title: Case T-220/10: Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Commission v EU Research Projects

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/40

         Action brought on 18 May 2010 — Commission v EU Research Projects
   (Case T-220/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: N. Bambara, agent and C. Erkelens, lawyer)

      Defendant: EU Research Projects Ltd (Hungerford, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to reimburse to the Commission the principal amount of EUR 102 039,32 plus the accrued interest of default to be calculated at a rate of 4,80 % from 28 December 2006 until the date of payment of the due amount; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission brought the present application, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, in order to seek reimbursement of the amount allegedly overpaid to the defendant, which is EUR 102 039,32, plus interest calculated at the rate of 4,80 % from the date on which the debt was due, i.e. 28 December 2006.
   Under the European Community’s fifth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002), the Commission signed with, among others, the defendant a ‘contract for research and technological development projects’, identified by number IST-2001-34850. The sum claimed by the applicant under the said contract is equivalent to the difference between the advance payment paid to the defendant and the total eligible costs accepted by the applicant, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the contract, as a consequence of the defendant’s request of withdrawal from the project and further to its non-compliance with the relevant contractual obligations.
   In support of its application, the Commission raises a single plea in law: the Commission contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations by failing to reimburse to the Commission the difference between the Commission’s financial contribution due to defendant and the total amount of advance funding already received by it. The financial contribution due to the defendant is less than the total amount paid by the applicant by means of an advance payment. Furthermore, under Belgian law, which the law applicable to the contract, what has been paid without it being due (undue payment) can be claimed back. The Commission contends therefore that the defendant is liable for the sum due.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Case C-276/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC — State aid granted to iron and steel undertakings — Application for the recovery of aid contrary to Community law — Obligations of the Member States — Failure to fulfil obligations — Procedure initiated when the failure has exhausted its effects)

text:
C 369/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        22.12.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 25 October 2001
                                                                                of 25 October 2001
in Case C-120/99: Italian Republic v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
                                                                           in Case C-276/99: Federal Republic of Germany v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(Common agricultural policy — Fisheries — Bluefin tuna —
Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 — Statement of reasons —
Total allowable catches (TACs) — Allocation of TACs
among Member States — Principle of relative stability —                    (ECSC — State aid granted to iron and steel undertakings
Determination of basic data — Complex economic situation                   — Application for the recovery of aid contrary to Community
— Discretion — International Convention for the Conser-                    law — Obligations of the Member States — Failure to fulfil
vation of Atlantic Tunas — Accession of the Community —                    obligations — Procedure initiated when the failure has
Impact on the allocation of TACs to Member States —                                               exhausted its effects)
                 Principle of non-discrimination)
                                                                                (2001/C 369/03)
                          (2001/C 369/02)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                           (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-120/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by P.G. Ferri and D. Del Gaizo) v Council of the European
Union (Agents: M. Sims and I. Dı́ez Parra) supported by                    In Case C-276/99: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) by French                   initially by W.-D. Plessing and C.-D. Quassowski, and, sub-
Republic (Agents: J.-F. Dobelle, K. Rispal-Bellanger and                   sequently, by W.-D. Plessing, assisted by R. Bierwagen) v
C. Vasak) and by Commission of the European Communities                    Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
(Agents: T. van Rijn and F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application              schitz and J.M. Flett) — application for the annulment of
for the annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC)                  Commission Decision 1999/597/ECSC of 21 April 1999 in
No 49/1999 of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain stocks                  proceedings under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty concerning
of highly migratory fish, the total allowable catches for 1999,            State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany to Neue
their distribution in quotas to Member States and certain                  Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH (OJ 1999 L 230, p. 4) — the
conditions under which they may be fished (OJ 1999 L 13,                   Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
p. 54) and of the table relating to bluefin tuna annexed to that           President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet
regulation — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,              and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward,                      L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
A. La Pergola and C.W..A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;                 judgment on 25 October 2001, in which it:
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Admin-
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October
2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/597/ECSC of 21 April
                                                                                1999 in proceedings under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 concerning State aid granted by the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH;
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs;
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the             2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
      costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
( 1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: Action brought on 4 June 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-213/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 228/9
legislation of that Member State, where the company does               — by not providing for limit values for emissions for the
not itself carry on any business but it is desired to set up                 discharge of certain substances by industrial plant not
the subsidiary in order to carry on the entire business in                   listed under heading A of Annex II to the Directive,
the country in which the subsidiary is established, and
where, instead of incorporating a company in the latter                — by not transposing Article 3 ( 5 ) of the Directive
Member State, that procedure must be regarded as having                      concerning the reference method of analysis to be used
been employed in order to avoid paying in company                            in determining the presence of the substances referred
capital of not less than Dkr 200 000 ( at present Dkr                        to in Article 2 ( a ),
125 000 )?
                                                                       — by not transposing point 5 of heading A of Annex I to
                                                                             the Directive on the monitoring procedure to be
                                                                              instituted to check whether the discharges of the
                                                                             substances referred to in Article 2 ( a ) comply with the
                                                                             emission standards,
Action brought on 4 June 1997 by the Commission of the
  European Communities against the Portuguese Republic                 — by not drawing up any specific programme to avoid or
                          ( Case C-213/97 )                                  eliminate pollution arising from the sources of
                            ( 97/C 228/18 )                                   significant discharges which are specifically mentioned
                                                                              in Annex II,
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                  the defendant did not bring national law into line with the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                Directive, so that its transposition must be considered to
on 4 June 1997 by the Commission of the European                       be erroneous and incomplete .
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for             O OJNoL 181 , 4 . 7. 1986 , p. 16 .
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la              ( 2 ) OJ No L 158 , 25 . 6 . 1988 , p . 35 .
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                        ( 3 ) OJ No L 129, 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to            Action brought on 4 June 1997 by the Commission of the
      comply fully and properly with Council Directive 86/                 European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
      280/EEC (') of 12 June 1986, as amended by Council                                           ( Case C-214/97)
      Directive 88/347/EEC (2 ) of 16 June 1988 , on limit
      values and quality objectives for discharges of certain                                        ( 97/C 228/19 )
      dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex
      to Directive 76/464/EEC (3 ), the Portuguese Republic            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                    on 4 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
      Articles 7 and 2 of Directives 86/280/EEC and 88/347/            Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
      EEC respectively,                                                of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      inform the       Commission      of such measures,      the
      Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      under those provisions,
                                                                       — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                             within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                              concerning the quality required of surface water
                                                                              intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the
 The Commission finds that the Portuguese Republic has                        Member States ( ! ), inasmuch as it did not draw up a
 failed to fulfil its obligations inasmuch as :                               systematic plan of action including a timetable for the
                                                                              improvement of surface water, the Portuguese
 — by providing, by virtue of Article 44 ( 3 ) of Decree                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Law No 74/90, that the competent authorities for the                    third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
      granting of authorizations may fix emission standards                   the provisions of Directive 75/440/EEC,
      which are less stringent than those set out under
      heading A of the Annexes to the Directive and by not             — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing forthwith to
      providing for any mandatory review of such                               inform the Commission of such measures, the
      authorizations ( infringement of Article 3 ( 3 ) of the                  Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
      Directive ),                                                             under those provisions,


title: Case T-236/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — External service provision for development, studies and support of information systems — Rejection of a tenderer’s bids — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Transparency — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-236/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - External service provision for development, studies and support of information systems - Rejection of a tenderer’s bids - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Transparency - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability)
   2012/C 126/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by N. Bambara and subsequently by E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, first, for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 27 March 2009 rejecting the applicant’s tenders for, respectively, lot 1, ‘On-site development expertise (intra muros)’, and lot 2, ‘Off-site development (extra muros)’, in Call for Tenders RTD-R4-2007-001 on external service provision for development, studies and support of information systems for the Commission (OJ 2007 S 238), and the decisions to award the lots to other tenderers and, second, for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-27/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands v. Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1990 financial year - Export refunds on Barley)

text:
21.11.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 358/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                     of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                      (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                   of 24 September 1998                              and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                     Community must be interpreted as requiring the
in Case C-132/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            competent institution, in determining the theoretical
the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Antonio Stinco, Ciro             amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro
Panfilo v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale               rata pension is based, to take into account a supplement
                          (INPS) (1)                                 intended to bring the pension to the level of the statutory
                                                                     minimum.
(Old-age pension Ð Calculation of the theoretical amount
of a benefit Ð Inclusion of the amount necessary to attain
              the statutory minimum pension)                         (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                        (98/C 358/01)
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 1 October 1998
In Case C-132/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                 in Case C-27/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma                      Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Magistrate's Court, Rome) (Italy), for a preliminary                (EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1990 financial year
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                   Ð Export refunds on Barley)
between Antonio Stinco, Ciro Panfilo and Istituto
Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) Ð on the                                           (98/C 358/02)
interpretation of Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (OJ L 230,
22.8.1983, p. 6), as amended in turn by Council
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 1)
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
and by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136,
19.5.1992, p. 7) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F.
Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and             In Case C-27/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den Oosterkamp) v.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T.
judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has ruled:                van Rijn) Ð application for the partial annulment of
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
Commission Decision 93/659/EC of 25 November 1993                  1. Dismisses the application;
on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
States in respect of the expenditure for 1990 of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                   2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(EAGGF), Guarantee Section (OJ L 301, 8.12.1993, p. 13)
                                                                        Northern Ireland to pay the costs.
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F.
Mancini (Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,              (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in which it:
1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2. Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                                       (Fifth Chamber)
    costs.                                                                               of 1 October 1998
                                                                   in Case C-232/96: French Republic v. Commission of the
(1) OJ C 76, 12.3.1994.                                                              European Communities (1)
                                                                   (EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð
                                                                                Beef and veal Ð Cereals)
                                                                                (98/C 358/04)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               (Language of the case: French)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 1 October 1998
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-209/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       published in the European Court Reports)
Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                   In Case 232/96: French Republic (Agents: C. de Salins and
                         Beef and veal)                            F. Pascal) v. Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agent: X. Lewis) Ð application for the annulment in part
                         (98/C 358/03)                             of Commission Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                   the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                   States in respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the
                                                                   Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
               (Language of the case: English)                     and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in respect of certain
                                                                   expenditure for 1993 (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the
                                                                   Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
                                                                   President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.
In Case C-209/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón,
Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted by G.             Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Barling and H. Davies) v. Commission of the European               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Communities (Agent: J. Macdonald Flett) Ð application              1 October 1998, in which it:
for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 96/311/
EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of the accounts
presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                   1. Dismisses the application;
expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
(OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth                    2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,          (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
which it:


title: Case T-693/16 P: Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/27

      Appeal brought on 28 September 2016 by HG against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15, HG v Commission
      (Case T-693/16 P)
      (2016/C 441/32)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: HG (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, 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 Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 19 July 2016 in Case F-149/15;

                  —

                  in consequence thereof, grant the appellant the relief sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                              —

                              annul Decision CMS 13-005 of the Tripartite appointing authority in so far as it provides for deferment of the appellant’s advancement to a higher salary step for 18 months and for payment of compensation in respect of damage assessed by the decision at EUR 108 596,35;

                              —

                              so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the appellant’s complaint;

                              —

                              in the alternative, reduce the financial penalty contained in Decision CMS 13-005;

                              —

                              order the respondent to pay compensation in respect of the non-material harm and reputational damage suffered by the appellant, assessed at EUR 20 000;

                              —

                              order the respondent to pay the costs in their entirety;

                  —

                  order the respondent to pay all of the costs at first instance and on appeal.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, the appellant invokes four grounds.

                  1.

                  First ground, concerning the appellant’s financial liability, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) failed to rule on one of the complaints of the appellant concerning infringement of the principle of proportionality. Furthermore, the CST committed several errors of law and distorted the evidence in the case file.

                  2.

                  Second ground, alleging procedural defects in the preparatory acts leading to the adoption of the contested decision, infringement of the appellant’s rights of defence, breach of the obligation to state reasons and errors of law committed by the CST.

                  3.

                  Third ground, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons on the part of the Commission and the CST.

                  4.

                  Fourth ground, alleging that the CST erred in law and fact in relation to the first complaint upheld against the appellant. Furthermore, the CST disregarded its obligation to provide reasons.


title: Case T-214/09: Action brought on 26 May 2009 — COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (COR)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/57

         Action brought on 26 May 2009 — COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (COR)
   (Case T-214/09)
   2009/C 180/106
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: COR Sitzmöbel Helmut Lübke (Rheda-Wiedenbrück, Germany) (represented by Y-G. von Amsberg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 March 2009 (R 376/2008-2); and

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word Mark ‘COR’ for goods in Clases 20 and 27 (International Registration No 839 721)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: El Corte Inglés, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word Mark ‘CADENACOR’ (Community Trade mark No 2 362 598) for goods in Class 20

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of Protection

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the Appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)), in as much as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

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


title: Case T-111/16: Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Prada v EUIPO — The Rich Prada International (THE RICH PRADA)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/21

         Action brought on 18 March 2016 — Prada v EUIPO — The Rich Prada International (THE RICH PRADA)
   (Case T-111/16)
   (2016/C 175/25)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Prada SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Rich Prada International PT (Surabaya, Indonesia)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘THE RICH PRADA’ — Application for registration No 10 228 948

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 January 2016 in Joined Cases R 3076/2014-2 and R 3186/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in part, thereby granting Opposition Proceedings No B 2 012 477 in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, uphold the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in its entirety;

               —

               reverse the order to Prada SA to bear the costs of the appeal to the Board of Appeal, in the amount of €550, and order The Rich Prada International PT to pay such costs;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-119/13: Action brought on 11 December 2013  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/37

         Action brought on 11 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-119/13)
   2014/C 129/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decisions on the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme which apply the new GIP relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions concerning the calculation of the accredited pension rights acquired by the applicants before their entry into service with the Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-428/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — STEF v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/44

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — STEF v Commission
   (Case T-428/08)
   (2008/C 313/81)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Samband tónskálda og eigenda flutningsréttar (STEF) (Reykjavík, Island) (represented by: H. Melkorka Óttarsdóttir, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by one authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.
   The applicant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its claims.
   First, the applicant submits that the Commission committed an error of assessment and infringed Article 81 EC by deciding that the parallel territorial delineation included in the reciprocal representation agreements concluded by the applicant and the other CISAC members is the result of a concerted practice. It claims that the level of evidence put forward by the Commission in the decision is insufficient to establish that the parallel conduct is not the result of normal competitive conditions but constitutes such a concerted practice. The applicant further states that the presence of the delineation clause in all of its reciprocal agreements is necessary to protect effectively and sufficiently the interest of the authors represented by the applicant and the other CISAC members.
   Secondly, the applicant contends that, contrary to the findings of the contested decision, the territorial delineation by CISAC societies in their reciprocal representation agreements is not restrictive of competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC because to create and protect the competition between the authors' societies would be inconsistent with the fundamental nature of the collecting society which is to protect the rights of its members and operate exclusively for its members.
   Thirdly, in the alternative, the applicant argues that, even if the territorial delineation constituted a concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC, the conditions of Article 81(3) EC are fulfilled. It states that the challenged practice improves the distribution of music, allows consumers fair share of the resulting benefits, does not impose restrictions on undertakings which are not indispensable to the attainment of the objective nor afford them the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products. This practice should be then considered to be necessary and proportionate, in the meaning of Article 81(3) EC to the legitimate objective of protecting the rights of the societies' members and the authors.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to apply Article 151(4) EC in its decision which states that the Community shall take into account cultural aspects in its action under other provisions of the Treaty, in particular in order to respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures.


title: Case T-74/14: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — France v Commission (State aid — Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM — Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan — Private investor in a market economy test — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market — Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — France v Commission
   (Case T-74/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid measures implemented by France in favour of SNCM - Restructuring aid and mesures taken in the context of a privatisation plan - Private investor in a market economy test - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and incompatible with the internal market - Re-opening of the formal investigation procedure - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 277/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: initially G. de Bergues, D. Colas, E. Belliard and J. Bousin, and subsequently D. Colas, E. Belliard and J. Bousin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 7066 final of 20 November 2013, concerning State aid SA.16237 (C 58/2002) (ex N 118/2002) implemented by France in favour of SNCM.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-259/08: Order of the General Court of 14 March 2011 — Global Digital Disc v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/29

         Order of the General Court of 14 March 2011 — Global Digital Disc v Commission
   (Case T-259/08) (1)

   2011/C 139/54
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


30.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 166/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-352/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/28)                                                     (98/C 166/32)
By order of 6 March 1998 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                   By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Case C-56/97: Commission of the European Communities              removal from the register of Case C-352/97: Commission
v French Republic.                                                of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/29)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-353/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/33)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (reference for         By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Queen's Bench Divison, Commercial Court): Compagnia               removal from the register of Case C-353/97: Commission
di Navigazione Marittima and Others v Compagnie                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
Maritime Belge and Others.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-310/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-101/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/30)
                                                                                (98/C 166/34)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-310/96: Commission            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the                      removal from the register of Case C-101/97: Commission
Netherlands.                                                      of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/31)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-286/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/35)
By order of 20 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (reference for         By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fifth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
per la Sardegna): SocietaÁ Appia Srl v Comune di Cagliari         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
and SocietaÁ Cagliari Calcio SpA.                                 Case     C-286/96:     Commission     of the    European
                                                                  Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.


title: Case T-232/17: Order of the General Court of 12 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/42

         Order of the General Court of 12 June 2017 — Eco-Bat Technologies and Others v Commission
   (Case T-232/17)
   (2017/C 256/51)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case C-365/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Pollution control — Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 March 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-365/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Pollution control - Limit values for concentrations of PM10 in ambient air)
   2011/C 152/15
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: N. Pintar Gosenca, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air (OJ 1999 L 163, p. 41) and of Article 13(1) of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe (OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1) — Failure to take the measures necessary in order that concentrations of PM10 in ambient air should not exceed the limit values fixed

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, for the years 2005 to 2007, by exceeding the limit values for annual and daily concentrations of PM10 in ambient air, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-101/14 P: Appeal brought on 20 February 2014 by Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2013 in Case T-389/13: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/3

         Appeal brought on 20 February 2014 by Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2013 in Case T-389/13: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-101/14 P)
   2014/C 303/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. (represented by: P. Leander, T. Kronhöffer, advocates)

      Other party: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   By order of 17 July 2014 the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-418/05 P: Order of the Court of 7 November 2006 — Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos, Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 — Action for annulment — Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal persons — Not individually concerned)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/23

         Order of the Court of 7 November 2006 — Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos, Antonio Parras Rosa v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-418/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 - Action for annulment - Support scheme in the olive oil sector - Natural and legal persons - Not individually concerned)
   (2006/C 331/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Centro Provincial de Jóvenes Agricultores de Jaén (ASAJA), Salvador Contreras Gila, José Ramiro López, Antonio Ramiro López, Cristobal Gallego Martínez, Benito García Burgos, Antonio Parras Rosa (represented by: J. Vázquez Medina, abogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and M.F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Joined Cases T-295/04 to T-297/04 ASAJA and Others v Council, declaring inadmissible the actions for partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to pay the costs;

               3.

               The Commission of the European Communities shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 March 1999 in Case C-304/97 P: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v European Parliament (Officials - Internal competition - Appointment to a post of head of division)

text:
3.7.1999                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 188/5
1. Declares that, by failing to classify as a special protection area a      2. Annuls the decision of 21 February 1995 appointing Mr X as
    sufficiently large area of the Seine estuary and by failing to adopt         head of division in the Directorate-General for Information and
    measures to provide the classified special protection area with an           Public Relations of the European Parliament and assigning him
    adequate legal regime, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its          to the Parliament Information Office for Spain in Madrid;
    obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive
    79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;            3. Orders the European Parliament to pay in their entirety the costs
                                                                                of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                   Court of Justice.
3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 18 March 1999
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-2/98 P: Henri de Compte v European Parlia-
                          of 18 March 1999                                                                 ment (1)
in Case C-304/97 P: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero v European                      (Officials — Application for revision of a judgment of the
                             Parliament (1)                                     Court of First Instance — Appeal to the Court of Justice)
(Officials — Internal competition — Appointment to a post                                              (1999/C 188/10)
                         of head of division)
                           (1999/C 188/09)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-2/98 P: Henri de Compte, formerly an official of the
                    in the European Court Reports)                           European Parliament, represented by Henri Ferretti, of the
                                                                             Thionville Bar, 39 Boulevard Jeanne d’Arc, F - 57100 Thionville
                                                                             — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
In Case C-304/97 P: Fernando Carbajo Ferrero, an official of                 of the European Communities (First Chamber) of 5 November
the European Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by                  1997 in Case T-26/89 (125) De Compte v Parliament [1997]
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,                    ECR-SC I-A-305 and II-847, seeking to have that judgment set
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange — appeal against                   Parliament (Agents: Evelyn Waldherr and Anders Neergaard)
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn,
Communities (First Chamber) of 12 June 1997 in Case                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini, H. Ragnem-
T-237/95 Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament [1997] ECR-SC                          alm (Rapporteur) and K.M. Ioannou, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
I-A-141 and II-429, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 March
the other party to the proceedings being: European Parliament                1999, in which it:
(Agent: Norbert Lorenz, assisted by Francis Herbert and Daniel
M. Tomasevic) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of                       1. Dismisses the appeal;
P.J.G Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
cini, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and K.M. Ioannou, Judges;                    2. Orders Mr de Compte to pay the costs.
N. Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 March 1999 in which it:
                                                                             (1) OJ No C 113 of 11.4.1998.
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities of 12 June 1997 in Case T-237/95
    Carbajo Ferrero v Parliament;


title: Case C-392/08: Action brought on 9 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/14

         Action brought on 9 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-392/08)
   (2008/C 272/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 of Council Directive 96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances applies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC.

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to Article 2(1) of Directive 96/82/EC, Article 9 of the directive, the Directive is to apply to establishments where dangerous substances are present in quantities equal to or in excess of the quantities listed in Annex I, Parts 1 and 2, column 3.
   Under Article 11(1)(c) of that directive, Member States are to ensure that, for all establishments to which Article 9 applies, the authorities designated for that purpose are to draw up an external emergency plan for the measures to be taken outside the establishment.
   The objective of this application is to seek a declaration that by failing to draw up external emergency plans for all establishments to which Article 9 applies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11(1)(c) of Directive 96/82/EC.

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 10, p. 13.


title: Case C-239/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Abdoulaye Amadou Tall v Centre public d’action sociale de Huy (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2005/85/EC — Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Article 39 — Right to an effective remedy — Multiple asylum claims — Non-suspensory effect of an appeal against a decision of the competent national authority not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum — Social protection — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 19(2) — Article 47)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du travail de Liège — Belgium) — Abdoulaye Amadou Tall v Centre public d’action sociale de Huy
   (Case C-239/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2005/85/EC - Minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status - Article 39 - Right to an effective remedy - Multiple asylum claims - Non-suspensory effect of an appeal against a decision of the competent national authority not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum - Social protection - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 19(2) - Article 47))
   (2016/C 068/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal du travail de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abdoulaye Amadou Tall

      Defendant: Centre public d’action sociale de Huy

      Intervener: Agence fédérale pour l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile (Fedasil)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 39 of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, read in the light of Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not confer suspensory effect on an appeal brought against a decision, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, not to further examine a subsequent application for asylum.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case T-384/08: Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki and Others v Commission (State aid — Shipbuilding — Aid granted by the Greek authorities in the form of an indemnification guarantee — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of State aid — Imputability to the State — State resources — Private investor test)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 November 2011 — Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki and Others v Commission
   (Case T-384/08) (1)

   (State aid - Shipbuilding - Aid granted by the Greek authorities in the form of an indemnification guarantee - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of State aid - Imputability to the State - State resources - Private investor test)
   2011/C 370/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki AE Chartofylakeiou (Chaidari, Greece); Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (Kiel, Germany); and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Soltész and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, M. Konstantinidis and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Trapeza Peiraios AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by S. Pappas, I. Ktenidis and C. Apalagaki, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 16 of Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 on the measures C 16/04 (ex NN 29/04, CP 71/02 and CP 133/05) implemented by Greece in favour of Hellenic Shipyards SA (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 104).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Elliniki Nafpigokataskevastiki AE Chartofylakeiou, Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH and ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Trapeza Peiraios AE.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 7 March 1996 in Case T-362/94: Jan Robert De Rijk v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for officials posted outside the Communities - Procedure for reimbursement of medical expenses)

text:
13 . 4 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 108/9
     candidatures for the posts declared vacant by Notice               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     No C] 68/92, and the defendant's decision of 27 June                                     of 7 March 1996
     1994, in so far as it rejects the part of complaint               in Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors of
     Cont. 12/94-R lodged against that decision;
                                                                                the European Communities ( 1 )
4 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                        (Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible with the
                                                                       dignity of the public service — Duty to act in good faith —
5 , orders the defendant to bear its own costs, and one                      Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
     quarter of the applicant's costs, and the applicant to                                      ( 96/C 108/ 19 )
     bear three-quarters of his own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .
                                                                       In Case T-146/94 : Calvin Williams, a former official of the
                                                                       Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                       Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Jean-Paul Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis, v. Court
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :
                        of 6 March 1996                                Jean-Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta ) —
in Case T-93 /94 : Michael Becker v . Court of Auditors of the         application for the annulment, first, of the decision of the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Court of Auditors of 24 June 1993 removing the applicant
                                                                       from his post without reduction or withdrawal of his
(Officials — Classification in step — Seniority — Equal                entitlement to a retirement pension, second, of the decision
treatment — Duty to have regard to the interests of                    of 24 January 1994 expressly rejecting his complaint and,
                               officials)                              third, in so far as may be necessary, of the decision of
                           ( 96/C 108/ 18 )                            23 January 1994 impliedly rejecting that complaint — the
                                                                       Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of
                                                                       R. Schintgen, President, and R. Garci'a-Valdecasas and
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       J. Azizi , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1996 , in
In Case T-93/94 : Michael Becker, an official at the Court             which it :
of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
in Luxembourg, represented by Roy Nathan, of the                       1 , dismisses the action;
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 18 Rue des Glacis, v-.
Court of Auditors of the European Communities ( Agents :               2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Jean-Marie Stenier and Jan Inghelram ) — application for
the annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors of
                                                                       (') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
concerning his classification in step — the Court of First
Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos, Judges;
B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 6 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1 , annuls the refusal of the Court of Auditors to reclassify                                of 7 March 1996
     the applicant in step, pursuant to Council Regulation
     (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 3947/92 of 21 December                    in Case T-362/94: Jan Robert De Rijk v. Commission of the
     1 992 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and                               European Communities ( ] )
     the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the              (Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for
     European Communities, with effect from 1 January                   officials posted outside the Communities — Procedure for
     1993 , as he had requested by letter of 5 February 1993,                       reimbursement of medical expenses)
     together with the Court of Auditors ' decision of                                            ( 96/C 108/20 )
     2 December 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint
     against that refusal;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 2 , orders the Court ofAuditors to bear its own costs and to
     pay the costs incurred by the applicant.                           In Case T-362/94 : Jan Robert De Rijk, an official of the
                                                                        European Communities, residing at Helsinki , represented
                                                                        by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 0 ) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                        SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v . Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/ 10          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 4 . 96
Currall ) — application for the annulment of the decision of            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
the Commission of 18 January 1994, inasmuch as it does                                   of 15 February 1996
not reimburse to the applicant the full difference between
the medical expenses incurred by him for a dependent                in Case T-5/95 : Amicale des Résidents du Square
child and the amounts payable under the joint sickness                      d'Auvergne v. Commission of the European
insurance scheme — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth                                      Communitiesf 1 )
Chamber ), composed of: R. Schintgen, President, and                (Competition — Action for annulment — Action for failure
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung,                to act — Action for damages — Application for directions to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 19 96 , in               be issued to the Commission — Admissibility — No need to
which it :                                                                                give a decision)
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/22 )
1 , dismisses the application -,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                  In Case T- 5/95 : Amicale des Résidents du Square
                                                                    d'Auvergne, established in Massy, France, represented by
                                                                    Jean-Marc Florand, of the Paris Bar, v . Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco and
                                                                    Wouter Wils ) — application for ( 1 ) a declaration that the
                                                                    Commission has failed to act and an order directing it to
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            continue its investigation of a complaint; (2 ) the annulment
                      of 12 March 1996                              of the Commission's decisions contained in its letters to the
in Case T-361 /94 : Henry A. Weir v. Commission of the              applicant of 20 September 1994, 5 October 1994 and
                  European Communities ( 1 )                        26 October 1994 , and ( 3 ) an order that the Commission pay
                                                                    ECU 10 million by way of damages — the Court of First
(Officials — Partial permanent invalidity — Equality of             Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
treatment — Change in purchasing power — Delay                      President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura-Ramos , Judges;
in dealing with a matter — Default interest —                       H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 1 5 February 1 996 ,
                         Admissibility)                             in which it orders :
                          96/C 108 /21 )
                                                                    I . there is no need to give a decision on the claim for failure
               (Language of the case: German)                           to act;
In Case T-361 /94 : Henry A. Weir, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                 2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed as
                                                                        inadmissible;
Glasgow ( United Kingdom ), represented by Hans-Josef
Ruber, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue            3 , the parties shall bear their own costs, including the costs
Mathias Hardt, v . Commission of the European                           of the proceedings for interim measures.
Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Bertrand
Wàgenbaur ) — application, first, for the annulment of the          (') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .
decision of the Commission of 25 February 1994, adopted
pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff Regulations of officials of
the European Communities, alternatively an award of
compensatory interest, and, second, an award of default
interest — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
on 12 March 1996 , in which it:                                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 February 1996
 1 , dismisses the application as inadmissible, inasmuch as it      in Case T-235/95 R: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
     seeks directions to the Commission and an order
                                                                                the European Communities
     requiring the Commission to pay compensatory
     interest;
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/23 )
2 , dismisses the remainder of the application as                                  (Language of the case: English)
     unfounded;
                                                                    In Case T-235/95 R : Anthony Goldstein a medical
3 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.                     practitioner residing in London, represented by Raymond
                                                                    St John Murphy, Solicitor, against Commission of the
 O OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities ( Agent: Richard Lyal ) —
                                                                    application for an interlocutory order for interim measures
                                                                    — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order


title: Case T-330/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Chatziiannou v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/34

         Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Chatziiannou v Commission and European Central Bank
   (Case T-330/13)
   2013/C 252/57
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Lella Chatziiannou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Εfstathiou, K. Εfstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013, which took its final form through the decision of the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus as the representative and/or agent of the European System of Central Banks dated 29 Μarch 2013, K.D.P [Regulatory Administrative Act] 104/2013, whereby the ‘sale of certain operations’ of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd was decided and which in essence constitutes a joint decision of not only the European Central Bank but also of the European Commission;

               —

               in addition, declare that the abovementioned decision of the Eurogroup in essence constitutes a decision of the European Central Bank and/or of the European Commission jointly irrespective of the shape or form in which it was dressed;

               —

               order the European Central Bank and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               By the first plea for annulment the applicant maintains that the contested decision is null and void, since the decision exceeds the powers conferred by the Treaty on European Union on not only the European Central Bank but also the European Commission, that is to say, it is an act which was ultra vires of those two institutions.

               2.

               By the second plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is in breach of the right to respect for property, which is protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as confirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               By the third plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is manifestly unfounded and lacking any legal basis and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is also contrary to the generally recognised legal principles which have been disseminated in European Union law and in particular to the principle that no-one may rely on his own failures to obtain an advantage and/or to justify wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.


title: Case C-299/10: Order of the President of the Court of 15 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Amares (Portugal)) — Cristiano Marques Vieira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Amares (Portugal)) — Cristiano Marques Vieira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA
   (Case C-299/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/57
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 July 2005 in Case C-130/04: Commission of the European Communities v Greek Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 1172/98 — Statistical return in respect of the carriage of goods by road)

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 21 July 2005
   in Case C-130/04: Commission of the European Communities v Greek Republic (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 1172/98 - Statistical return in respect of the carriage of goods by road)
   (2005/C 243/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-130/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent:M. D Triantafyllou) v Greek Republic (Agent: S Chala) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 11 March 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transmit to the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat), for the years 1999 to 2002, statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road in accordance with the requirements of Council Regulation (EC) No 1172/98 of 25 May 1998 on statistical returns in respect of the carriage of goods by road, the Greek Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

               2.

               Orders the Greek Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-117/09 P: Order of the Court of 24 June 2010 — Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Application for aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking and notified to the Commission after the investment project had been fully completed — Criteria of the incentive effect and of necessity)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/21

         Order of the Court of 24 June 2010 — Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission
   (Case C-117/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Application for aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking and notified to the Commission after the investment project had been fully completed - Criteria of the incentive effect and of necessity)
   2010/C 346/35
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, V. Kreuschitz and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 14 January 2009 in Case T-162/06 Kronoply v Commission by which the Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/262/EC of 21 September 2005 declaring State aid which Germany is planning to implement for the appellant to be incompatible with the common market (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 50) — Proposed aid intended to amend aid previously granted to the recipient undertaking notified to the Commission after the investment project had been fully completed by means of the aid initially approved — Incorrect assessment of the incentive effect and of the necessity of the aid at issue

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-333/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — TACIS programme — Sub-contracted services — Refusal to make payment — Unjust enrichment — Negotiorum gestio — Recovery of sum not due — Legitimate expectations — Duty of diligence)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/54

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 2006 — Masdar (UK) Ltd v Commission
   (Case T-333/03) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability of the Community - TACIS programme - Sub-contracted services - Refusal to make payment - Unjust enrichment - Negotiorum gestio - Recovery of sum not due - Legitimate expectations - Duty of diligence)
   (2006/C 326/116)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Masdar (UK) Ltd (established in Eversley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Bentley QC, and P. Green, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and M. Wilderspin, Agents)
   Re:
   Action under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC for payment for services supplied by the applicant in connection with TACIS contracts MO.94.01/01.01/B002 and RU 96/5276/00, compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the non-payment for those services and payment of interest.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-189/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 July 2014  — Deza v ECHA (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use a chemical substance — Decision to allow a third party access to the documents — Application for suspension of operation — Urgency — Fumus boni juris — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/32

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 July 2014 — Deza v ECHA
   (Case T-189/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the ECHA containing information submitted by an undertaking in connection with its application for authorisation to use a chemical substance - Decision to allow a third party access to the documents - Application for suspension of operation - Urgency - Fumus boni juris - Weighing up of interests))
   2014/C 303/40
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicants: Deza, a.s. (Valašské Meziříčí, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Dejl, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: A. Iber, M. Heikkilä and T. Zbihlej, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the ECHA’s decision of 24 January 2014 concerning the disclosure of certain information submitted by the applicant in the course of the procedure relating to the application for authorisation to use the chemical substance Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Decision AFA-C-0000004274-77-09/F of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of 24 January 2014 is suspended in so far as it grants to a third party, under 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, access to a version of the report on the chemical safety and the analysis of the possible replacements for the substance Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), which is more detailed than the version with the material specified in the application for interim measures blanked out and which is set out in Annexes A.4.5 and A.4.6. of that application, with the exception, first, of the information on the classification and labelling of substances and, secondly, of the data specifically and exclusively concerning Arkema France, Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Kędzierzyn S.A. and Vinyloop Ferrara S.p.A.

               2.

               The ECHA is ordered not to disclose:

                           —

                           the report on the chemical safety and the analysis of the possible replacements for the substance Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) referred to in point 1 of the present operative part, in a version which is more detailed than that defined in point 1;

                           —

                           the reports on the chemical safety and the analyses of the possible replacements for the substance Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) submitted by Arkema France, Grupa Azoty Zakłady Azotowe Kędzierzyn and Vinyloop Ferrara and which are the subject of the ECHA Decisions AFA-C-0000004280-84-09/F, AFA-C-0000004275-75-09/F and AFA-C-0000004151-87-08/F of 24 January 2014, in so far as those documents are identical to those protected under point 1 of the present operative part.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-354/13: Order of the General Court of 10 September 2014  — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckhandwerks v Commission (Action for annulment — Protected geographical indication ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’  — Rejection of the application for annulment of the registration — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/41

         Order of the General Court of 10 September 2014 — Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckhandwerks v Commission
   (Case T-354/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Protected geographical indication ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’ - Rejection of the application for annulment of the registration - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 409/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckhandwerks eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: I. Jung, M. Teworte-Vey, A. Renvert and J. Saatkamp, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the alleged Commission decision contained in the letter of 8 April 2013 from the Director-General of the Agriculture and Rural Development Directorate-General of the Commission rejecting as inadmissible the applicant’s request for cancellation of the registration of the term ‘Kołocz śląski’ or ‘Kołacz śląski’ as a protected geographical indication.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Zentralverband des Deutschen Bäckhandwerks eV shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-346/15 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Community word marks BE HAPPY — Declaration of invalidity — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/3

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 25 February 2016 — Steinbeck GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-346/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Community word marks BE HAPPY - Declaration of invalidity - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character))
   (2016/C 200/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Steinbeck GmbH (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is rejected.

               2.

               Steinbeck GmbH shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case F-107/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Toth v Commission (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — Classification in grade — Grades laid down in the call for applications — Amendment of the rules governing classification of members of the temporary staff after publication of the call for applications — Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules — Transitional provisions — Application by analogy — Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Proportionality — Principle of good administration)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/59

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2010 — Toth v Commission
   (Case F-107/05) (1)

   (Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Classification in grade - Grades laid down in the call for applications - Amendment of the rules governing classification of members of the temporary staff after publication of the call for applications - Classification in grade under the new, less favourable rules - Transitional provisions - Application by analogy - Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Proportionality - Principle of good administration)
   2010/C 328/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gergely Toth (Besozzo, Italie) (represented by: initially, S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers, subsequently by S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and R. Albelice, lawyers, and finally by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents, and subsequently by K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant at grade A*6 on his appointment as a member of the temporary staff and, secondly, an application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision classifying Mr Toth at grade A*6, step 2, contained in Article 3 of the temporary staff contract signed on 17 January 2005;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant.

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006, p. 15. (Case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-401/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005.)


title: Case C-144/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 March 2012 — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 23 March 2012 — Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Massimo Sperindeo
   (Case C-144/12)
   2012/C 184/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH

      Defendant: Massimo Sperindeo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (Regulation No 1896/2006) to be interpreted as meaning that Article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (2) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Regulation No 44/2001), which confers jurisdiction on a court before which a defendant enters an appearance, must also be applied in the European order for payment procedure?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Article 17 of Regulation No 1896/2006 in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the lodging of a statement of opposition to a European order for payment itself constitutes the entry of an appearance, provided that that statement does not contest the jurisdiction of the court of origin?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the negative:
               Is Article 17 of Regulation No 1896/2006 in conjunction with Article 24 of Regulation No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that the lodging of a statement of opposition confers jurisdiction by virtue of the entry of an appearance at most where that statement itself presents arguments on the substance of the case but does not contest the jurisdiction?

      (1)  OJ L 399, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.