8/13/2019 c_03820130209en00220023

1/2

4. The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 316, 4.11.2000.

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 Bauerv Commission

(Case T-253/00)( 1)

(Action for annulment State aid Reductions in socialsecurity contributions for undertakings in Venice andChioggia Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatiblewith the common market and imposing the recovery of the aidpaid Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part

manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2013/C 38/38)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Bauer SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. M.Roberti, F. Sciaudone and A. Bortoluzzi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci,Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicant: The Italian Republic (repre-sented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then byR. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aielloand P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in

Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social securitycontributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995(OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the EuropeanCommission is joined to the substance of the case.

2. The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissibleand in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. Bauer SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay thoseincurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca

and Others v Commission

(Case T-260/00)( 1)

(Action for annulment State aid Reductions in socialsecurity contributions for undertakings in Venice andChioggia Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatiblewith the common market and imposing the recovery of the aidpaid Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part

manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2013/C 38/39)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della PiccolaPesca Burano Soc. coop. rl (Venice, Italy); CooperativaCoopesca Organizzazione tra Produttori e Lavoratori dellaPesca Chioggia Soc. coop. rl (Chioggia, Italy); Cooperativa trai Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc. coop. rl(Venice); Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc.coop. rl (Venice); Murazzo Piccola Societ Cooperativa rl

(Chioggia); RAM Societ Cooperativa fra Lavoratori dellaPesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatori di Molluschi (Chioggia); Conf-cooperative Unione Provinciale di Venezia (Mestre, Italy); andComitato Venezia Vuole Vivere (Marghera, Italy) (represented

by: A. Vianello, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci,Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervening party in support of the applicants: The Italian Republic(represented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then byR. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aiello andP. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms inVenice and Chioggia by way of relief from social securitycontributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995(OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European

Commission is joined to the substance of the case.

2. The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissibleand in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

ENC 38/22 Official Journal of the European Union 9.2.2013

8/13/2019 c_03820130209en00220023

2/2

3. Cooperativa San Marco fra Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca Burano Soc. coop. rl, Cooperativa Coopesca Organizzazionetra Produttori e Lavoratori della Pesca Chioggia Soc. coop. rl,Cooperativa tra i Lavoratori della Piccola Pesca di Pellestrina Soc.coop. rl, Cooperativa Pescatori di San Pietro in Volta Soc. coop. rl,Murazzo Piccola Societ Cooperativa rl, RAM Societ

Cooperativa fra Lavoratori della Pesca, Raccoglitori ed Allevatoridi Molluschi, Confcooperative Unione Provinciale di Venezia etComitato Venezia Vuole Vivere are ordered to bear their owncosts and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 Sacaim and Others v Commission

(Case T-261/00)( 1)

(Action for annulment State aid Reductions in socialsecurity contributions for undertakings in Venice andChioggia Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatiblewith the common market and imposing the recovery of the aidpaid Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part

manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2013/C 38/40)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Sacaim SpA (Venice, Italy); Alfier Costruzioni Srl(Venice); Azin Asfalti Srl (Venice); Barbato Srl (Venice);Camata Costruzioni Sas (Venice); Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl(Venice); Impresa Costruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM)(Marghera, Italy); Rossi Renzo Costruzioni Srl (Marcon, Italy);Vettore Costruzioni Srl (Venice); ACEA Associazione deiCostruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia (Venice); andComitato Venezia vuole vivere (Marghera) (represented by: A.Vianello, M. Merola, A. Sodano and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci,Agent, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: The Italian Republic (repre-sented: initially by U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then byR. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, and by G. Aielloand P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms inVenice and Chioggia by way of relief from social securitycontributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995(OJ 2000, L 150, p. 50).

Operative part of the order

1. The objection of inadmissibility raised by the EuropeanCommission is joined to the substance of the case.

2. The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissibleand in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

3. Sacaim SpA, Alfier Costruzioni Srl, Azin Asfalti Srl, Barbato Srl,Camata Costruzioni Sas, Dal Carlo Mario & C. Srl, ImpresaCostruzioni Civili e Montaggi Srl (ICCEM), Rossi RenzoCostruzioni Srl, Vettore Costruzioni Srl, ACEA Associazionedei Costruttori Edili ed Affini di Venezia e Provincia and ComitatoVenezia vuole vivere are ordered to bear their own costs and topay those incurred by the Commission.

4. The Italian Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2012 Dectane v OHIM Hella (DAYLINE)

(Case T-463/11)( 1)

(Community trade mark Opposition Withdrawal of

opposition No need to adjudicate)

(2013/C 38/41)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Dectane GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by:P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by K. Klpfel,then by K. Klpfel and D. Botis, agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM,intervening before the General Court: Hella KGaA Hueck & Co.(Lippstadt, Germany) (represented by: R. Schnekenbhl, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appealof OHIM of 15 June 2011 (Case R 1231/2010-1) relating toopposition proceedings between Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. andDectane GmbH.

Operative part of the order

1. There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

EN9.2.2013 Official Journal of the European Union C 38/23