title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2000 in Case T-49/97: TAT European Airlines SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Air transport — Authorisation of aid payable in three tranches — Action brought against the decision authorising payment of the third tranche — Adoption of a fresh decision authorising the aid in implementation of an annulling judgment — No need to adjudicate — Conditions)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/25
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 November 1999
                        of 27 January 2000
                                                                          in Case T-253/97: Kurt Giegerich v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-49/97: TAT European Airlines SA v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                            (Officials — Refusal to promote — Action for annulment
                                                                               and claim for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
(State aid — Air transport — Authorisation of aid payable                                          (2000/C 79/55)
in three tranches — Action brought against the decision
authorising payment of the third tranche — Adoption of a
fresh decision authorising the aid in implementation of an                                  (Language of the case: German)
annulling judgment — No need to adjudicate — Conditions)
                                                                          In Case T-253/97: Kurt Giegerich, former official of the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                           (2000/C 79/54)                                 Osmate (Italy), represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef
                                                                          Rüber and Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
                                                                          Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of
                    (Language of the case: French)                        the European Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser
                                                                          and Bertrand Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Commission of 18 October 1996 expressly
In Case T-49/97: TAT European Airlines SA, established at                 rejecting the applicant’s application for promotion and his
Tours (France), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor,                claim for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Robbert Snelders, of the Brussels Bar, and Stephanie Hallouët,            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich,               26 November 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Nicholas Kahn and Ami Barav), supported by the                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Frédérik
Million) and Compagnie Nationale Air France, established in               2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Paris, represented by Olivier d’Ormesson and Anne Wachs-
man, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxem-              (1) OJ 1998 C 55.
bourg at the Chambers of Katia Manhaeve, 58 Rue Charles
Martel — application for the annulment of the Commission
Decision of 27 July 1996 authorising the payment of the third
tranche of the restructuring aid to Air France (OJ 1996 C 374,
p. 9) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President of the Chamb-
er, J. Azizi, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 January 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 24 November 1999
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.                          in Case T-109/98: A.V.M. v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
2. The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                          (Officials — Time-limits for bringing proceedings — Effect
    third of the costs incurred by the applicant. The latter is ordered
                                                                                of an application for legal aid — Inadmissibility)
    to bear two thirds of its own costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 79/56)
3. Each intervener is ordered to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.                                                In Case T-109/98: A.V.M., an official of the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented
                                                                          by Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Esch-sur-Alzette at the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 rue du
                                                                          Fossé, against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agent: Julian Currall) — application for annulment of the


title: Case T-66/14: Action brought on 24 January 2014 — Bredenkamp and others v Council and Commission

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/47

         Action brought on 24 January 2014 — Bredenkamp and others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-66/14)
   2014/C 112/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: John Arnold Bredenkamp (Harare, Zimbabwe); Echo Delta (Holdings) PCC Ltd (Castletown, Ile de Man); Scottlee Holdings (Private) Ltd (Harare); and Fodya (Private) Ltd (Harare) (represented by: P. Moser, QC (Queen's Counsel) and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission and Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Adopt a measure of organisation of procedure to order the defendants to produce all information or evidence, which may be in the possession of those institutions concerning the listing of the applicants;

               —

               Order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the applicants damages for non-material and material losses suffered due to the unlawful imposition of EU sanctions on the applicants by adding (and then maintaining until 2012) the applicants’ names in the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 by, respectively: Council Common Position 2009/68/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EC) No 77/2009; Council Decision 2010/92/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2010, and Council Decision 2011/101/CFSP and Commission Regulation (EU) No 174/2011;

               —

               Order that compound interest at the rate of Euribor + 2 % (or such other interest rate as may be ordered) is to be paid on the amount payable from the defendants to the applicants as from the date of the judgment;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the acts in question lacked any proper legal basis, being promulgated on the basis of Articles 60 and 301 EC only, which concern exclusively provisions vis-à-vis third countries, not private individuals and companies.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the acts in question disclosed manifest errors of fact in failing to show any strong ties to the Government of Zimbabwe or financial or other support for the regime, thereby failing to satisfy the defendants’ burden of proof and resulting in an unlawful decision making process.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the acts in question violated essential procedural requirements by failing to give any or sufficient reasons, and failing to give the applicants the opportunity to be heard or make exculpatory submissions.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the acts in question violated fundamental principles of EU law as also enshrined in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), by unlawfully restricting the Applicants’ rights to their own property.


title: Case C-446/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 8(1)(a) — Determination of the place of supply of goods — Supplier established in a Member State other than the Member State in which the person to whom the goods are supplied is established — Processing of the goods in the Member State where the person to whom the goods are supplied is established)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Société Fonderie 2A v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances
   (Case C-446/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 8(1)(a) - Determination of the place of supply of goods - Supplier established in a Member State other than the Member State in which the person to whom the goods are supplied is established - Processing of the goods in the Member State where the person to whom the goods are supplied is established))
   2014/C 421/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Fonderie 2A

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the place of supply of goods sold by a company established in a Member State to a person established in another Member State, and on which the vendor, to make them fit to be supplied, has had finishing work carried out by a service provider established in that other Member State, before having them dispatched by the service provider to the person to whom they are being supplied, must be deemed to be in the Member State where the latter is established.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case T-186/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2009 — LPN v Commission (Action for annulment and damages — Environment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Decision to take no further action on a complaint — Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Manifest inadmissibility — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/64

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2009 — LPN v Commission
   (Case T-186/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment and damages - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Decision to take no further action on a complaint - Failure to bring an action for failure to fulfil obligations - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Manifest inadmissibility - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 267/116
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, T. Moreira and A. de Oliveira Mendonça, Agents, and by D. Abecasis and A. Marques, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of (i) the decision of the Commission of 28 February 2008, as referred to in the Commission’s letter of 3 April 2008, addressed to the applicant under reference ENV.A.2/MAS/mm/D (2008) 5542, by which the Commission declared its intention to take no further action on the applicant’s complaint regarding the alleged incompatibility of construction of a dam on the River Sabor (Portugal) with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) (complaint No 2003/4523 — ‘Baixa Sabor’ dam project) and (ii) an alleged implied decision of the Commission refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents, and an application for compensation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in so far as it seeks the annulment of an alleged implied decision refusing access to documents under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents;

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissibly;

               3.

               The Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities;

               4.

               The Portuguese Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-432/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 18 September 2007 — Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 18 September 2007 — Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz v Air France SA
   (Case C-432/07)
   (2007/C 283/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Handelsgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stefan Böck and Cornelia Lepuschitz

      Defendant: Air France SA
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 5, read in conjunction with Articles 2(l) and 6, of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), be interpreted as meaning that a 22-hour delay in the time of departure constitutes a ‘delay’ within the meaning of Article 6?

               2.

               Must Article 2(l) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that instances in which passengers are transported significantly later (22 hours later) on a flight operating under a longer flight number (original flight number supplemented by an ‘A’) and carrying only an — albeit large — proportion of the passengers booked on the initial flight, but also additional passengers not booked on the initial flight, constitute ‘cancellations’ rather than ‘delays’?
               If Question 2 is to be answered in the affirmative:

               3.

               Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 be interpreted as meaning that technical problems with a plane and the resulting changes to the flight schedule represent extraordinary circumstances (which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken)?

      (1)  OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Günzler Aluminium GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-75/95)

text:
No C 137/28          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Euroc AB against                 2 . order the Commission to make a fresh decision, taking
       the Commission of the European Communities                          into account the legal opinion of the Court, on the
                        ( Case T-71/95 )                                   application by Germany of 2 May 1994 for a decision by
                                                                           the Commission concerning the repayment or remission
                          ( 95/C 137/65 )                                  of import or export duties .
                 (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February
1995 by Euroc AB, represented by Nicholas Forwood Q.C.                 The applicant, a German limited liability company which
and John Cook with an address for service in Luxembourg                markets aluminium and imports it on an occasional basis,
at the chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt,              challenges the Commission Decision of 14 November 1994
BP39, L-2101 Luxembourg.                                               refusing remission of duty on the importation of aluminium
                                                                       from Yugoslavia.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission Decision of 20 November                         Im May and June 1990, the applicant imported certain
     1994 ( J ) wholly or alternatively in part in so far as it        quantities of aluminium, having agreed with the Yugoslav
     relates to the applicant,                                         exporter that the latter would bear all duties that might be
                                                                       levied, and would do so by means of a reduction in the sale
— cancel, or alternatively reduce, the fine imposed by                 price . The competent German customs authority cleared the
     Article 9 , and                                                   aluminium for free circulation without charging duty, and
                                                                       on the basis of that determination, which was neither
                                                                       provisional nor subject to verification, the applicant paid the
— award the cost of the application to the applicant.
                                                                       sale price to the Yugoslav importer without deduction.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       After receiving two demands in May and July 1992 for the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those               back payment of customs duty, the applicant attempted —
raised in case T-70/95 .
                                                                       unsuccessfully, because of the civil war which had just
                                                                       broken out in Yugoslavia — to contact the Yugoslav
(M OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 to 158 .                       exporter . The reason given for the back payment demands
                                                                       was that the aluminium in question had been imported after
                                                                       the exhaustion of a customs quota granted to Yugoslavia
                                                                       and the consequent reintroduction of the Common
                                                                       Customs Tariff.
Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Giinzler Aluminium                   The applicant pleads the existence of 'special circumstances'
GmbH against the Commission of the European                            within the meaning of Article 13 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                           Communities                                 No 1430/79 , arguing that the reason it did not deduct the
                        ( Case T-75/95 )                               amount corresponding to the duties owed was the initial
                                                                       determination by the German customs authorities.
                          ( 95/C 137/66 )
                 (Language of the case: German)                        Moreover, the two demands for payment of back duty were
                                                                       issued, respectively, one year after and two years after the
An action against the Commission of the European                       publication in the Official Journal of the reintroduction of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      the Common Customs Tariff. Since the applicant carried
Instance of the European Communities on 3 March 1995 by                out import transactions on an occasional basis only, it could
Giinzler Aluminium GmbH, of Ostfildern ( Germany),                     not be expected to have greater knowledge and practical
represented by Jiirgen Strauss ( Rechtsanwalt) of Stuttgart            experience than the authorities competent for the area in
( Germany ).                                                           question.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
 1 . annul      Commission      Decision      REM      16/94   of
      14 November 1994 ;


title: Case C-23/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 — Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator — Article 16(1) and (5) — National electronic register of road transport undertakings — Lack of interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/7

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 October 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
      (Case C-23/16) (1)

      ((Failure of a Member State to fulil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 - Common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator - Article 16(1) and (5) - National electronic register of road transport undertakings - Lack of interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States))
      (2016/C 441/09)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux, acting as Agent)

         Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Declares that, by not creating a national electronic register of road transport undertakings and by not establishing the interconnection with the electronic registers of other Member States, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1071/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 21 October 2009, establishing common rules concerning the conditions to be complied with to pursue the occupation of road transport operator and repealing Council Directive 96/26/EC.

                  2)

                  Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case T-577/12: Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — NIOC and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Infra-State body — Standing to bring proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Indication and choice of legal basis — Competence of the Council — Principle of foreseeability of European Union acts — Meaning of associated entity — Manifest error of assessment — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — NIOC and Others v Council
   (Case T-577/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Infra-State body - Standing to bring proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Indication and choice of legal basis - Competence of the Council - Principle of foreseeability of European Union acts - Meaning of associated entity - Manifest error of assessment - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property))
   (2015/C 346/18)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) (Singapore, Singapore); National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs) (London, United Kingdom); Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO) (Tehran, Iran); Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co. (Khouzestan, Iran); Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC) (Tehran); Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO) (Tehran); National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC) (Khouzestan); South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co. (Shiraz, Iran); Maroun Oil & Gas Co. (Ahwaz, Iran); Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC) (Khouzestan); Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co. (Ahmad, Iran); Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC) (Khouzestan); Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC) (Khoramshar, Iran); West Oil & Gas Production Co. (Kermanshah, Iran); East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC) (Mashhad, Iran); Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC) (Tehran); and Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) (Boushehr, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Council (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, an application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as those acts concern the applicants, and secondly, an application for a declaration of the inapplicability to the applicants of Article 20(1)(c) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Decision 2012/635, and of Article 23(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC), National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs), Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO), Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co., Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC), Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO), National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC), South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Maroun Oil & Gas Co., Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC), Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co., Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC), Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC), West Oil & Gas Production Co., East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC), Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC) and Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case T-329/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Sodium Gluconate — Article 81 EC — Fine — Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Leniency Notice — Principle of proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-retroactivity — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — Archer Daniels Midland v Commission
   (Case T-329/01) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Sodium Gluconate - Article 81 EC - Fine - Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Leniency Notice - Principle of proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-retroactivity - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 294/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Archer Daniels Midland Co. (Decatur, Illinois, United States) (represented by: C.O. Lenz, lawyer, L. Martin Alegi, M. Garcia and E. Batchelor, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Whelan, A. Bouquet and W. Wils, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2001) 2931 final of 2 October 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) in so far as it pertains to the applicant, or at least to the extent that it finds the applicant was party to an infringement after 4 October 1994, and for annulment of Article 3 of that decision in so far as it pertains to the applicant or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on it by the decision.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Archer Daniels Midland Co. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 84, 6.4.2002.


title: Case C-151/05: Order of the President of the Court of 7 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Allemagne) — F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 November 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Allemagne) — F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-151/05) (1)

   (2006/C 331/45)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case T-10/13: Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Time limit for action — Admissibility — Plea of illegality — Error of law — Proportionality — Right to property — Competence of the Council — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Review of the restrictive measures adopted — Right to effective judicial protection — Error of assessment)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 April 2015 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council
   (Case T-10/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Time limit for action - Admissibility - Plea of illegality - Error of law - Proportionality - Right to property - Competence of the Council - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Review of the restrictive measures adopted - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 198/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank of Industry and Mine (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Glaser and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment in part of Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58) and, secondly, application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/635, of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), and of the decision communicated by the letter from the Council of 14 March 2014, in so far as it concerns the listing of the applicant’s name in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bank of Industry and Mine to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case T-169/01: Action brought on 24 July 2001 by SAGEM against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.10.2001             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 289/29
Action brought on 23 July 2001 by Lucchini S.p.A. against                       been considered only environmental to be production
       the Commission of the European Communities                               investments and thus applied rules which were not
                                                                                applicable to the contested investments. Once it had
                                                                                established that the investments notified related only to
                         (Case T-166/01)                                        the environment and not to production, the Commission
                                                                                should have made its decision on the basis only of the
                                                                                scheme of rules in Article 3 of the steel aid code which is
                         (2001/C 289/68)                                        applicable in this case and not of the rules which govern
                                                                                the Commission’s monitoring activities in cases in which
                                                                                there are production investments as well as environmen-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                             tal investments.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —    Internal inconsistencies in the reasoning of the Com-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    mission which, while holding the investments notified to
Communities on 23 July 2001 by Lucchini S.p.A., represented                     be merely in production, criticised the Italian authorities
by Giovanni Vezzoli.                                                            for not making any distinction between production costs
                                                                                and environment costs, a distinction which it could make
                                                                                only if the investments were held by the Commission to
                                                                                be environmental.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     as regards its main claim on the substance: annul Article 1          —    Failure to state reasons, in so far as the defendant did not
      of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2000                            furnish any objective account of the reasons why it
      (C(2000) 4368, OJ 2001 L 163 of 20 June 2001), where                      reached the conclusions which led it to consider the aid
      the Commission declared the State aid which Italy was                     notified incompatible with the common market, nor
      planning to implement for Lucchini SpA amounting to                       of the reasons why it considered that the contested
      ITL 13,5 billion (EUR 6,98 million) to be incompatible                    investments related to production installations rather
      with the common market;                                                   than environmental structures.
—     in any event: order the Commission to bear the costs.                —    Differences in the treatment of the applicant and that of
                                                                                other undertakings in certain important points of the
                                                                                reasoning of the Commission relating to aid granted in
                                                                                similar cases.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The contested decision closes a procedure which began with
the formal notification of the Commission by Italy under
Article 3 of the steel aid code of a plan for state aid for
Lucchini SpA for investments for environmental purposes to
be made at its plant in Piombino. In that procedure, the
defendant maintained that the investments notified were
primarily for the purposes of production rather than of
benefit to the environment and were moreover investments                   Action brought on 24 July 2001 by SAGEM against the
necessitated by other production investments for the modern-                       Commission of the European Communities
isation of the plant at Piombino and that, as such, they were
not eligible for State aid programmes.
                                                                                (Case T-169/01)
The applicant relies on the following pleas in support of its
claims:                                                                                (2001/C 289/69)
—     Misuse of powers by reason of misrepresentation of the                                 (Language of the case: English)
      facts in so far as the Commission made a manifest error
      of assessment in evaluating without stating any reasons
      the investments notified, described by the Commission
      itself as being for both production and environmental                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      purposes.                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 24 July 2001 by SAGEM SA,
—     Breach and misapplication of rules of law, in so far as the          having its registered office in Paris, represented by Dominique
      defendant considered investments which should have                   Berlin of Willkie Farr & Gallagher, Paris (France).
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.10.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   —      compared inappropriately the technical perform-
                                                                                ances of the tenders and evaluated them on different
                                                                                financial grounds, and
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to accept the
      SAGEM’s tender submitted for the Eurodac AFIS Central
      Unit;                                                                   —      amended the purpose of the benchmark tests, added
                                                                                a rule to compare the variable costs of the tenders
—     annul the Commission’s decision to award the contract                          and took into account only a few items of the
      for the Eurodac AFIS Central unit to BULL.                                     financial compulsory reply form, although the Ten-
                                                                                dering Specifications provided that all the items
                                                                                were to be taken into account.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —    Manifest error of assessment. It is pointed out in this
                                                                              regard that the Commission assessed the tenders by using
                                                                              different bases. Concerning the benchmark tests, in
                                                                              particular the performance test, the Commission con-
The applicant in the present case, a company incorporated                     cluded that BULL’s solution was faster than the applicant’s
under French law, seeks the annulment of the Commission’s                     whereas none of the tenderers used the same number of
decisions rejecting the tender which it submitted in response                 pieces of equipment. Concerning the financial evaluation,
to invitation to tender no. DG JAI A2/2000/002 concerning                     the Commission used different bases to compare the
the contract for the ‘EURODAC’ Automated Fingerprint identi-                  operational support proposed by the tenders.
fication System (AFIS) Central Unit, and accepting the tender
submitted by BULL.
In support of its claims the applicant puts forward the
following pleas in law:
—     infringement of the duty to state the reasons on which
      challenged decisions are based. It alleges in this respect
      that the Commission                                                Action brought on 24 July 2001 by Vieira Argentina SA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
      —     did not establish whether the qualifying criteria had
            been fulfilled;
                                                                                (Case T-170/01)
      —     did not provide the detailed marks corresponding to
            the weighting of each technical criterion;                                            (2001/C 289/70)
      —     provided very partial results of the benchmark tests;                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
      —     could not allege protection of business secrets, and
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      —     provided unclear and equivocal explanations, as              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
            regards both the selected tenderer’s identity and the        European Communities on 24 July 2001 by Vieira Argentina
            question relating to high matching accuracy.                 SA, a company with registered offices in Buenos Aires,
                                                                         represented by D. Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
                                                                         Domı́nguez Pérez, Lawyers.
—     infringement of principles of equal treatment and of
      transparency, in as much as the Commission:
      —     gave the tenderers very different information relating       The applicant claims that the Court should:
            to the same technical requirements of the EURO-
            DAC AFIS Central Unit;
                                                                         —    declare that, by failing to define its position within a
                                                                              period of two months from the date when notice was
      —     amended the technical criterion relating to high                  given, being 18 May 2001, the Commission failed to
            matching accuracy during the evaluation procedure;                fulfil its obligations;


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 March 2001 in Case C-62/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf): Betriebsrat der bofrost* Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG v Bofrost* Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 11(1) and (2) of Directive 94/45/EC — Information to be made available by undertakings on request — Information intended to establish the existence of a controlling undertaking within a Community-scale group of undertakings)

text:
C 200/4                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          able to obtain to the internal workers’ representative bodies
                                                                                requesting it. Communication of documents clarifying and
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                        explaining the information which is indispensable for that
                                                                                purpose may also be required, in so far as that communication
                                                                                is necessary in order that the employees concerned or their
                          of 29 March 2001                                       representatives may gain access to information enabling them
                                                                                to determine whether or not they are entitled to request the
in Case C-62/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         opening of negotiations.
the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf): Betriebsrat der bof-
rost* Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG
v Bofrost* Josef H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH &                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                              Co. KG (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 11(1) and (2)
of Directive 94/45/EC — Information to be made available
by undertakings on request — Information intended to
establish the existence of a controlling undertaking within a
            Community-scale group of undertakings)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2001/C 200/05)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: German)                                                  of 29 March 2001
                                                                           in Case C-163/99: Portuguese Republic v Commission of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                      the European Communities (1)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Competition — Exclusive rights — Airport administration
In Case C-62/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               — Landing charges — Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesarbeitsger-                                       Article 86(3) EC))
icht Düsseldorf (Düsseldorf Higher Labour Court) (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Betriebsrat der bofrost* Josef H. Boquoi                                           (2001/C 200/06)
Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG and Bofrost* Josef
H. Boquoi Deutschland West GmbH & Co. KG — on the
interpretation of Article 11(1) and (2) of Council Directive                                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a
European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale
undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ                                     in the European Court Reports)
1994 L 254, p. 64) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-                  In Case C-163/99: Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. Fernandes,
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges;            M.L. Duarte and F. Viegas) v Commission of the European
A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has              Communities (Agents: K. Leivo and M. Afonso and sub-
given a judgment on 29 March 2001, in which it has ruled:                  sequently M. Afonso and M. Erhart) — application for
                                                                           annulment of Commission Decision 1999/199/EC of 10 Feb-
1.    On a proper construction of Article 11(1) and (2) of                 ruary 1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 90 of
      Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the               the Treaty (IV/35.703 — Portuguese airports) (OJ 1999 L 69,
      establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in          p. 31) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-
      Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups              mann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet
      of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting         (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo,
      employees, an undertaking which is part of a group of                Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
      undertakings is required to supply information to the internal       Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 March 2001, in which
      workers’ representative bodies, even where it has not yet been       it:
      established that the management to which the workers’ request
      is addressed is the management of a controlling undertaking          1.    Dismisses the application;
      within a group of undertakings.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
2.    Where information relating to the structure or organisation of
      a group of undertakings forms part of the information which is
      essential to the opening of negotiations for the setting-up of a     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      European Works Council or for the transnational information
      and consultation of employees, an undertaking within the group
      is required to supply the information which it possesses or is


title: Case T-85/11 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 23 November 2010 in Case F-65/09, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/27

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 23 November 2010 in Case F-65/09, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-85/11 P)
   2011/C 103/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               in any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the judgment under appeal;

               —

               declare that the document produced by the Commission on the day of the hearing has always been and remains totally inadmissible in hanc litem;

               —

               allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 November 2010. That judgment dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of 5 August 2008, adopted pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on 10 June 2008 in Case T-18/04 Marcuccio v Commission (not published in the ECR), annulment of the decision to reject the complaint against that decision and an order that the Commission pay the appellant a certain sum by way of compensation for the damage purportedly suffered as a result of those decisions.
   The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground, alleging certain procedural errors and errors in judicando on the grounds, inter alia, of breach of the rights of the defence.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging that the author of the decision annulment of which was sought at first instance lacked competence.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons in connection with the annulment sought at first instance.

               4.

               Fourth ground, alleging that a large number of the statements in the judgment under appeal are unlawful on account, inter alia, of the following defects: (a) breach and incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of legal rules; (b) breach of the principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti; (c) misuse of power, including abuse of process; (d) absolute failure to state reasons.


C 211/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/98 (1)               European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                   and Northern Ireland.
                       (2000/C 211/27)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
By order of 26 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-33/98: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-60/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/31)
                                                                   By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-386/99 (1)              from the register of Case C-60/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling from the Supreme Court of Dublin): Carmen Proetta v
                       (2000/C 211/28)                             Andrew Neil.
By order of 29 February 2000 the President of the Court of         (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-386/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-48/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/32)
                                                                   By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
       Removal from the register of Case C-385/98 (1)              of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-48/99:
                       (2000/C 211/29)                             Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                   Luxembourg.
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-385/98:
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-287/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/33)
       Removal from the register of Case C-455/99 (1)              By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                       (2000/C 211/30)                             ordered the removal from the register of Case C-287/99:
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of            Belgium.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-455/99: Commission of the              (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-317/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Vakalis v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Calculation of years of pensionable service — General implementing provisions — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of the right to be heard — Equal treatment)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Vakalis v Commission
   (Case T-317/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Calculation of years of pensionable service - General implementing provisions - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of the right to be heard - Equal treatment)
   2012/C 200/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Ioannis Vakalis (Luvinate, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, agents

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 April 2011, delivered in Case F-38/10 Vakalis v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), requesting that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ioannis Vakalis to bear his own costs and to pay those of the European Commission relating to these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-332/09 P: Appeal brought on 18 August 2009 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 3 June 2009 in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/14

         Appeal brought on 18 August 2009 by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 3 June 2009 in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-332/09 P)
   2009/C 256/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Frosch Touristik GmbH, DSR touristik GmbH

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               —

               Order the other parties to the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This appeal is brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 22 March 2007, by which the Board of Appeal dismissed the respondent’s appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division declaring the Community word mark ‘FLUGBÖRSE’ invalid in part. The Court of First Instance took the view that the Board of Appeal had erred in its application of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 by focusing, in its examination as to whether registration of the mark was precluded by grounds for refusal under Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94 and whether the mark should therefore be declared invalid, on the circumstances and perception as at the date of registration of the mark at issue, instead of the date of filing of the application. According to the judgment under appeal, the only date relevant for the purposes of the assessment of an application for a declaration of invalidity is the date of filing of the application for the mark at issue. Moreover, in support of its view, the Court relied on the argument that that is the only interpretation which avoids a situation in which the probability of the mark losing its registrability increases with the length of the registration procedure. On a re-examination of grounds for refusal put forward subsequently, the examiner may take account of material subsequent to the date of filing of the application for registration only where that material enables conclusions to be drawn on the situation as it was on that date.
   The appellant takes the view that the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 in so far as it deemed the date of filing of the application for registration of the mark to be the only date relevant for the purposes of assessment. This narrow interpretation is incompatible with the wording of Article 51(1)(a) and cannot be reconciled with its spirit and purpose, or with the system of protection and of the revocability of such protection under the Community trade mark regulation.
   Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 provides for a mark to be removed from the register if it ‘has been registered’ contrary to Article 7. The Court’s conclusion that this wording merely sets out the circumstances in which a mark is to be refused registration or declared invalid, and that it does not (also) refer to the date for the examination, is unsustainable on the basis of the wording alone. Since no further grounds are provided by the Court, it is not clear which particular considerations caused the Court to reach its conclusion. The interpretation advanced by the appellant, that the phrase ‘has been registered’ is, at the very least, also a reference to the relevant point in time, is, on the other hand, by far the more obvious interpretation in view of the wording.
   However, the Court’s interpretation in the judgment under appeal is also inconsistent with the notion of protection underlying Articles 7 and 51, whereby registrations which are contrary to the public interest are to be refused altogether, or, if they do proceed, may be revoked. This is the only way to avoid marks being registered contrary to the provisions of Regulation No 40/94 and thereby in disregard of the public interest underlying that provision. If the Court is right in its view, not only would an applicant for registration of a mark be able to secure protection for marks in respect of which absolute grounds for refusal of registration existed at the date of registration, but it would be impossible to cancel those marks following registration pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94, because they would have been registrable at the date of filing of the application and any developments between the date of filing and registration would be expressly disregarded by the Court. According to the appellant, this means that an individual would be given unjustified preferential treatment as against the public interest which merits protection, which would be incompatible with the protective purpose of Articles 7 and 51 of Regulation No 40/94.
   Finally, as regards the Court’s argument concerning the duration of the procedure, it should be noted that this can depend on a great number of factors, not only those within the appellant’s control, but also the applicant’s, or — as in the case of the conduct of the pre-registration opposition procedure provided for in Regulation No 40/94 — factors which may be determined by third parties. Furthermore, absolute grounds for refusal, which may not have been influenced, or been capable of being influenced, by the appellant, can arise at very short notice. In a proper assessment of opposing interests in such ad hoc situations, the public interest should be given priority, particularly since, before registration, applicants cannot be absolutely certain that they will be granted the protection sought. In such cases, it is appropriate, therefore, to take account also of developments up to the date of registration.
   For those reasons, the judgment under appeal of the Court of First Instance should, therefore, be set aside on the grounds of a breach of Article 51 of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-255/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — I v Health Service Executive (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 11 — National of a Member State insured in his State of residence — Sudden serious illness occurring while on holiday in another Member State — Person compelled to remain in that second Member State for 11 years as a result of his illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives — Provision of benefits in kind in the second Member State — Definition of ‘residence’ and ‘stay’ )

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — I v Health Service Executive
   (Case C-255/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 11 - National of a Member State insured in his State of residence - Sudden serious illness occurring while on holiday in another Member State - Person compelled to remain in that second Member State for 11 years as a result of his illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives - Provision of benefits in kind in the second Member State - Definition of ‘residence’ and ‘stay’))
   2014/C 253/14
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: I

      Defendant: Health Service Executive

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 19(1) and 20(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Concept of ‘staying’ in a Member State other than the competent Member State — Citizen of a Member State suffering for 11 years from a serious medical condition which first manifested itself during a holiday in a second Member State — Citizen compelled to remain in the second Member State as a result of his medical condition

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(j) and (k) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of Article 19(1) or Article 20(1) and (2) of that regulation, where a European Union national who was resident in one Member State suffers a sudden serious illness while on holiday in a second Member State and is compelled to remain in the latter State for 11 years as a result of that illness and the fact that specialist medical care is available close to the place where he lives, such a person must be regarded as ‘staying’ in the second Member State if the habitual centre of his interests is in the first Member State. It is for the national court to determine the habitual centre of such a person’s interests by carrying out an assessment of all the relevant facts and taking into account that person’s intention, as may be discerned from those facts, the mere fact that that person has remained in the second Member State for a long time not being sufficient in itself alone for him to be regarded as residing in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case T-62/12: Action brought on 9 February 2012 — ClientEarth v Council

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/24

         Action brought on 9 February 2012 — ClientEarth v Council
   (Case T-62/12)
   2012/C 109/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ClientEarth (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: O. Brouwer and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant refusing (full) access to document 6865/09, containing a legal opinion of the defendant’s legal service concerning the legality of draft amendments to a European Commission proposal for the recast of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1), pursuant to the said regulation; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(2) second indent of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would undermine the protection of legal advice.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant did not show how disclosure of the document in question would seriously undermine the Council’s decision-making process.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging violation of both Article 4(2) second indent and 4(3) first sub-paragraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, as the defendant failed to take account of the overriding public interest in disclosure of the document in question.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 and the principle of proportionality, as the Council did not properly consider whether fuller access to the document in question could have been provided.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)


title: Case T-215/09: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2013 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/26

         Order of the General Court of 18 March 2013 — Freistaat Sachsen v Commission
   (Case T-215/09) (1)

   2013/C 141/47
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009.


title: Case C-182/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger

text:
14.7.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 200/47
Appeal brought on 25 April 2001 by N against the                        —    Infringement of Articles 72 and 73 of the Staff Regu-
judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by the Court                          lations and of Article 2(1) and (2) of the Rules: The Court
of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                         of First Instance confined its examination to the issue of
Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the European                       transmission of the pathogen and took no account of the
                          Communities                                        view that the consequences of an accident are not limited
                                                                             to its immediate effects but may manifest themselves at a
                                                                             later time. Given that a particular pathology can derive
                        (Case C-181/01 P)                                    only from a specific cause, the proof lies in re ipsa: it is
                                                                             sufficient to link the contamination with its cause. The
                         (2001/C 200/83)                                     appellant observes, first, that the circumstances of his
                                                                             contamination were purely sexual. He then observes that
                                                                             even if the Court of First Instance’s argument that the CM
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February                      did not treat the tearing of the condom as the cause of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                 contamination or was not able to define such tearing
ties (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-2/00 N v Commission of the                    precisely were to be accepted — quod non — all the
European Communities was brought before the Court of                         other factual, chronological and medical circumstances
Justice of the European Communities on 25 April 2001 by N,                   described by the MC add up to a presumption such that
represented by the lawyer G. Durazzo.                                        the appellant’s infection can be classified as an accident.
                                                                             In any event, if the circumstances indicated do not
                                                                             constitute an ‘occurrence’ of the kind referred to in
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                       Article 2(1) of the Rules, they do add up to a ‘factor’ of
                                                                             the kind mentioned in the alternative.
—     declare the appeal admissible and well founded,
—     set aside the contested judgment,
                                                                        —    Infringement of the rules governing the Commission’s
                                                                             non-contractual liability (Article 288 EC): the conduct
—     grant the form of order sought in the   application (1),
                                                                             and misconduct of the appointing authority, if only
                                                                             because of the fact that the disposal of the case was
—     order the Commission to pay the costs at both instances                thereby delayed, have had a psychological and stressful
      and to reimburse the Joint Sickness Insurance Fund costs               impact on the appellant to an extent greater than that
      incurred by the appellant.                                             which would be suffered by a person in perfect health or
                                                                             in proceedings in an ordinary staff case. Since the damage
                                                                             is not directly quantifiable, the appellant relies on a fair
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              assessment to be made by the Court.
—     Distortion of the opinion of the Medical Committee (MC)
      and infringement of the principle that measures must be
      construed according to their actual content; materially           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
      incorrect findings conflicting with the content of the said
      opinion; infringement of the legal principle concerning
      the interpretation of complex measures; infringement of
      the principles expounded in case-law concerning the
      conditions applicable to the propriety, interpretation and
      content of opinions of medical committees; illogical
      and contradictory statement of reasons; breach of the
      presumption of good faith; infringement of Article 19 of
      the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European
      Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occu-
      pational Disease (‘the Rules’).
—     Infringement of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and of        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesger-
      Articles 2, 4, 7 and 19 of the Rules: in order to avoid           ichts Düsseldorf of 22 March 2001, in the case of Saatgut-
      defining the incident at issue as an accident (that is to say,        Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger
      HIV infection), the CM introduced into the debate the
      concepts of consent to risk and irresistible violence and
      the possibility of treating different conditions as being                                 (Case C-182/01)
      the same and not giving rise to invalidity. The Court of
      First Instance, after declaring that it had jurisdiction to
      examine whether the appointing authority, in endorsing                                   (2001/C 200/84)
      the opinion of the MC, which refers in its conclusions to
      the concept of ‘accident’, respected the meaning of the
      relevant provisions, did not conclude, as it should have          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      done, that those assessments were incorrect.                      European Communities by order of the Gerichtshof of
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/48              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
22 March 2001, received at the Court Registry on 26 April              The Commission claims that the Court should:
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Saatgut-
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger on the                   —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limits laid
following questions:                                                         down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                             necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC (1)
1.   Can                                                                     of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC con-
                                                                             cerning additives in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic
     (a)   a limited company (GmbH) established under Ger-                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
           man law be an ‘organisation of holders’ within the                that directive;
           meaning of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
           (EC) No 1768/95 (1) of 24 July 1995, and can
     (b) such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-         Pleas in law and main arguments
           mentioned regulation even in respect of holders
           who are not shareholders in it but members of an            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
           association which is a shareholder, and can                 directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                       each Member State to which they are addressed.
     (c)   such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
           mentioned regulation (for a consideration) even in          Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
           respect of holders who are neither shareholders nor         to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
           members of an association which is a shareholder?           to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                       or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2.   Must the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regu-           Community.
     lation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 (2) , read in
     conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation               It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     (EC) No 1768/95, be interpreted as meaning that the               measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
     holder of a plant variety right protected under Regulation
     No 2100/94 can request the information referred to
     in the abovementioned provisions from any farmer,                 The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     irrespective of whether or not there is any indication that       has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpo-
     he has carried out an act of use in respect of the                ration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
     variety in question under Article 13(2) of Regulation
     No 2100/94, or at least otherwise used the variety in
     question on his holding?                                          (1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 39.
(1) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt
                                                                       against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by
                                                                       the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
                                                                           Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency
Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                        (Case C-184/01 P)
                        (Case C-183/01)                                                        (2001/C 200/86)
                        (2001/C 200/85)                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
                                                                       2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency was
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    ties on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt, represented by
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal                  Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with
Adviser.                                                               an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 7 February 2002 in Case T-88/00: Mag Instrument Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Torch shape — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 109/44               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                        7 February 2002                                  European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for
                                                                         annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 October
in Case T-88/00: Mag Instrument Inc. v Office for Harmon-                1999 fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant’s
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                 definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1 — the Court of
                             (OHIM) (1)                                  First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras,
                                                                         President, V. Tiili and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,
(Community trade mark — Torch shape — Three-dimen-                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 Janu-
sional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive                  ary 2002, in which it:
  character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                         (2002/C 109/87)                                 1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 8 October 1999
                                                                               fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant’s
                  (Language of the case: German)                               definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1.
                                                                         2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-88/00, Mag Instrument Inc., established in Ontario
(United States of America), represented by A. Nette, W. von
der Osten-Sacken, H. Stratmann, G. Rahn and U. Hocke,
                                                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 285.
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly and
S. Bonne): Action brought against the decision of the Second
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February
2000 (Cases R-237/1999-2 to R-241/1999-2) refusing regis-
tration of five three-dimensional trade marks consisting of
torch shapes, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura
Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, Registrar, has                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                                7 February 2002
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                         in Case T-211/00: Aldo Kuijer v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                         (Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public
                                                                         access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for
                                                                         access — Protection of the public interest — International
                                                                                relations — Manifest error — Partial (access)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 31 January 2002                                                            (2002/C 109/89)
in Case T-206/00: Merja Hult v the Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Classification — Statement of reasons —
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Commission decision
on the criteria applicable to appointment to grade and                   In Case T-211/00, Aldo Kuijer, residing in Utrecht (Nether-
classification in step on recruitment — Additional seniority             lands), represented by O.W. Brouwer and T. Janssens, lawyers,
    in grade — Conditions — Principle of legal certainty)                with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
                                                                         European Union (agents: M. Bauer and M. Bishop): Application
                         (2002/C 109/88)                                 for annulment of the Council’s decision notified to the
                                                                         applicant by letter of 7 June 2000 refusing him access to
                   (Language of the case: French)                        certain documents from the Centre for Information, Discussion
                                                                         and Exchange on Asylum (‘CIREA’) which were requested
                                                                         under Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on
In Case T-206/00: Merja Hult, an official of the Commission of           public access to Council documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43),
the European Communities, residing in Howald (Luxembourg),               Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:


title: Case T-480/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  10 November 2005  — Muller Touw and A&C Braid and Rope v Council

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2005 — Muller Touw and A&C Braid and Rope v Council
   (Case T-480/04) (1)

   (2006/C 22/50)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.


title: Case C-157/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2012 — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 30 March 2012 — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA
   (Case C-157/12)
   2012/C 184/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

      Defendant: SC Laminorul SA

      Questions referred

   Does Article 34(4) 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 (1) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) also cover cases of irreconcilable judgments given in the same Member State (State of origin)?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-278/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — SEAE v KL (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2013 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion in the list of promoted officials — No error of law)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — SEAE v KL
   (Case T-278/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2013 promotion procedure - Non-inclusion in the list of promoted officials - No error of law))
   (2017/C 129/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented initially by S. Marquardt and M. Silva, then by S. Marquardt, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: KL (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal [confidential] (2) seeking the annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders the European External Action Service (EEAS) to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by KL in the present proceedings;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs incurred in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

      (2)  Confidential information omitted.