in the affirmative: Is Article 7(c) of Directive 2006/24/EC compatible with the fundamental right laid down in the second sentence of Article 8(2) [of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] and thus valid?

      (1)  Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54).

      (2)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1997 in Case T-121/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers Association (EFMA) v. Council of the European Union (Anti-dumping duties - Injury - Right to a fair hearing)

text:
7.2.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 41/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht                   individual decision, can the public law body be held
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1997 in                 liable as well as the Member State?
the case of Salomone Haim against Kassenzahnärztliche
                    Vereinigung Nordrhein                           2. If so: Where a national official has either applied
                                                                        conflicting national law against Community law, or
                       (Case C-424/97)
                                                                        has applied national law in a manner that does not
                         (98/C 41/33)                                   comply with Community law, is there a serious breach
                                                                        of Community law simply on the ground that the
                                                                        official had no discretion in making his decision?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              3. Where a national of another Member State has been
European Communities by order of the Landgericht                        recognised in the host Member State as having the
(Regional Court) Düsseldorf of 8 December 1997,                         status of a dental practitioner but does not hold a
received at the Court Registry on 15 December 1997, for                 diploma mentioned in Article 3 of Directive 78/686/
a preliminary ruling in the case of Salomone Haim v.                    EEC (1), may the competent authorities of the host
Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein on the                        Member State make the admission of such person to
following questions:                                                    treat patients affiliated to social security schemes
                                                                        conditional upon his having the knowledge of
                                                                        languages which he needs for the exercise of his
1. If an official of a legally independent public law body              professional activity in the host State?
     of a Member State breaches primary Community law
     when applying national law in the context of an                (1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                       (Third Chamber)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                    of 16 December 1997
in Case T-19/97: Claude Richter v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Leave on personal grounds Ð Reinstatement
Ð Place of employment Ð Duty to have regard to the
 welfare of officials Ð Principle of sound administration)
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         (98/C 41/34)
                                                                                of 17 December 1997
                (Language of the case: French)                      in Case T-121/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers
                                                                     Association (EFMA) v. Council of the European Union (1)
In Case T-19/97: Claude Richter, an official of the                  (Anti-dumping duties Ð Injury Ð Right to a fair hearing)
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                                (98/C 41/35)
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Julian Currall) Ð
application for compensation for the harm which the
applicant considered to have suffered as a result of the            In Case T-121/95: European Fertilizer Manufacturers
fact that the Commission did not reinstate him, at the end          Association (EFMA), established in Zurich (Switzerland),
of his leave on personal grounds, to the first vacant post          represented initially by Dominique Voillemot and Hubert
in his category and grade, in respect of which he was in            de Broca and subsequently by Dominique Voillemot and
possession of the requisite abilities Ð the Court of First          Olivier Prost, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11
C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave       Rue Goethe v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
a judgment on 16 December 1997, the operative part of               Yves CreÂtien, Antonio Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen
which is as follows:                                                Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities (Agent: Nicholas Khan) Ð
                                                                    application for annulment of Article 1 of Council
1. The application is dismissed.                                    Regulation (EC) No 477/95 of 16 January 1995 amending
 ---pagebreak--- C 41/18               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   7.2.98
the definitive anti-dumping measures applying to imports           of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,
into the Community of urea originating in the former               Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
USSR and terminating the anti-dumping measures                     given a judgment on 17 December 1997, in which it:
applying to imports into the Community of urea
originating in the former Czechoslovakia (OJ L 49,
4.3.1995, p. 1) Ð the Court of First Instance of the               1. dismisses the action;
European Communities (Fourth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
Lindh, J. Azizi, J. D. Cooke and M. Jaeger, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given      2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
a judgment on 17 December 1997 in which it:
                                                                   (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
1. dismisses the application;
2. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay
     the costs of the Council;                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 December 1997
3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                    in Case T-216/95: Ana María Moles García OrtuÂzar v.
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995.                                           (Officials Ð Internal competition for advancement from
                                                                   category C to category B Ð Decision of the selection
                                                                   board failing candidates at the oral test Ð Scope of the
                                                                   obligation to state reasons Ð Assessment by the selection
                                                                                board)
                                                                                (98/C 41/37)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     of 17 December 1997
in Case T-166/95: Mary Karagiozopoulou v. Commission
                                                                   In Case T-216/95: Ana María Moles García OrtuÂzar, an
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   official of the Commission of the European Communities,
(Officials Ð Internal competition for appointing category          residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of
C staff to category B Ð Decision of the selection board            the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
listing candidates who failed the oral test Ð Principle of         at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v.
equality of treatment Ð Assessment by the selection                Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                            board)                                 Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð
                                                                   application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
                         (98/C 41/36)                              selection board in internal competition COM/B/9/93 not
                                                                   to enter the applicant's name on the list of suitable
                                                                   candidates and, second, for annulment of the notice of
                                                                   that competition Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                (Language of the case: French)                     Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P.
                                                                   Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
                                                                   for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December
                                                                   1997, in which it:
In Case T-166/95: Mary Karagiozopoulou, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Ariane Tornel and Thierry
Demaseure, and, in the oral procedure, by Jean-NoeÈl               1. dismisses the action;
Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European                     2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application
for annulment of the decision of the selection board in
internal competition COM/B/9/93 awarding the applicant             (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
a lower mark for the oral test than the minimum required
and excluding her from the list of successful candidates Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed


title: Case T-97/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Gnemmi and Aguiar v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development review — 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Gnemmi and Aguiar v Commission
   (Case T-97/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Reports procedure - Career development review - 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   (2007/C 170/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Laura Gnemmi (Hünsdorf, Luxembourg) and Eugénia Aguiar (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, and subsequently by F. Frabetti alone)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicants and, alternatively, the applicants' career development reviews for that exercise.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis.

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-136/11: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (pelican) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark pelikan — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the applicant — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (pelican)
   (Case T-136/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark pelikan - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the applicant - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 38/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: pelicantravel.com s.r.o. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Chlipala, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hanover, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 December 2010 (Case R 1428/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between pelicantravel.com s.r.o. and Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders pelicantravel.com s.r.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 139, 7.5.2011.


title: Case T-187/00: Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Gödecke AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
21.10.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 302/25
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 14 July 2000 by Gödecke AG against
                                                                              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                          of 17 May 2000                                                           (Case T-187/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/63)
in Case T-203/98: Yannis Tzikis v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(Officials — Disciplinary procedure — Removal from post
                                                                          European Communities on 14 July 2000 by Gödecke AG,
— Statement of reasons — Actual facts — Manifest error
                                                                          of Freiburg (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by
                            of assessment)
                                                                          Dr Wolfgang Schmid, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Bappert, Witz
                                                                          & Selbherr, Freiburg. A further party to the proceedings before
                                                                          the Board of Appeal was Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
                          (2000/C 302/62)                                 Limited, Jerusalem, Israel.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)                        (1) annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                defendant of 15 May 2000 in the proceedings registered
                                                                                under No R 501/1999-1;
In Case T-203/98: Yannis Tzikis, an official of the Commission            (2) on the basis of the restoration of the decision of the
of the European Communities, residing at Boortmeerbeek                          Opposition Division of the defendant of 21 June 1999
(Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the                   (Decision No 387/1999), uphold the opposition entered
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      against the application for registration of Community
the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck,                     trade mark No 115 477 ‘ACAMOL’ and refuse regis-
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Val-                       tration in respect of that application.
sesia and J. Currall) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of 27 October 1998 by which the appointing                   Pleas in law and main arguments
authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure
of removal from post without withdrawal or reduction of                   Applicant for the Com-         Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
entitlement to a retirement pension and, second, for compen-              munity trade mark:             Limited
sation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and                The Community trade            Verbal mark ‘ACAMOL’ — appli-
P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Regis-             mark concerned:                cation No 115 477, relating to
trar, has given a judgment on 17 May 2000, in which it:                                                  goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
                                                                                products)
                                                                          Proprietor of the right to     The applicant
1.    Annuls the appointing authority’s decision of 27 October            the trade mark or sign
      1998 imposing on the applicant the disciplinary measure of          asserted by way of oppo-
      removal from post without withdrawal or reduction of                sition in the opposition
      entitlement to a retirement pension;                                proceedings:
                                                                          Trade mark or sign             Registered German trade mark
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                              asserted by way of oppo-       ‘AGAROL’, relating to goods in
                                                                          sition in the opposition       Class 2 (laxatives)
                                                                          proceedings:
3.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.                         Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Appeal:                        Opposition Division and rejection
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                                of the opposition
                                                                          Grounds of claim:              Incorrect       application     of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 10 July 1997 in Case C-373/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Venice): Federica Maso and Others, Graziano Gazzetta and Others v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS), Italian Republic (Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Liability of the guarantee institutions limited - Liability of a Member State arising from belated transposition of a directive - Adequate reparation)

text:
C 295/2               I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27. 9 . 97
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        of the fact that they were unable to benefit at the
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    appropriate time from the financial advantages
                                                                             guaranteed by the Directive with the result that such
                          of 10 July 1997                                    loss must also be made good.
in Case C-373/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretura Circondariale, Venice): Federica Maso and                   2 . The 'onset of the employer's insolvency ', referred to in
Others, Graziano Gazzetta and Others v. Istituto                             Articles 3 (2) and 4 (2) of Directive 80/987/EEC,
Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS ), Italian                          corresponds to the date of the request that proceedings
                              Republic ( 1 )                                 to satisfy collectively the claims of creditors be
                                                                             opened, since the guarantee cannot be provided prior
(Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of                     to a decision to open such proceedings or to a finding
the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC                      that the business has been definitively closed down
— Liability of the guarantee institutions limited —                          where the assets are insufficient.
Liability of a Member State arising from belated
     transposition of a directive — Adequate reparation)
                                                                        3 . Articles 4 (3) and 10 of Directive 80/987 must be
                            ( 97/C 295/02 )
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not
                                                                             prohibit the aggregation of amounts guaranteed by the
                                                                             Directive with an allowance such as the indennita di
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             mobilita (job-seeker's allowance), provided for in
                                                                             Articles 4 and 16 of Law No 223 of 23 July 1991 ,
                                                                             which is aimed at meeting the needs of an employee
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              who has been dismissed during the three months
           published in the European Court Reports)                          following termination of the employment relationship.
In Case C-3 73/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177            4 . The phrase 'the last three months of the contract of
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale ( District                   employment or employment relationship ' used in
Magistrate's Court), Venice ( Italy), for a preliminary                      Article 4 (2) of Directive 80/987/EEC must be
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                          interpreted as meaning three rolling months.
between Federica Maso and Others, Graziano Gazzetta
and Others and Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale              (') OJ C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
( INPS ), Italian Republic — on the interpretation of
Articles 2, 3 ( 2 ), 4 (2 ) and ( 3 ) and 10 of Council Directive
80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the protection
of employees in the event of the insolvency of their
employer ( OJ L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p. 23 ) and of the
principle of State liability for loss or damage caused to                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
individuals by a breach of Community law attributable to                                          ( Sixth Chamber)
the State — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon,                                           of 17 July 1997
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                  in Case C-90/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                        the Østre Landsret ): Haahr Petroleum Ltd v. Åbenrå
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on               Havn, Ålborg Havn, Horsens Havn, Kastrup Havn NKE
 10 July 1997, in which it has ruled :                                  A/S, Næstved Havn, Odense Havn, Struer Havn, Vejle
                                                                                Havn, also represented: Trafikministeriet (')
 1 . In making good the loss or damage sustained by                       (Maritime transport — Goods duty — Import surcharge)
      employees as a result of the belated transposition of                                           ( 97/C 295/03 )
      Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on
      the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      relating to the protection of employees in the event of                            (Language of the case: Danish)
      the insolvency of their employer, a Member State is
      entitled to apply retroactively to such employees
      belatedly adopted implementing measures, including                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
      rules against aggregation or other limitations on the                       published in the European Court Reports)
      liability of the guarantee institution, provided that the
      Directive has been properly transposed. However, it is
      for the national court to ensure that reparation of the           In Case C-90/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
      loss or damage sustained by the beneficiaries is                  of the EC Treaty from the 0stre Landsret ( Denmark ) for a
      adequate. Retroactive and proper application in full of           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      the measures implementing the Directive will suffice              court between Haahr Petroleum Ltd and Abenra Havn,
      for that purpose unless the beneficiaries establish the           Alborg Havn, Horsens Havn, Kastrup Havn NKE A/S,
      existence of complementary loss sustained on account              Nasstved Havn, Odense Havn, Struer Havn, Vejle Havn,


title: Removal from the register of C-58/96

text:
27 . 9 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 295/25
               and if the latter, what amount or degree                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
               of contribution amounts to a 'significant                   Genova by order of 29 July 1997 in the case of Industrie
               contribution' for these purposes; or                        Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — Uhi 1ALIA;
       ( ii ) only where the discharge of nitrogen compounds               (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
               from agricultural sources itself accounts for a                                 (3 ) Ministero della Difesa
               concentration of nitrates in those waters in excess                                   ( Case C-295/97)
               of 50 mg/1 ( i.e. leaving out of account any
               contribution from other sources); or                                                      97/C 295/44 )
       ( iii ) on some other basis and, if so, what basis ?                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of 29 July 1997 from the
2. If Question 1 is answered otherwise than in sense ( ii )                Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa), Sixth Civil
       above, is the Nitrates Directive invalid (to the extent             Chamber, which was received at the Court Registry on
       of its application to surface freshwaters ) on the                  11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       grounds that it infringes:                                          Industrie Aeronautiche e Meccaniche Rinaldo Piaggio v.
                                                                           ( 1 ) International Factors Italia SpA — IFITALIA;
                                                                           (2 ) Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH (Wessling — Germany); and
       (i)     the principle that the polluter should pay; and/or          ( 3 ) Ministero della Difesa on the following questions:
       ( ii ) the principle of proportionality; and/or
                                                                           1 . Can a national court request the Court of Justice of
                                                                                the European Communities to rule directly on whether
       (iii ) the fundamental property rights of those owning                    a legislative provision of a Member State is compatible
               and/or farming land draining into surface
                                                                                with the provisions of Article 92 of the Treaty ( State
               freshwaters required to be identified under                       aid)?
               Article 3 ( 1 ), being areas of land which are then
               designated by Member States as vulnerable zones
               under Article 3 ( 2 )?                                      2 . If the answer is in the affirmative: can it be argued
                                                                                that, by Law No 26 of 3 April 1979 establishing
(•) OJ L 375 , 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                           a special administration procedure for large
( 2 ) Council Directive of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality                   undertakings in a state of crisis, and in particular by
      required of surface water intended for the abstraction of                  the provisions of that Law set out in the grounds of
      drinking water in the Member States ( OJ L 194, 25 . 7. 1995,              the present order, the Italian State has granted to such
      p. 26 ).                                                                   undertakings as are covered by that Law (that is to
                                                                                say, large undertakings ) aid contrary to Article 92 of
                                                                                the Treaty ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Munster by order of that court of 28 July 1997 in the case
of Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt Dortmund                                   Removal from the register of C-407/95 (*)
                                     Unna
                                                                                97/C 295/45 )
                              ( Case C-294/97
                                ( 97/C 295/43 )                             By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                            removal from the register of Case C-407/95: Kingdom of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht                       supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
 (Finance Court), Munster (Ninth Chamber), of 28 July                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
 11 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    O OJ C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .
Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v. Finanzamt (Tax Office),
Dortmund-Unna, on the following question:
 Are the 'add-back' provisions in the second sentence of
 paragraph 8 ( 7) and the second sentence of paragraph 12
 (2 ) (2 ) of the Gewerbesteuergesetz ( Business Tax Law)                              Removal from the register of C-58/96 (')
 compatible with the principle of freedom to provide
 services under Article 59 of the Treaty on European Union                                              ( 97/C 295/46 )
 of 7 February 1992 ?
                                                                            By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 ---pagebreak--- C 295/26                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
removal from the register of Case C-58/96 : Kingdom of                           Removal from the register of C-330/96 (')
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,                                                  ( 97/C 295/50 )
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
                                                                        By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
(') OJ C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-330/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
         Removal from the register of C-2 17/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/47)
By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of                            Removal from the register of C-331/96 (')
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-2 17/96 : Kingdom of                                            ( 97/C 295/51 )
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities ,
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                                    By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
H OJ C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                             removal from the register of Case C-331/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-3 96/95 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/48 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-281/94 ( 1 )
By order of 19 June 1997 the President of the Court of                                               ( 97/C 295/52 )
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-396/95 : Federal
Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European                       By order of 26 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Communities, supported by French Republic and United                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                         removal from the register of Case C-281/94: Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
 w OJ C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                         H OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
          Removal from the register of C-l 84/95 (')
                             ( 97/C 295/49 )                                       Removal from the register of C-97/97 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/53 )
 By order of 24 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 removal from the register of Case C-l 84/95 ( reference for             By order of 1 July 1997 the President of the Court of
 a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado do lo Social No 2,               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 Santiago do Compostela ): Mercedes Lores Guillfn v. Insti              removal from the register of Case C-97/97 ( reference for a
 tute Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la                    preliminary ruling from the Retten i Arhus ): Elly Bach v.
 Seguridad Social .                                                      Arhus Amtskommune.
 (') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .                                            (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.