ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/51

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — WeserWind v Commission

(Case T-173/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte (Bremerhaven, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and A. Steinarsdóttir, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

3. WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

4. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 245/24

Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Walter Klein v Commission

(Case T-297/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 245/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Walter Klein GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

3. Walter Klein GmbH & Co. KG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

4. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 311/45

Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)

(Case T-552/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Extra - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2015/C 311/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 199/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 294/60

Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Steinbeis Papier v Commission

(Case T-237/14) (1)

((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))

(2015/C 294/72)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Steinbeis Papier GmbH (Glückstadt, Germany) (represented by: H. Janssen and G.-R. Engel, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

Re:

Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

Operative part of the order

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

2. There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

3. Steinbeis Papier GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

4. The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/61

Order of the General Court of 2 September 2015 — Airport Handling v Commission

(Case T-688/14) (1)

(2015/C 381/85)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 320/51

Order of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Parliament

(Case T-733/14) (1)

(2015/C 320/70)

Language of the case: Greek

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

(1) OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/34

Order of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS)

(Case T-666/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Period for bringing an action - Point from which time starts to run - Notification of the Board of Appeal’s decision by fax machine - Receipt of the fax - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2015/C 381/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2013 (Case R 1530/2013-1) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GREEN BEANS as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. Monster Energy Company shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 381/60

Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

(Case T-600/14) (1)

(2015/C 381/81)

Language of the case: French

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

(1) OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 27/55

Order of the General Court of 13 November 2015 — Švyturys-Utenos Alus v OHIM — Nordbrand Nordhausen (KISS)

(Case T-360/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 027/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB (Utena, Lithuania) (represented by: R. Žabolienė and I. Lukauskienė, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH (Nordhausen, Germany) (represented by: C. Düchs, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2014 (Case R 1302/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH and Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB.

Operative part of the order

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

2. Švyturys-Utenos Alus UAB and Nordbrand Nordhausen GmbH shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

(1) OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 389/59

Order of the General Court of 6 October 2015 — GEA Group v OHIM (engineering for a better world)

(Case T-545/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark engineering for a better world - Merely confirmatory decision - Finality of the confirmed decision - Finding of the Court of its own motion - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 389/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2014 (Case R 303/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘engineering for a better world’ as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. GEA Group AG shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 98/60

Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

(Case T-400/14) (1)

(2016/C 098/76)

Language of the case: English

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

(1) OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 38/57

Order of the General Court of 30 November 2015 — August Brötje v OHIM (HydroComfort)

(Case T-845/14) (1)

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark HydroComfort - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 038/76)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: August Brötje GmbH (Rastede, Germany) (represented by: S. Pietzcker and C. Spintig, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: W. Schramek, D. Walicka and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 (Case R 1302/2014-5), concerning an application for registration of the word sign HydroComfort as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed.

2. August Brötje GmbH shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/33

Order of the General Court of 1 December 2016 — Europower v Commission

(Case T-383/14) (1)

((Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Construction of a gas-turbine tri-generation power plant and associated maintenance - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Withdrawal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 022/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Europower SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: G. Cocco and L. Salomoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: L. Cappelletti, F. Moro and L. Di Paolo, and subsequently by L. Di Paolo and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: CPL Concordia Soc. coop. (Concordia Sulla Secchia, Italy) (represented by: A. Penta, lawyer)

Re:

Action, first, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of the Commission decision of 3 April 2014 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the context of the call for tenders JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC, concerning the construction of a gas-turbine tri-generation power plant and associated maintenance (OJ 2013/S 137-237146) on the site of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at Ispra (Italy), of the Commission decision awarding the contract to CPL Concordia, of any other related prior or subsequent act including the actual decision approving the contract and the contract itself, and of the Commission decision refusing to disclose to the applicant the documents in the call for tenders and, secondly, on the basis of Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

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

2. The form of order sought by CPL Concordia Soc. coop. seeking dismissal of the application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

3. The European Commission shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Europower SpA, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

4. CPL Concordia shall bear its own costs, relating both to the present proceedings and to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 287/22

Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union

(Case T-409/14) (1)

((Action for damages - Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 287/27)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Placco, then J. Inghelram, P. Giusta and L. Tonini Alabiso, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the duration of the proceedings in Cases T-236/02, C-59/06 P and C-617/11 P.

Operative part of the order

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

2. Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility giving rise to the order of 9 January 2015 in Marcuccio v European Union (T-409/14, not published, EU:T:2015:18).

3. Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to the remainder.

(1) OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY - DISPUTES WITH THE INSTITUTIONS - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

( TREATY, ARTICLE 42 )

2 . SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY - PERIOD PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS - CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - PRECURSOR OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS - INTERPRETATION

( CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 ).

3 . SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY - PROFESSIONAL ABILITY - ASSESSMENT BY THE ADMINISTRATION - REVIEW BY THE COURT

4 . SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY - ABOLITION OF A POST - POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION - REASSIGNMENT OF THE SERVANT

( TREATY, ARTICLE 31 ).

5 . LIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY - WRONGFUL ACT ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION - INJURY - OBLIGATION TO MAKE GOOD

( TREATY, ARTICLE 40 ).

Summary

1 . THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT IN DISPUTES INVOLVING SERVANTS OF THE COMMUNITY IS BASED ON ARTICLE 42 OF THE TREATY, TOGETHER WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN THE CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF RULES APPLICABLE .

2 . CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT CONCLUDED WITH SERVANTS UNDER THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE CONVENTION ON THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ARE CONTRACTS GOVERNED BY PUBLIC LAW WHICH ARE THE PRECURSORS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND RENDER SERVANTS ELIGIBLE FOR STABILITY OF EMPLOYMENT . THOSE CONTRACTS MUST BE INTERPRETED WITH REGARD TO WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AND TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY IN RESPECT OF ITS SERVANTS .

3 . IT IS NORMALLY THE ADMINISTRATION WHICH ASSESSES THE PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE OF SERVANTS . A FINDING AS TO THE PROFESSIONAL INADEQUACY OF A SERVANT MUST BE REACHED BY MEANS OF A REGULAR PROCEDURE SUCH AS MUST BE FOLLOWED BY ANY ADMINISTRATION .

4 . THE ADMINISTRATION HAS THE POWER TO ORGANIZE ITS SERVICES AS IT WISHES AND IN THE INTERESTS OF THE SERVICE . IT ACTS IN THE FULL EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS WHEN IT ABOLISHES A POST WHICH IT CONSIDERS UNNECESSARY .

THE ABOLITION OF A GIVEN POST CANNOT, ON THAT COUNT ALONE, RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THE SERVANT WHO OCCUPIED IT . RATHER, IT RENDERS THAT SERVANT FREE TO OCCUPY ANOTHER POST .

5 . WHERE, IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE IRREGULAR, A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT IS NOT RENEWED, THIS MAY CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT ON THE PART OF THE ADMINISTRATION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS DUTIES ENTAILING LIABILITY WHICH INVOLVES THE OBLIGATION TO MAKE GOOD THE INJURY CAUSED .
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - LETTER SENT BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY - REGISTERED MAIL - DELIVERY TO EMPLOYEE OF THE ADDRESSEE UNDERTAKING - EFFECTS

2 . PRICES - PUBLICATION - SYSTEM - COMMUNICATION TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY OF PRICE LISTS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE

3 . PRICES - PUBLICATION - SYSTEM - OFFENCES - FINES

4 . PROCEDURE - ACTION IN WHICH THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION - FINE - REDUCTION - POWERS OF THE COURT

Summary

1 . IF, BEFORE IMPOSING A FINE ON AN UNDERTAKING, THE HIGH AUTHORITY GIVES THAT UNDERTAKING, BY WAY OF A REGISTERED LETTER, THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ITS COMMENTS PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY, THE STATEMENT CONTAINED IN THAT LETTER BECOMES FULLY EFFECTIVE AS SOON AS THE POSTAL EMPLOYEE DELIVERS THAT LETTER IN DUE COURSE TO AN EMPLOYEE OF THE UNDERTAKING AT ITS REGISTERED OFFICE, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO BRING THE LETTER WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THAT UNDERTAKING

( TREATY, ARTICLE 36 ).

2 . THE TREATY IS NOT INFRINGED WHEN THE HIGH AUTHORITY DETERMINES THE EXTENT AND MANNER OF PUBLICATION OF PRICE LISTS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF THE TREATY, LAYING DOWN, INTER ALIA, THAT THEY SHALL BE COMMUNICATED TO IT, ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( A ) MUST BE VIEWED IN THIS CONNEXION AS A SPECIAL PROVISION IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 47

( TREATY, ARTICLES 47 AND 60 ).

3 . ARTICLE 64 ALSO COVERS OFFENCES AGAINST DECISIONS OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY REGULATING PUBLICATION OF PRICES AND CONDITIONS OF SALE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 60 ( 2 ) ( A )

TREATY, ARTICLES 60 ( 2 ) ( A ) AND 64 .

4 . IF A DECISION OF THE HIGH AUTHORITY IMPOSING A FINE IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN ACTION, THE COURT IS EMPOWERED NOT ONLY TO ANNUL BUT ALSO TO AMEND THE DECISION TAKEN, BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF AN EXCESSIVE FINE, SINCE THIS IS AN ACTION IN WHICH THE COURT HAS UNLIMITED JURISDICTION . IT HAS THIS POWER EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF FORMAL CONCLUSIONS TO THAT EFFECT .

( TREATY, ARTICLE 36 ).
Keywords

Summary



Keywords

++++

1 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION - CONTENT - OBLIGATIONS OF THE APPLICANT

( PROTOCOL ON THE STATUTE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE ECSC, ARTICLE 22; RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, ARTICLE 38 ( 1 )).

2 . PROCEDURE - APPLICATION - CONCLUSION - AMENDMENT - REQUIREMENTS OF FORM

3 . WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION - CERTIFICATES DRAWN UP BY A NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION RECOGNIZED AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF A NATIONAL OFFICIAL IN THE DRAWING UP OF SUCH CERTIFICATES - ABSENCE OF SUPERVISION BY THE COMMUNITY

Summary

1 . THE APPLICANT MUST SET OUT THE PRECISE FACTS RELIED ON IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND MUST PRESENT HIS CONCLUSIONS IN AN UNEQUIVOCAL MANNER .

2 . CF . SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 33/59, N . 1 .

AN AMENDMENT OF THE CONCLUSIONS, EVEN IF ADMISSIBLE, IS SUBJECT TO THE STRICTEST REQUIREMENTS AS REGARDS ITS PRECISION AND CONTENT AND MUST BE DONE IN A FORMAL MANNER .

*/ EN.659J0033 /*.

3 . SEE SUMMARY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE 23/59 REC . 1959, P . 245 .

( A ) IF, AT THE TIME WHEN CERTIFICATES OF ORIGIN, RECOGNIZED BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, ARE DRAWN UP, A WRONGFUL ACT IS COMMITTED BY A NATIONAL OFFICIAL WHO ACTS NEITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDERS GIVEN BY THE HIGH AUTHORITY NOR ON BEHALF OF OR IN THE NAME OF THAT INSTITUTION BUT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF PURELY NATIONAL DUTIES, THE WRONGFUL ACT CANNOT BE IMPUTED TO THE HIGH AUTHORITY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A PERSONAL WRONG FOR WHICH THE LATTER IS LIABLE .

( B ) IF, INSTEAD OF MAKING ITSELF RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAWING UP THE CERTIFICATES, THE HIGH AUTHORITY LEAVES THIS TASK TO THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY, THERE IS NO DEFECTIVE ORGANIZATION AND, CONSEQUENTLY, NO WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 40 OF THE ECSC TREATY WHEN THE TASK IS ENTRUSTED TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY, SUCH AS A MINISTRY, WHICH APPEARS TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND THE MOST LIKELY TO AFFORD THE BEST GUARANTEE AGAINST ANY ABUSE AND WHEN THE NATIONAL REGULATIONS PROVIDE FOR AN EXTREMELY DETAILED PROCEDURE BEFORE THE SAID CERTIFICATES ARE DRAWN UP .

( C ) NOR, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, DOES THE FACT THAT THE HIGH AUTHORITY REFRAINS FROM CHECKING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CERTIFICATES CONSTITUTE A WRONGFUL ACT OR OMISSION SO LONG AS THERE WAS NO INDICATION TO SUGGEST THE EXISTENCE OF AN ABUSE . ( ECSC TREATY, ARTICLE 40 .)

*/ EN.659J0023 /*.