title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 31 October 2000 in Case T-83/00 R-I: Hänseler GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing authorisation for medicinal products for human use containing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Need to balance interests)

text:
7.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 108/21
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                            INSTANCE                                     Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                       of 31 October 2000                                H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
                                                                         suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
in Case T-83/00 R-I: Hänseler GmbH v Commission of the                   of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
                    European Communities                                 for placing on the market medicinal products for human
                                                                         consumption containing in particular norpseudoephedrine
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing                (C(2000) 608) — the President of the Court of First Instance
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-              made an order on 31 October 2000, the operative part of
ing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency                   which is as follows:
                  — Need to balance interests)
                                                                         1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                         (2001/C 108/38)                                      Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                                                                              authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for
                                                                              human consumption containing Clobenzorex, Fenbutrazat,
                  (Language of the case: German)                              Fenproporex, Mazindol, Mefenorex, Norpseudoephedrine,
                                                                              Phenmetrazine, Phendimetrazine and Propylhexedrine
In Case T-83/00 R-I: Hänseler GmbH, established in Konstanz                   (C(2000) 608) is suspended.
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,
Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                2.   Costs are reserved.
Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
for placing on the market medicinal products for human                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
consumption containing in particular norpseudoephedrine                                              INSTANCE
(C(2000) 608) — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 31 October 2000, the operative part of                                         of 31 October 2000
which is as follows:
                                                                         in Case T-132/00 R: Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH v the
1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the                      Commission of European Communities
     Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
     authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for     (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
     human consumption containing Clobenzorex, Fenbutrazat,              authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
     Fenproporex, Mazindol, Mefenorex, Norpseudoephedrine,               ing phentermine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
     Phenmetrazine, Phendimetrazine and Propylhexedrine                                      Need to balance interests)
     (C(2000) 608) is suspended.
2.   Costs are reserved.                                                                          (2001/C 108/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-132/00 R: Gerot Pharmazeutika GmbH, established
                                                                         in Vienna, represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Germany, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                            INSTANCE                                     Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                       of 31 October 2000                                H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for the
                                                                         suspension of application of the decision of the Commission
in Case T-83/00 R-II: Schuck GmbH v Commission of the                    of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisations
                    European Communities                                 for placing on the market medicinal products for human
                                                                         consumption containing phentermine (C(2000) 452) — the
(Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing                President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-              31 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
ing norpseudoephdrine — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency
                  — Need to balance interests)                           1.   The application to the applicants of the decision of the
                                                                              Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
                         (2001/C 108/39)                                      authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products
                                                                              for human consumption containing the following substance:
                                                                              phentermine (C(2000) 452) is suspended.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         2.   Costs are reserved.
In Case T-83/00 R-II: Schuck GmbH, established in Schwaig
(Germany), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn,


title: Case C-614/13 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-378/10: Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/14

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2013 by Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-378/10: Masco Corp. and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-614/13 P)
   2014/C 24/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Masco Corp., Hansgrohe AG, Hansgrohe Deutschland Vertriebs GmbH, Hansgrohe Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Hansgrohe SA/NV, Hansgrohe BV, Hansgrohe SARL, Hansgrohe Srl, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe GmbH, Hüppe Belgium SA (NV), Hüppe BV (represented by: D. Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt, S. Heinz, Rechtsanwältin, J. Temple Lang, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the General Court’s judgment in Case T-378/10 insofar as it dismisses their request to annul Article 1 of the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures insofar as it finds that the Appellants have participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice ‘in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector’;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures insofar as it finds that the Appellants have participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice ‘in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector’;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               take any other measures that this Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appeal contains two pleas.
   According to the first plea, the General Court erred in law by manifestly distorting the evidence and by misapplying the legal test for finding that the Appellants participated in a single, complex infringement covering ceramics products.
   According to the second plea, the General Court erred in law by failing to state adequate reasons for its finding.


title: Case F-126/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/31

         Action brought on 28 November 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-126/11)
   2012/C 174/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Boury, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The application to annul the decision of the Appointing Authority as far as it imposes a disciplinary measure in the form of a written reprimand on the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority’s decision CMS 10/038 to issue a written reprimand to the applicant, and Appointing Authority Decision No R/393/11 which confirmed the first decision;

               —

               declare that the written reprimand issued by the Appointing Authority to the applicant, without the production of cogent evidence of the alleged acts of harassment of which his is accused and without a proper independent, impartial and fair investigation being carried out which would establish the truth about the alleged harassment which the applicant is accused of committing against his colleague, is a discretionary sanction which constitutes an act of discrimination by the Appointing Authority against the applicant;

               —

               declare that throughout the case the applicant has suffered serious material and non-material damage and that he is, as a result, entitled to compensation for that damage, which is to be determined according to the criteria to be laid down by the Tribunal;

               —

               declare, in particular that throughout the proceedings and the previous connected cases, the applicant has been the victim of serious infringements of his human rights, rights enshrined in the Treaties, in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights and that he is, as a result, entitled to compensation for those infringements, which is for the Tribunal to decide.


title: Case F-9/14: Action brought on 1 February 2014  — ZZ v EIB

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/44

         Action brought on 1 February 2014 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-9/14)
   2014/C 212/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Isola and G. Isola, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s staff report for 2012 in so far as it does not classify his performance as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and does not propose that he be promoted to Function D and in so far as it sets his objectives for 2013, annulment of the guidelines for that report and, lastly, an order that the EIB pay compensation for the material and non-material damage that the applicant claims he has sustained.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul:

                           —

                           the decision adopted on 18 December 2012 by the Appeals Committee, referring all documents back to that body and establishing the criteria which must be used by the Committee when adopting a new decision;

                           —

                           the guidelines established by the Human Resources division in ‘Note to Staff No 722 PERSONNEL/S&D/D&P/2012-198’ of 5 December 2012 and the corresponding ‘Guidelines to the 2012 annual staff appraisal exercise’, including the section in which they provide that the final evaluation must be summarised in a certain way but do not identify the criteria which must be used by the appraiser;

               —

               In the alternative, annul:

                           —

                           the whole of the staff report for 2012, including the part containing the appraisal, the part in which performance is not summarised as ‘exceptional’ or ‘very good’ and in which no proposal is made to promote the applicant to Function D and, lastly, the part in which objectives are set for 2013;

                           —

                           all connected, consequent and prior measures, including the promotions referred to in the note from the Director of Human Resources of May 2012 entitled ‘2011 staff appraisal exercise, award of promotions and titles’;

               —

               In any event, order the EIB to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage (within the period specified), and to pay the costs of the proceedings together with interest and monetary revaluation of those costs and of the sums awarded.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-422/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/18/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-422/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-422/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. van Beek) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 3 October 2003 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, K, Schiemann (Rapporteur) and E. Juhász, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 February 2003 in Case T-145/01: Benito Latino v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Occupational disease — Validity of the opinion of the Medical Committee — Evidence of the occupational origin of the disease — Scientific uncertainty — Proper conduct of the procedure preceding the reference to the Medical Committee)

text:
C 112/30                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       10.5.2003
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 February 2003
                        of 26 February 2003
                                                                             in Case T-164/01: Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-145/01: Benito Latino v Commission of the
                     European Communities ( 1)                                      (Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/58)
(Officials — Occupational disease — Validity of the opinion
of the Medical Committee — Evidence of the occupational                                           (Language of the case: Italian)
origin of the disease — Scientific uncertainty — Proper
conduct of the procedure preceding the reference to the
                         Medical Committee)
                                                                             In Case T-164/01: Arnaldo Lucaccioni, a former official of the
                                                                             Commission of the European Commmunities, residing in St-
                                                                             Leonard-on-Sea (United Kingdom), represented by M. Cimino
                            (2003/C 112/57)                                  and F. Apruzzi, lawyers, against Commission of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: J. Currall and A. Dal Ferro) — appli-
                                                                             cation for compensation under the ordinary law governing
                     (Language of the case: French)                          non-contractual liability applicable under Article 236 EC, for
                                                                             pain and suffering and physical harm suffered by the applicant
                                                                             for the period preceding the onset of his occupational disease
                                                                             as a result of the Commission’s negligence, — the Court of
                                                                             First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                             President, and N. J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio
In Case T-145/01: Benito Latino, former official of the                      González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Séri-                    a judgment on 26 February 2003, in which it:
gnac-Peboudou (France), represented by G. Vandersanden
and L. Levi, lawyers, against Commission of the European                     1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and J.-L. Fagnart) — appli-
cation for the annulment of the decision of the Commission                   2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
of 10 August 2000 rejecting the applicant’s request that it
acknowledge the occupational origin of his arthritic symptoms
and charging to the applicant the fees and incidental expenses               (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.01.
of the doctor appointed by the applicant to the Medical
Committee and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the
third doctor making up the committee - the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
N. J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 February
2003, in which it:                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 10 August 2000
       insofar as it charges to the applicant the fees and incidental        in Case T-194/01: Unilever NV v Office for Harmonisation
       expenses of the doctor appointed by the applicant to the Medical      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
       Committee and half of the fees and incidental expenses of the                                       (OHIM) ( 1)
       third doctor;
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional mark —
                                                                             Shape of a product for dishwashers — Ovoid tablet —
2.     dismisses the remainder of the application;                           Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
3.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.01.
                                                                             In Case T-194/01, Unilever NV, established in Rotterdam
                                                                             (Netherlands), represented by V. von Bomhard and A. Renck,


title: Case T-345/03: Action brought on 30 September 2003 by European Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/36              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       29.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the Commission (Enterprise Directorate General) to
                                                                                re-evaluate the tender submitted by European Dynamics;
Applicant for the Com-       Whitbread PLC.
munity mark:                                                              —     order the Commission to pay European Dynamics’ legal
                                                                                and other fees and expenses incurred in connection with
Community mark for           Figurative mark ‘David Lloyd’ —                    this Application.
which application was        Application No 488.999 for
made:                        products in Classes 3, 5, 25, 28,
                             36, 41 and 42.
Holder of the mark or        Applicant                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
sign bringing the oppo-
sition proceedings:
Opposing mark or sign:       No 807.974/9 and No 278.853                  The object of the present case is the annulment of the Decision
                             ‘LLOYD’S’, for goods in Class 25             of the European Commission to reject the applicants bid, filed
                             (clothing and general accessories)           in response to the Call of Tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS
                                                                          for the ‘Development and Provision of Services in support of
                                                                          the Community R&D Information Service (CORDIS)’ Lot 2
Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition rejected
                                                                          ‘Development’ (OJ 2002/S 225-178776). This Decision con-
sition Division:
                                                                          cluded that the TRASYS/Intrasoft International Consortium
                                                                          bid was superior to that of the applicant.
Decision of the Board of     Appeal dismissed
Appeal:
Reasons relied on:           Incorrect         application       of       CORDIS, the European Commission’s research and develop-
                             Article 8(1)(b) (likelihood of con-          ment information service, is an informatics tool offering
                             fusion), 8(2)(c) (well known earlier         practical information on the European research programs and
                             mark) and 8(5) Regulation (EC)               funding opportunities, facilitating research results take up
                             No 40/94                                     and and technology transfers, hosting services on European
                                                                          innovation, covering all research and innovation related news
                                                                          developments and providing a central access to European and
                                                                          National contact points
                                                                          In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that:
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by European
Dynamics S.A. against the Commission of the European                      —     The violation of the principles of transparency and non-
                         Communities                                            discrimination, in as much as the provisions on non-
                                                                                paid running-in periods seriously restrict competition by
                                                                                favouring the incumbent contractor since it has been
                        (Case T-345/03)                                         given major financial advantages by the contracting
                                                                                authority unilateral, which allowed it to submit an offer
                                                                                significantly cheaper that any other competitor. Besides,
                        (2003/C 289/72)                                         the time-limit for providing information about the role
                                                                                of Autonomy in CORDIS (Enterprise Directorate General
                  (Language of the case: English)                               addresses such information just four weeks before the
                                                                                tender submission deadline) has given a big advantage to
                                                                                the TRASYS/Intrasoft consortium in relation to other
                                                                                Lot 2 tenderers. Additionally, ensuring the call for tender
                                                                                procedure, all bidders -except the incumbent contractor
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       — were prevented from having access to a number of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      highly critical technical information on the actual status
European Communities on 30 September 2003 by European                           of the CORDIS projects and particularly on the CORDIS
Dynamics S.A., Athens, (Greece), represented by S. Pappas,                      DATABASE SERVICE. Moreover, the Commission
lawyer.                                                                         declined to communicate to all tenderers significant and
                                                                                useful details on the HW/SW, scripts, technology and
                                                                                processes currently in use for operating the CORDIS
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     database services, while, at the same time, it asked
                                                                                the tenderers to specify what part of that ‘unknown’
—     annul the Commission’s (Enterprise Directorate General)                   equipment is to be taken over, whilst all this information
      decision to evaluate European Dynamics’ tender as not                     was fully available to TRASYS/Intrasoft right from the
      successful;                                                               beginning.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003          EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/37
—   The Commission’s assessments are based on wrong or                   of Prince2. All other assessments are not supported by
    unfounded assumptions. Contrary to what has been                     the data of the file.
    stated by the Commission, the proposed platform by the
    applicant was explained in great detail. Concretely, the
    Commission wrongly assumed that the Service Delivery            The applicant also invokes a violation of the duty of motivation
    Framework was not ITIL and that there was no mention            of the legal acts.


title: Case T-22/09: Action brought on 20 January 2009 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (shape of a panda face)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/49

         Action brought on 20 January 2009 — Katjes Fassin v OHIM (shape of a panda face)
   (Case T-22/09)
   (2009/C 69/107)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany) (represented by T. Schmitz, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2008 in Case R 1299/2006-4;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: a three-dimensional mark, showing a chocolate panda face, for goods in Class 30 — Application No 4 505 161

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1), as the registered mark has the necessary distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-425/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative): Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye v Ministre de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme administrative (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of a transfer of an undertaking to the State — Possibility for the State to impose rules of public law — Reduction of the amount of remuneration)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-425/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative): Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye v Ministre de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme administrative (1)

   (Safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of a transfer of an undertaking to the State - Possibility for the State to impose rules of public law - Reduction of the amount of remuneration)
   (2005/C 6/15)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-425/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg), made by decision of 21 November 2002, received at the Court on 25 November 2002, in the proceedings between Johanna Maria Boor, née Delahaye and Ministre de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme administrative — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as not precluding in principle, in the event of a transfer of an undertaking from a legal person governed by private law to the State, the latter, as new employer, from reducing the amount of the remuneration of the employees concerned for the purpose of complying with the national rules in force for public employees. However, the competent authorities responsible for applying and interpreting those rules are obliged to do so as far as possible in the light of the purpose of that directive, taking into account in particular the employee's length of service, in so far as the national rules governing the position of State employees take a State employee's length of service into consideration for calculating his remuneration. If such a calculation leads to a substantial reduction in the employee's remuneration, such a reduction constitutes a substantial change in working conditions to the detriment of the employees concerned by the transfer, so that the termination of their contracts of employment for that reason must be regarded as resulting from the action of the employer, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 77/187.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-148/11: Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Mangou v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/25

         Action brought on 14 March 2011 — Mangou v Council
   (Case T-148/11)
   2011/C 130/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Mangou (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard and L. Aliot, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Philippe MANGOU, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Philippe MANGOU be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.


title: Case C-6/17 P: Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/20

         Appeal brought on 5 January 2017 by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 ANKO v European Commission

   (Case C-6/17 P)
   (2017/C 063/28)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: Stavroula Paliou, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 and refer the case back to the General Court to give a ruling on the substance.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant maintains that the judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 in Case T-154/14 makes findings of law which are contrary to principles of EU law and challenges those findings by means of this appeal.
   The appellant considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside:

               i.

                     First
                  , with respect to the provisions of substantive law to be applied, on grounds that relate to an error in law and procedural irregularities which vitiate the reasoning in that judgment.

               ii.

                     Second
                  , on grounds that relate to an error in law, with regard to the rules that govern, in relation to the claim, the matters to be proved and the burden of proof and, in relation to the counterclaim, the allocation of the burden of proof.

         Within that framework, the grounds of appeal are the following:

               I.

               In connection with the error in law and procedural irregularities:

                           1)

                           First ground of appeal: Wholly deficient statement of reasons.

                           2)

                           Second ground of appeal: Error in law and contradictory reasoning.

               II.

               With respect to the error as to the law and the rules governing the matters to be proved and the burden of proof:

                           3)

                           Third ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the matters to be proved and the burden of proof.

                           4)

                           Fourth ground of appeal: Error in law with regard to the allocation of the burden of proof in the Commission’s counterclaim.


title: Case T-95/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  17 May 2006  — Lavagnoli v Commission (Officials — Staff report — Regularity of the assessment procedure — Carrying on of activities by staff and union representative — Obligation to state reasons — Action for annulment)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 May 2006 — Lavagnoli v Commission
   (Case T-95/04) (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Regularity of the assessment procedure - Carrying on of activities by staff and union representative - Obligation to state reasons - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 165/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Luciano Lavagnoli (Berchem, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the assessment exercise for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001 as regards the applicant and of the decision adopting the applicant's definitive staff report for that period
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-199/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 27 April 2012 — Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel v X
   (Case C-199/12)
   2012/C 217/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister voor Immigratie en Asiel

      Other party: X

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation form a particular social group as referred to in Article 10(1)(d) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304; ‘the Directive’)?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: which homosexual activities fall within the scope of the Directive and, in the case of acts of persecution in respect of those activities and if the other requirements are met, can that lead to the granting of refugee status? That question encompasses the following subquestions:

                           (a)

                           Can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to conceal their orientation from everyone in their country of origin in order to avoid persecution?

                           (b)

                           If the previous question is to be answered in the negative, can foreign nationals with a homosexual orientation be expected to exercise restraint, and if so, to what extent, when giving expression to that orientation in their country of origin, in order to avoid persecution? Moreover, can greater restraint be expected of homosexuals than of heterosexuals?

                           (c)

                           If, in that regard, a distinction can be made between forms of expression which relate to the core area of the orientation and forms of expression which do not, what should be understood to constitute the core area of the orientation and in what way can it be determined?

               3.

               Do the criminalisation of homosexual activities and the threat of imprisonment in relation thereto, as set out in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 of Sierra Leone, constitute an act of persecution within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a), read in conjunction with Article 9(2)(c) of the Directive? If not, under what circumstances would that be the case?


title: Case C-65/07: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 20 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/23

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 20 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-65/07) (1)

   (2008/C 79/42)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-157/08: Action brought on 28 April 2008 — Paroc v OHIM — (INSULATE FOR LIFE)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/40

         Action brought on 28 April 2008 — Paroc v OHIM — (INSULATE FOR LIFE)
   (Case T-157/08)
   (2008/C 171/76)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Paroc Oy/AB (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: J. Palm, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2008 in case R 0054/2008-2; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘INSULATE FOR LIFE’ for goods and services in classes 6, 17, 19 and 37 — application No 593 2827

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the mark acquired the minimum degree of distinctiveness required to be registered.


title: Case T-499/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/43

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Ryanair/Commission
   (Case T-499/08)
   (2009/C 32/83)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's implied decision refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void and that the Commission's decision of 23 October 2008 refusing access to the same documents is non-existent;

               —

               alternatively, declare in accordance with Articles 230 and 231 EC that the Commission's decision of 23 October 2008 refusing access to the documents for which access was requested by the applicant in an application dated 25 June 2008 is void;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings; and

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission implied decision rejecting the applicant's request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the access to documents relating to State aid procedures concerning the presumed State aid granted through an agreement with the operator of Pau airport. The said decision was followed by the express decision of 23 October 2008. The annulment of the express decision is alternatively sought by the applicant in the present case.
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those relied on in Case T-494/08 Ryanair v Commission.

      (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 C-35/10: Action brought on 21 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/17

         Action brought on 21 January 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-35/10)
   2010/C 80/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Marghelis and J. Sénéchal, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 25 of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of Directive 2006/21/EC lapsed on 30 April 2008. At the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 15.


title: Case F-21/14: Action brought on 11 March 2014  — ZZ v Europol

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/42

         Action brought on 11 March 2014 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-21/14)
   2014/C 184/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Europol

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract for an indefinite period and an order for Europol to pay her the difference between the amount of remuneration which she would have earned if she had remained in service and the unemployment benefit or any other allowance in lieu which she has received.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 13 May 2013 informing the applicant that it would not grant her a permanent contract and that her current contract would come to an end on 31 October 2013, and annul the implied decision rejecting her complaint of 13 December 2013;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant the difference between the amount of remuneration to which she would have been entitled if she had continued to be employed by Europol and the amount of remuneration, fees, unemployment benefit or any other allowance in lieu which she has actually received since 1 November 2013 as an alternative to the remuneration which she was receiving as a temporary member of staff;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 April 2005 in Case T-401/03: Deirdre McCabe v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment — Probationary period at Eurostat — Dismissal following the probationary period — Action for annulment — Claim for damages — Preliminary administrative complaint — Inadmissible)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 April 2005
   in Case T-401/03: Deirdre McCabe v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Probationary period at Eurostat - Dismissal following the probationary period - Action for annulment - Claim for damages - Preliminary administrative complaint - Inadmissible)
   (2005/C 155/43)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T- T-401/03: Deirdre McCabe, a former probationer at the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg), represented by M- Spandre and B. Zammitto, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg — application, first, for annulment of the Commission decision of 25 August 2003 dismissing the applicant following her probationary period and, second, for damages, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 April 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ No 35 of 7.2.2004.


29.4.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-380/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-395/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/33)                                                     (2000/C 122/36)
By order of 20 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 1 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-380/97 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague): Emesa
Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Kingdom of the Netherlands and                 ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-
                                                                      kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Herbert Kappes
Others.
                                                                      and Edwin Neuner.
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/34)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-290/99 (1)
By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                    (2000/C 122/37)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-345/97: Federal Republic of Germany
v Council of the European Union.                                      By order of 3 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-290/99: Council of the European
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           Union v Martin Bangemann.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/35)
By order of 31 January 2000 the President of the Court of                    Removal from the register of Case C-288/98 (1)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-                                       (2000/C 122/38)
kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Adolf Sparber,
Firma Atelier Delta Entwurf — und Planungsgesellschaft mbH,           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Court of
en liquidation, Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and Maria-Margare-          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
te Junkersdorf.                                                       from the register of Case C-288/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Istituto Nazion-
                                                                      ale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) v Mario Maraldi SpA.
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-59/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Polimeri Europa v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the offending conduct — Single infringement — Proof of the existence of the cartel — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Polimeri Europa v Commission
   (Case T-59/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the offending conduct - Single infringement - Proof of the existence of the cartel - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances)
   2011/C 269/95
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and F. Moretti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa SpA at EUR 272,25 million;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Polimeri Europa at EUR 181,5 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-254/00: Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Hotel Cipriani against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/28               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9.12.2000
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Hotel Cipriani                     va San Marco fra lavoratori della piccola pesca — Burano
    against Commission of the European Communities                        s.c.r.l. and Others, represented by Alessio Vianello, of the
                                                                          Venice Bar.
                         (Case T-254/00)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                         (2000/C 355/61)
                                                                          —      annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                        —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Hotel
Cipriani, represented by Marina Marinoni, of the Venice Bar,              The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
and Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the                  Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
Naples Bar.                                                               Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) Not yet published.
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EC;
—     in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that decision;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
                                                                          Generale delle Acque against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della
Carità v Commission and in Case T-235/00 Codess Sociale                                           (Case T-264/00)
and Others v Commission (1).
                                                                                (2000/C 355/63)
The applicant alleges infringement of Article 87(1) and 3(c)
and (d) of the Treaty, and breach of the principles of
proportionality and equal treatment in the decision to recover                               (Language of the case: Italian)
the aid in question.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) Not yet published.                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Compagnia
                                                                          Generale delle Acque, represented by Alfredo Biagini, Andrea
                                                                          Bortoluzzi and Paolo Pettinelli, of the Venice Bar.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 16 September 2000 by Cooperativa                        —      annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
San Marco fra lavoratori della piccola pesca — Burano
s.c.r.l. and Others against Commission of the European                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                           Communities
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
       (Case T-260/00, T-261/00, T-262/00 e T-263/00)
                         (2000/C 355/62)                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
                                                                          Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
                                                                          Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          (1) Not yet published.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 September 2000 by Cooperati-


title: Case T-585/15: Action brought on 5 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS)

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/41

         Action brought on 5 October 2015 — Monster Energy v OHIM (GREEN BEANS)
   (Case T-585/15)
   (2015/C 406/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘GREEN BEANS’ — Application for registration No 11 410 801

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 July 2015 in Case R 3002/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               remit the Applicant’s case back to the Second Board of Appeal for a decision on the substance of the Applicant’s Restitutio Application in relation to the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 2 December 2013 in Case R 1530/2013-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay their own costs and those of the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 58, 65(5), 75, 81(1) and 81(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Rule 65 of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case F-81/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2011 — Praskevicius v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Merit points — Consideration of comparative merits — Statement of reasons)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 July 2011 — Praskevicius v Parliament
   (Case F-81/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Merit points - Consideration of comparative merits - Statement of reasons)
   2012/C 138/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vidas Praskevicius (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Nelissen Grade and G. Leblanc, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: V. Montebello-Demogeot and N.B. Rasmussen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the defendant’s decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade AD6 for the 2009 promotion exercise and claim for compensation for non-material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ 2010 C 301, p. 66.


C 372/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.12.2000
      Removal from the Register of Case T-121/98 (1)                          Removal from the Register of Case T-232/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/35)                                                         (2000/C 372/37)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 29 September 2000, the President of the Second              By order of 6 September 2000, the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case               Communities ordered the removal from the Register of Case
                                                                        T-232/99, Margaret McKenzie-Campbell v Commission of the
T-121/98, Taurus Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG v Commission
                                                                        European Communities.
of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
     Removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R (1)
                                                                               Removal from the Register of Case T-39/00 (1)
                       (2000/C 372/36)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/38)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 11 October 2000, the President of the Chamber of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 27 September 2000, the President of the Fifth
ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-204/98 R,               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
British Sugar plc v Commission of the European Communities.             Communities ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                        Case T-39/00, PlantaVet Vertrieb biologischer Tierarzneimittel
                                                                        GmbH v the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.                                               Products.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case T-355/09: Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Reber Holding v OHIM — Wedl & Hofmann (Walzer Traum)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/50

         Action brought on 14 September 2009 — Reber Holding v OHIM — Wedl & Hofmann (Walzer Traum)
   (Case T-355/09)
   2009/C 282/96
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reber Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Wedl & Hofmann (Mils/Hall in Tirol, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 July 2009 in Case R 623/2008-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wedl & Hofmann GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Walzer Taum’ in respect of goods in Classes 21 and 30 (Application No 4 593 752)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Reber Holding GmbH and Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘Walzertraum’ in respect of goods in Class 30 (No 1 092 615) and the opposition was directed against only the registration in respect of the goods in Class 30

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Contested decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of the first sentence of Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) and the general principle of equal treatment in relation to the interpretation of the requirements for genuine use of the mark cited in oppostion

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-22/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam: Optiver BV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Duty on the gross profits of securities intermediaries)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-22/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam: Optiver BV and Others v Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten (1)

   (Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Duty on the gross profits of securities intermediaries)
   (2005/C 115/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-22/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank te Rotterdam (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 January 2003, received at the Court on 23 January 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Optiver BV and Others and Stichting Autoriteit Financiële Markten, successor in title to the Stichting Toezicht Effectenverkeer — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the levying on securities intermediaries of a duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on the gross profits from activities related to those securities.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: Case T-135/05: Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/33

         Action brought on 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-135/05)
   (2005/C 132/60)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 March 2005 by Franco Campoli, residing in London, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaume, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 December 2004 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, taken together with, first, the decision of the appointing authority challenged in that complaint, which amended on 1 May 2004 the weighting, household allowance and standard educational allowance applicable to the applicant's pension, and also, second, the applicant's payslips in that they apply that decision from May 2004;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case, the applicant seeks, in substance, the application of the weighting applicable to his pension before 1 May 2004, with retroactive effect to 1 May 2004.
   In that regard, the applicant observes that, with the aim of covering the transition between the old and new weighting systems following the amendment of the system of Staff Regulations governing the European civil service, Article 20(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations provides for a transitional period of five years, from 1 May 2004 to 1 May 2009, during which the weighting is to be gradually reduced.
   In support of his application, the applicant invokes, fundamentally, an objection of illegality, on the basis of Article 241 of the Treaty, on the ground that the application of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful in this case.
   He claims, in that regard:

               —

               breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, owing to the assurances which in his submission were given by the administration to the effect that the new Staff Regulations would have no negative impact on his situation,

               —

               failure to respect the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination, owing to the differentiation established according to the place of residence of officials in service and in receipt of a pension,

               —

               failure to respect his acquired rights, owing to the amendment of his fundamental conditions of employment, considered as at the date of his retirement,

               —

               breach of the principle of sound administration.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Henri Jacobs against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-88/97)

text:
No C 166/24            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
    applicant, upon his appointment, of the implications              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    of Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations, the
    Commission breached the abovementioned principles.                — annul the Commission 's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                            consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                             ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                      — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Henri Jacobs against
                                                                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                         ( Case T-88/97)
                           ( 97/C 166/48                              — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                  Case T- 16/97 ( M.
by Henri Jacobs, residing at Steenokkerzeel ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an           O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Martine Frix against
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996                                the Commission of the European Communities
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                                ( Case T-90/97)
    consideration to the possible application of Article 31
    (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                                  ( 97/C 166/50)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                                      (Language of the case: French)
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                          Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                      by Martine Frix, residing at Rosieres ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                      Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T- 16/9 7 ( M.                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
H OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 18 July 1996
                                                                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                            consideration to the possible application of Article 31
                                                                             (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Mikael Barfod against               — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
       the Commission of the European Communities                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                         ( Case T-89/97 )                                   expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                             97/C 166/49 )
                                                                      — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                  Case T-l 6/97 (>).
by Mikael Barfod, residing at Rhode-Saint-Genese
(Belgium ), represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels            t 1 ) OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.


title: Case T-98/99: Action brought on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 174/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.6.1999
The provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz constituted              — take any further action as the Court may deem appropriate.
general measures of tax law of the Federal Republic of
Germany, which, according to the case-law of the Court of                    Trade mark        con- ‘OPTIONS’           —    Application
Justice, are to be assessed solely on the basis of Article 67 of             cerned:                  No 128611
the ECSC Treaty, not of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty or the               Product or service:      insurance, warranty, financing,
steel aid code.                                                                                hire-purchase and lease-purchase
The tax provisions of the Zonenrandförderungsgesetz were                     Decision contested refusal of registration by the exam-
always duly notified to the Commission in accordance with                    before the Board of iner
Article 93 of the EEC Treaty and were approved by the                        Appeal:
Commission throughout the period when that law was in                        Pleas in law relied on: — Article 7(2) does not itself pro-
force. Nor were any objections raised under Article 67(2) of                                              vide grounds for refusal but
the ECSC Treaty.                                                                                merely directs Article 7(1) (b)
                                                                                and (c);
Moreover, the contested decision is based on the provisions of
the steel aid code in force from 1986, which the Commission                                           — distinctiveness         acquired
ought not to have adopted by the procedure under the first                                                through use in a part of the
and second paragraphs of Article 95 of the ECSC Treaty. The                                               Community should enable the
provisions of that code which extended the definition of aid to                                           provisions of Article 7(3) to
include non-specific aid by the Member States should not have                                             apply.
been applied in the present case.
In the alternative, the applicant submits that the contested
decision is founded on a legal basis which is not applicable:
according to Article 9 of the ‘Sixth Steel Aid Code’, it entered
into force only on 1 January 1997, that is, on a date when the
Zonenrandförderungsgesetz had already ceased to exist.
                                                                         Action brought on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
(1) Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996
    establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry
    (OJ L 338 of 28.12.1996, p. 42).                                                              (Case T-98/99)
(2) Law of 5 August 1971, Bundesgesetzblatt i, p. 1237.
                                                                                (1999/C 174/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Ford Motor Company                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                     European Communities on 20 April 1999 by UPS Europe
                        Market (OHIM)                                    NV/SA, represented by Mr. Tom R. Otervanger, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff
                         (Case T-91/99)                                  Claeys Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel.
                        (1999/C 174/27)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — declare, in accordance with Article 175 of the EC Treaty,
                   (Language of the case: English)                           that the Commission has failed to act by not having
                                                                             rendered a definitive decision within a reasonable period
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               of time upon the Applicant’s complaint lodged with the
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance                 Commission on 8 June 1998;
of the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Ford
Motor Company, having its registered office in Delaware, USA,            — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
represented by Anthony James Tweedale Willoughby, with an                    applicant in the present proceedings;
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
Manhaeve, 56-58 rue Charles Martel.                                      — take such further action as the Court may deem appro-
                                                                             priate.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to refuse
     under Article (1)(b) and (c) of the Community Trade Mark            On 8 June 1998, the applicant submitted a formal complaint
     Regulation to register the word ‘OPTIONS’ as a trade mark;          against the German Republic for granting unlawful State aid
                                                                         contrary to Article 92 of the EC Treaty in connection with the
— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market              proposed acquisition by Deutsche Post AG of 22.5 % of the
     to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present           shares of DHL. The applicant assumed that the financing of
     proceedings;                                                        the transaction infringed the said Article of the EC Treaty. The
 ---pagebreak--- 19.6.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 174/15
applicant states that Deutsche Post AG has spent several                        Removal from the register of Case T-210/96 (1)
billion DEM to acquire subsequently joint control of DHL
International and control of some of the major freight carriers                                  (1999/C 174/30)
and/or parcel providers. According to the applicant, there is
no evidence that no State aid is involved. Such issues can and
must be examined by the Commission.                                                         (Language of the case: French)
The applicant emphasises that the Commission’s intervention              By order of 10 February 1999 the President of the First
in this case is crucial for maintaining competition in the               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
markets concerned. Currently, the postal and parcel market is            Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
characterised by an impressive wave of take-overs by the                 Case T-210/96: Margarida Marı́z Mendes Pires Afonso v
(former) national post offices and particularly Deutsche Post            Commission of the European Communities.
AG. Private operators are not able to meet this form of
competition and will, if no appropriate action is taken by the           (1) OJ No C 54 of 22.2.1997.
Commission, be eliminated from the market.
On 21 December 1998, the applicant sent a letter inviting the
Commission to take a decision with regard to its complaint.
The applicant announced that it would initiate proceedings
under Article 175 of the EC Treaty if the Commission did not
inform the applicant within two months from the date of that                    Removal from the register of Case T-291/97 (1)
letter. The period of two months thus expired on 21 February
1999 without the Commission having taken a decision or                                           (1999/C 174/31)
defined its position in regard to the applicant’s complaint
under Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant submits that the period of more than 10 months
which has elapsed since the complaint was submitted is a                 By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber
sufficiently long period to enable the Commission to close the           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
preliminary stage of investigation and to initiate a formal              has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-291/97:
investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.                      Robert Mehlen and Others v Council of the European Union
                                                                         and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 7 of 10.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-194/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 174/29)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-610/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 174/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
By order of 23 March 1999 the President of the First Chamber                               (Language of the case: Danish)
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-194/96:              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fourth
Mireille Meskens v European Parliament.                                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                         Case T-610/97: Ingeborg Fangel v Council of the European
(1) OJ No C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                              Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.


title: Case F-15/13: Action brought on 11 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/31

         Action brought on 11 February 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-15/13)
   2013/C 129/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to close the procedures for the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights, without a transfer.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 17 April 2012 to close the files on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-270/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/64)                                                      (2001/C 118/67)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-56/00: Commission of the                  from the register of Case C-270/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              European Communities v Austria.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-155/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-484/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/65)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/68)
By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 10 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-155/00: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Italy.                                         from the register of Case C-484/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/00 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-320/96 P (1)
                        (2001/C 118/66)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/69)
By order of 9 November 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 14 November 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-186/00: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil              from the register of Case C-320/96 P: European Broadcasting
Division)]: Boston Scientific Ltd and Others v Cordis Corpor-         Union v Métropole Té1évision SA and Others.
ation and Cordis (UK) Ltd.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.