title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 1995 in Case C-220/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/44/EEC - Telecommunications - Open network provision for leased lines)

text:
 2 . 9 . 95             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 229/3
      concerned to hold a work permit or a residence permit                 ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
      issued by the authorities in the host State in order to              Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
      carry out his work . The fact that such employment exists            Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
      necessarily implies the recognition ofa right ofresidence             15 June 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
      for the person concerned;
                                                                           Community law does not preclude a court which has made a
 3 . Article 6 (2) of Decision No 1 /80 does not confer on a               preliminary reference from finding that in national law the
      Turkish national who has belonged to the legitimate                  claims of the appellants have been acceded to and, where
      labour force ofa Member State the right to remain in the             appropriate, that the main proceedings are thereby
      territory of that State following an accident at work                terminated. As long as the court which made the reference
      rendering him permanently incapacitated for work .                   has not found that in national law the fact that the claims
                                                                           have been acceded to has not so terminated the proceedings,
                                                                           the Court has no jurisdiction to give a ruling on the
(!) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .                                         questions referred to it.
( 2 ) OJ No 217, 29 . 12 . 1964 , p . 3685/64 .
                                                                           ( 1 ) OJ No C 316 , 23 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fourth Chamber )
                          of 15 June 1995                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Joined Cases C-422/93 , C-423/93 and C-424/93                                                    ( Fifth Chamber)
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País                                              of 15 June 1995
Vasco ( Spain ): Teresa Zabala Erasun v. Instituto Nacional                       in Case C-220/94: Commission of the European
de Empleo; Elvira Encabo Terrazos v. Instituto Nacional de                        Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )
Empleo; and Francisco Casquero Carrillo v. Instituto                       (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/44/EEC —
                     Nacional de Empleo i 1 )                              Telecommunications — Open network provision for leased
(Preliminary reference — Conditions under which court of                                                   lines)
reference should maintain its reference — Scope of the                                                 95/C 229/05 )
                       Court's jurisdiction)
                           ( 95/C 229/04 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (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-220/94 : Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: Anders C. Jessen and J.-F . Pasquier )
In Joined Cases C-422/93 , C-423/93 and C-424/93 :                        v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: N. Schmit ) —
references to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty                application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within
by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad                      the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Autonoma del Pais Vasco ( Spain ) for a preliminary ruling in             administrative provisions needed to comply with Council
the proceedings pending before that court between Teresa                  Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of
Zabala Erasun and Instituto Nacional de Empleo, Elvira                    open network provision to leased lines ( 2 ) or, alternatively,
Encabo Terrazos and Instituto Nacional de Empleo, and                     by failing to inform the Commission forthwith of such
Francisco Casquero Carrillo and Instituto Nacional de                     measures, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
Empleo on the interpretation of Articles 4(1 ) ( g ), 4 ( 2 ), 5          fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 1 89
and 97 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June                of the EC Treaty and under Article 15 of that Directive —
1971 on the application of social security schemes to                     the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: C. Gulmann,
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                         President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de
members of their families moving within the Community, as                 Almeida , D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevon,
codified by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June              Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
1983 ( 2 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris                 15 June 1995 ; in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          2 . 9 . 95
1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                                               of 29 June 1995
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open               in Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the
      network provisions to leased lines, the Grand Duchy of                                European Communities 0 )
      Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under             (Action for annulment — Act adopted on the basis
      Article IS of that Directive;                                     of Article 93 (1) of the EC Treaty — Extension —
                                                                                Admissibility)
2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                                                  ( 95/C 229/07 )
       costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(') OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 19 . 6 . 1992 , p . 27 .                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-135/93 : Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto
                                                                        Navarro Gonzalez and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado,
                                                                        Abogado del Estado ) v. Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities ( Agents : Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz
                                                                        and Michel Nolin ) — application for 1 . a declaration that
                                                                        the Commission 's decision of 23 December 1992 not to
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   modify the Community framework for State aid to the
                          of 29 June 1995                               motor vehicle industry and to extend its validity until the
        in Case C-391/92 : Commission of the European                   Commission organized a review of it is non-existent or, if
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( J )                   appropriate, the annulment of that decision, and 2 . the
 (Free movement ofgoods — Processed milk for infants —                  annulment of the extension of the said framework by
                                                                        Decision 91 /C 81 /05 ( 2 ) in so far as that decision is the basis
      Prohibition of marketing other than by pharmacies)
                                                                        for the decision of 23 December 1992 — the Court,
                             ( 95/C 229/06                              composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.
                                                                        Schockweiler ( Rapporteur) and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                          of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C.
                                                                        Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                        G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Advocate-General; Registrar, R. Grass, has given a
           published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:
                                                                         1 . dismisses the application;
In Case C-391 /92 : Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : initially R. Pellicer and V. Melgar,            2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 subsequently H. Van Lier and V. Melgar, assisted by N.
 Dontas , of the Athens Bar ) v. Hellenic Republic ( Agents :            f 1 ) OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
P. Kamarineas, P. Athanassoulis and C. Sitara ) —                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 81 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 4 .
 application for a declaration that, by requiring that
 processed milk for infants should be sold exclusively by
 pharmacies under Article 10 of Ministerial Decision
 No A2/oik . 361 of 29 January 1988 , the Hellenic Republic                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC                                  ( Fourth Chamber)
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.                                             of 29 June 1995
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers )              in Case C-437/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
 G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,              the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Heilbronn v. Temic
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch                          Telefunken Microelectronic GmbH ( l )
 and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; Advocate-General; C. O. Lenz;
 L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                     (Customs inward processing relief arrangements —
 judgment on 29 June 1995 , in which it:                                 Discharge ofthe reliefarrangements by theplacing ofgoods
                                                                          under the system of processing under customs control —
                                                                                Quantitative limits)
  1 . dismisses the application;                                                                      ( 95/C 229/08 )
 2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (') OJ No C 326 , 11 . 12 . 1992 .                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          In Case C-437/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                          of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance


title: Case C-416/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Selena România SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 29 July 2015 — Selena România SRL v Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București
   (Case C-416/15)
   (2015/C 346/08)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Selena România SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) București

      Intervener: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Galați

      Questions referred

               1)

                  Is Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013
                   (1) [extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not] to be interpreted as meaning that it also applies to imports made by residents of the European Union from Taiwan before 17 January 2013, in other words in 2012 but after the adoption of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011
                   (2) [imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China]?

               2)

                  Does the definitive anti-dumping duty described in Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 also apply to imports made by residents of the European Union from Taiwan during the period before 17 January 2013 and before the date of adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 437/2012
                   (3) [initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China by imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration] but after the adoption of Council Regulation (EU) No 791/2011?’

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 21/2013 of 10 January 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not (OJ 2013 L 11, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 of 3 August 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 204, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 437/2012 of 23 May 2012 initiating an investigation concerning the possible circumvention of anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 791/2011 on imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People's Republic of China by imports of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres consigned from Taiwan and Thailand, whether declared as originating in Taiwan and Thailand or not, and making such imports subject to registration (OJ 2012 L 134, p. 12).


title: Case T-429/11: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid — Act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme — No obligation to repay the aid — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/22

         Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria v Commission
   (Case T-429/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Aid scheme permitting tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and not ordering the recovery of the aid - Act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Lack of status as an actual recipient under the aid scheme - No obligation to repay the aid - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 336/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by J. Ruiz Calzado, M. Núñez Müller and J. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by R. Lyal, C. Urraca Caviedes and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Request for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/282/EU of 12 January 2011 on the tax amortisation of financial goodwill for foreign shareholding acquisitions No C 45/07 (ex NN 51/07, ex CP 9/07) implemented by Spain (OJ 2011 L 135, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-87/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 11 March 1999 in the case of Patrick Zurstrassen v. Administration des Contributions Directes

text:
5.6.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 160/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal                        The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Administratif of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 11 March                      — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
1999 in the case of Patrick Zurstrassen v. Administration                        administrative provisions necessary to comply fully and
                  des Contributions Directes                                     correctly with Commission Directive 96/4/EC (1), Euratom
                                                                                of 16 February 1996 amending Directive 91/321/EEC on
                                                                                infant formulae and follow-on formulae, the Portuguese
                           (Case C-87/99)                                        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third
                                                                                paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 2 of
                                                                                Directive 96/4/EC,
                          (1999/C 160/09)
                                                                            — in the alternative, declare that by failing to inform the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           Commission forthwith of such measures, the Portuguese
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal Admini-                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the same
                                                                                provisions;
stratif (Administrative court) of the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
bourg (Second Chamber) of 11 March 1999, which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 March 1999, for a                      — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
preliminary ruling in the case of Patrick Zurstrassen v.
Administration des Contributions Directes on the following
question:                                                                   Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
— Do Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union and Article                 The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
    1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the Council on               are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (2), the period for
    freedom of movement for workers within the Community,                   implementing the directive expired on 31 March 1997.
    of 15 October 1968 preclude national rules which subject
    the joint assessment to tax of two spouses and their
    classification in tax bracket II, which allows the spouses a            (1) OJ L 49, 22.2.1996, p. 12.
    lighter tax burden under certain circumstances than that                (2) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.
    imposed on them if taxed individually, to the condition
    that the two spouses — who are not separated either de
    facto or by virtue of a judicial decision — must have their
    respective residences for tax purposes in the same State,
    and which thereby exclude from that tax regime a spouse
    who establishes himself in one Member State, leaving the
    rest of his family in another Member State?
                                                                            Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                          of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
                                                                                (Case C-91/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/11)
                                                                            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
Action brought on 16 March 1999 by the Commission                           the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                          Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                              Republic                                      service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                            Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           (Case C-90/99)
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                          (1999/C 160/10)                                   — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                period all the measures needed to comply fully with
                                                                                Council Directive 96/43/EC (1) of 26 June 1996 amending
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                     and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC (2) and amending
the Court of Justice on 16 March 1999 by the Commission of                       Directives 90/675/EEC (3) and 91/496/EEC (4), the Portu-
the European Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa                      guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
Fialho, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for               Treaty,
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                  — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2000 in Case T-325/99: Generale Conserve Spa v Commission of the European Communities and Italian Republic (Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
29.4.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/35
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Germany), represented by U. Schrömbges and L. Harings,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                       of 14 February 2000                                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,
                                                                           8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and G. Braun) — application,
in Case T-325/99: Generale Conserve Spa v Commission
                                                                           first, for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation
   of the European Communities and Italian Republic (1)
                                                                           (EEC) No 2799/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down
                                                                           details of rules for applying Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999
                  (Manifest lack of jurisdiction)                          as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk
                                                                           powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such
                         (2000/C 122/51)                                   skimmed-milk powder (OJ 1999 L 340, p. 3) and, second,
                                                                           for a declaration that Regulation (EEC) No 1105/68 of the
                                                                           Commission of 27 July 1968 on detailed rules for granting aid
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        for skimmed-milk for use as feed (OJ, English Special Edition,
                                                                           1968 (II), p. 379), as last amended by Commission Regulation
In Case T-325/99: Generale Conserve Spa, established at                    (EC) No 1802/95 of 25 July 1995 amending the regulations
Assogo, Italy, represented by C. Cigolini, G. Durazzo and                  that fixed, prior to 1 February 1995, certain prices and
M. Hengel, against Commission of the European Communities                  amounts in the market in milk and milk products of which the
and Italian Republic — application for annulment of Com-                   value in ecus was adapted as a result of the abolition of the
mission Decision C(1999) 1596 def. of 17 June 1999 finding                 correction factor for agricultural conversion rates (OJ 1995
that steps should be taken for the post-clearance recovery of              L 174, p. 27) is to continue to apply until the Court has given
import duties which the applicant was not required to pay in               its ruling on the substance of the case — the President of the
respect of imports of tuna fish from Turkey — the Court of                 Court of First Instance made an order on 15 February 2000,
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-              the operative part of which is as follows:
dent, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2000, the operative                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
part of which is as follows:
                                                                           2. The costs are reserved.
1. The action is partially dismissed, in so far as it was brought
    against the Italian Republic.
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs, in so far as the action was
    brought against the Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                   Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Athanasios N.
                                                                           Pitsiorlas against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                                the European Central Bank
                                                                                (Case T-3/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/53)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                       of 15 February 2000
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                           European Central Bank (ECB) was brought before the Court of
in Case T-1/00 R: Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission
                                                                           First Instance on 20 January 2000 by Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas,
                of the European Communities
                                                                           residing in Thessaloniki, 8 Odos N. Koudouriotou (Greece),
                                                                           represented by Dimitris Papafilippou, Barrister.
(Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility of the main
                              action)
                                                                           The applicant asks the Court of First Instance to:
                         (2000/C 122/52)                                   — uphold the action in its entirety;
                                                                           — order the production of evidence to clarify the circum-
                   (Language of the case: German)                               stances in which the decisions of the two Community
                                                                                institutions were adopted;
In Case T-1/00 R: Gustav Hölzl, residing at Damme (Germany),
Günter Wiegert, residing at Velen (Germany), Firma Molkerei                — annul the negative decisions of the Council of 30 July
Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG, established at                            1999 and of the ECB of 8 November and 6 July 1999
Wagenfeld (Germany), Josef Brüninghoff, residing at Bocholt                     entirely depriving the applicant of the right of access to
(Germany) and Lüdger Nienhaus, residing at Borken-Gemen                         the Basle/Nyborg Agreement;


title: Case T-431/13: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL) (Community trade mark — Word mark METROPOL — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the mark — Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/49

         Order of the General Court of 26 February 2015 — Métropole Gestion v OHIM — Metropol (METROPOL)
   (Case T-431/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Word mark METROPOL - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Failure to apply for renewal of the registration of the mark - Cancellation of the mark upon expiry of the registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 138/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Métropole Gestion (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-A. Roux Steinkühler, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd (Moscow, Russia)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2013 (Cases affaires R 723/2012-2 and R 845/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between Métropole Gestion and Metropol Investment Financial Company Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Métropole Gestion and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Action brought on 7 July 1997 by EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimentação e Cereais, SA, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-204/97)

text:
C 318/20            [ EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 10. 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 7 July 1997 by EPAC, Empresa para a
                                                                      Agro-Alimentagao e Cereais, SA, against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
The applicant, a Swedish national employed as a grade                                         ( Case T-204/97 )
A 5 member of the temporary staff, contests his
classification in that grade . He points out, in that regard,                                   ( 97/C 318/40 )
that the Swedish version of the Official Journal of the
European Communities which the defendant sent to the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
applicant in consequence of the interest expressed by the
latter referred to an offer of a grade A 4 post in the VAT
Unit of DG XXI ( offer 6T/XXI/94 ). Other posts were also             An action against the Commission of the European
offered at different grades in the same publication . After           Communities was brought before the Court of First
he had submitted his application for the abovementioned               Instance of the European Communities on 7 July 1997 by
post, it was formally offered to him by the Commission,               EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais, SA,
which nevertheless indicated to him that he would be
                                                                      whose registered office is at Avenida Almirante Gago
classified in grade A 5 , step 1 . Upon the applicant pointing        Coutinho, N? 26 , Lisbon, represented by Joao Mota de
out that he had applied for an A 4 post, the competent                Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
service of the Commission replied that the classification             Luxembourg at the Chambers of Joaquim Calvo Basaran,
in grade A 5 was provisional and that his definitive                  34 Boulevard Ernest Feltgen, 1515 Luxembourg.
classification would be determined by the Grading
Committee .     It was    not  until  six   months    after  the
commencement of his employment that the applicant                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
learned that he was to be definitively classified in grade
A 5 , step 3 , and that the initial proposal concerning
classification in grade A 4 resulted from an error in the             — uphold the application and thus declare null and void
Swedish version of the Official Journal of the European                     the contested decision,
 Communities .
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In support of his claims, the applicant makes the
following assertions :
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate             EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimentagao e Cereais, SA, a
     expectations, in that he was at all times persuaded to           limited liability company governed by Portuguese law,
     apply for a grade A 4 post and could not reasonably              whose capital is exclusively public, challenges the interim
     have detected the error which the defendant admits               measure of 30 April 1997 whereby the Commission of the
     having committed ,                                               European Communities ordered the Portuguese State to
                                                                      ' suspend immediately the State guarantee granted to EPAC
                                                                      — Empresa para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais'. The
 — the existence in the present case of a manifest error of           object of EPAC, as a public undertaking, consists in
     assessment, inasmuch as classification in grade A 5               'ensuring the supply of cereals and seed, taking into
     would not have taken into account the exceptional                account the protection of production, consumption
     qualifications which he possesses in the field of                requirements and the overriding interests of the domestic
     revenue law. Indeed, upon being recruited, the                   economy', activities and obligations which it performed as
     applicant understood the Commission to say that it                a monopoly.
     wished to engage him on account of his exceptional
     experience . It could therefore be maintained that the
     specific needs of the service required the engagement            The applicant claims that it is going through financial
     of a staff member with particular qualifications,                 difficulties as a result of circumstances attributable to acts
                                                                       or omissions of the State which the latter had the duty to
                                                                       make good in the context of an appropriate economic and
                                                                       financial restructuring.
 — failure to observe the duty to have regard for the
     welfare and interests of officials, in that, by refusing to
     take account of the notice of vacancy published in                Among the causes which led to that situation, the
     the Swedish version of the Official Journal of the                applicant cites :
     European Communities, which constitutes an official ,
     public act binding on the Commission, and by
     refusing, moreover, to take into account the                       1 . the liberalization of the trade in cereals brought about
     exceptional nature of his qualifications, the                           by accession to the Community;
     Commission disregarded his interests .
                                                                        2 . the failure of the only shareholder to provide proper
                                                                             and timeous financial support;
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10. 97           I EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 318/21
3 . the demand that EPAC undertake work that is the                     ( d ) in any event, the Commission's interim decision,
       responsibility of the State;                                           inasmuch as it is radical, takes no account of the
                                                                              circumstances of the case and of the interests and
                                                                              values at issue, is in breach of the principles of good
4 . the failure of Silopor, Empresa de Silos Portuários SA,                   faith and of the legitimate expectations of the
       to pay its debt to EPAC.                                               economic operators affected by it and seriously
                                                                              offends against the principle of proportionality.
Thus, an economic viability and financial restructuring
plan for EPAC was drawn up by Government Order
No 887/96 — SETF of 17 May 1996, which was
approved jointly by the SETF and the SEPAA by way of
Government Order of 26 July 1996 . That joint order                     Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Christopher Atkin
proposed that EPAC be authorized to negotiate a loan at                 and others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
market rates up to a maximum of Esc 50 000 000 000,
30 000 000 000 of which were to be guaranteed by the                                              (Case T-205/97)
State .
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/41
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions :
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
I.       The statement of reasons for the           Commission 's
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 1997
                                                                        by Christopher Atkin, residing in Brussels, David
decision is not adequate. It considers in this respect that             Cornwell, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ), and Paul
the statement of reasons for the adoption of the contested              Smeulders, residing at Sutton Courtney ( United Kingdom ),
decision is even more necessary in view of the fact that the            represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with
extraordinary power which the case-law of the Court of                  an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Justice conferred on the Commission to impose interim                   Evelyne Korn, 21 rue de Nassau .
measures by way of provisional decisions envisaged until
now only the suspension of payments by the State to
undertakings receiving aid and not the suspension of a                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
mere State guarantee which does not constitute any form
of aid for the banks to which it was extended and which                 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
are in a third-party relationship to the undertaking which                    to be regraded,
obtained the State guarantee .
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
                                                                              administrative complaint,
II .      The   Commission's     decision  is  unlawful    in  the
conditions in which it was adopted:                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 ( a ) the Portuguese State 's guarantee did not constitute
        State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EC
       Treaty. The applicant points out in this respect                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
       that the Commission does not claim that the State 's              Case T- 16/97 (').
       guarantee for nothing more than a restructuring
        operation of EPAC's assets — a guarantee which did               (>) OJ C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
        not involve either the direct or indirect transfer of
        State resources to that public           undertaking —
        constitutes State aid . Likewise, the contested decision
        makes no mention of the right/duty of the Portuguese
        State, in its capacity as holder of the whole of the
        undertaking's capital, to lend it such support;                  Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Georges Berthu
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-207/97 )
 ( b ) even if it should be characterized as aid, the
        Portuguese State was entitled to grant it without being                                       ( 97/C 318/42 )
        required to notify it to the Commission;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 ( c) accordingly, there was no breach of Article 93 ( 3 ) of            An action against the Council of the European Union was
        the EC Treaty;                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-172/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht, Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that court of 14 April 2000 in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH

text:
C 211/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.7.2000
     acknowledgment of receipt, the Member State shall waive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesar-
     application of Article 589(1) of Regulation No 2454/93.             beitsgericht, by order of that court of 22 March 2000
     Compensatory interest thus comes within the scope of the            in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata
     customs debt.                                                                           Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer
— Infringement of Article 221 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     No 2913/92 (2) (Community Customs Code) in so far as                                       (Case C-162/00)
     the contested decision declared part of the application to
     be inadmissible on the ground that the part in question                                    (2000/C 211/10)
     had become time-barred: the Commission misconstrues
     Article 221 of the Community Customs Code and fails to
     appreciate that the question whether a customs debt                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     has become time-barred is a matter coming within the                European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
     jurisdiction of national courts and not within the power of         (Federal Labour Court), of 22 March 2000, received at the
     the Commission.                                                     Court Registry on 2 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata Pokrzeptow-
— Infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs                   icz-Meyer on the following questions:
     Code and of Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93; in the
     alternative, infringement of the principle of pro-                  1. Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement of
     portionality; in the further alternative, infringement of the           16 December 1991 establishing an association between
     obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC so              the European Communities and their Member States and
     far as Article 1(2) of the contested decision is concerned              the Republic of Poland preclude the application — to
     (rejection of the remainder of the application for remission            Polish nationals — of national law according to which
     of import duties): although the Commission is correct in                posts for foreign-language assistants may be filled by
     stating that the party concerned has extensive professional             means of employment contracts of limited duration where-
     experience in the agricultural products sector, the Com-                as, for other teaching staff performing special duties,
     mission errs in its view that it ought to have been obvious             recourse to such contracts must be individually justified by
     to that party that neither the authorisation for inward                 an objective reason?
     processing nor the Community legislation published and
     in force allows wheat to be used in place of maize for the
     manufacture of glucose exported by that party. In finding           2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     at the same time that the competent customs authorities                 affirmative:
     had not raised a single objection against the transactions
     of the party concerned, even though these had been carried              Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement also preclude
     out for many years, the Commission imposed more                         the application of national law where the employment
     stringent requirements on the party concerned than those                contract of limited duration was concluded before the
     which could have been imposed by the competent auth-                    Europe Agreement entered into force and the agreed
     orities. Furthermore, the Commission fails to take account              period comes to an end after its entry into force?
     of the fact that it has also been known to take the view
     that equivalence may be authorised between two products
     which do not satisfy the equivalence criteria.
     The Commission has expressly determined that there was
     no question of manipulation on the part of the party
     concerned and that the financial advantage is attributable
     to price fluctuations under which the procedure followed
     by the party concerned might just as easily have resulted
     in a financial loss. That procedure resulted in a total
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht,
     customs debt of NLG 17 491 244,45, while the intended
                                                                         Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
     surplus (profit) during the period in question came to
                                                                         court of 14 April 2000 in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel
     NLG 710 700. Under those circumstances and those
                                                                                GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH
     already pointed out, it would be disproportionate not to
     proceed with remission of the customs debt in so far as
     that debt is higher than the advantage obtained by the                                     (Case C-172/00)
     party concerned.
                                                                                (2000/C 211/11)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
    down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2913/92, as last amended by Regulation (EEC)                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    No 1662/99 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).                                    European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
(2) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                                 (Regional Court), Cologne, of 14 April 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
                                                                         Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH, on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.7.2000                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 211/7
1. Do Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude national law which              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
    prohibits the marketing of medicinal product X,                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
    — for which there existed hitherto in Member State A an             Kirchberg.
         implied licence which has now expired because the
         licence holder has surrendered it,
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
    — which for several years has been brought as a parallel
         import from Member State B to Member State A and               1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
         has been placed on the market there with reference to               administrative provisions required to comply with
         the abovementioned implied licence,
                                                                             — Council Directive 96/24/EC (1) of 29 April 1996
    — which the manufacturer and licence holder is replacing                     amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of
         with a new preparation Y [which it] is placing on                       compound feedingstuffs and
         the market in Member State A on the basis of an
         independent licence, and                                            — Council Directive 96/25/EC (2) of 29 April 1996 on
                                                                                the circulation of feed materials, amending Directives
    — [where preparation Y] differs from preparation X only                      70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC
         in respect of modified excipients, so that those excipi-                and repealing Directive 77/101/EEC,
         ents lead to improved temperature stability and thus
         make storage in the refrigerator unnecessary?                       the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under the Treaty and those directives;
2. Does it affect the judgment if there was available to the
    holder of the licence which has now expired a lawful
                                                                        2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    means of surrendering that licence in such a way that the
    marketability of the medicinal product was preserved for a
    certain (transitional) period?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
    If yes, according to which criteria must the previous
    holder, when taking a decision on his action, take into
    consideration the European free movement of goods?                  In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                        directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
3. Does it affect the judgment if medicinal product Y in the            each Member State to which they are addressed.
    new formulation is placed on the market only in Member
    State A or if it is also found on the market in other Member
    States?                                                             Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
                                                                        to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                        to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
4. Does it affect the judgment if, when the two formulations            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
    exist side by side simultaneously in Member State A, there          Community.
    is a danger of incorrect storage of medicinal product X?
                                                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
                                                                        The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directives at issue into Greek law.
Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                           (Case C-176/00)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 33.
                           (2000/C 211/12)                              (2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 35.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,


title: Case C-195/08 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Republic of Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Inga Rinau (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments — Enforcement in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Application for non-recognition of a decision requiring the return of a child wrongfully retained in another Member State — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Republic of Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Inga Rinau
   (Case C-195/08 PPU) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments - Enforcement in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Application for non-recognition of a decision requiring the return of a child wrongfully retained in another Member State - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)
   (2008/C 223/30)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian
   Referring court
   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Lithuania
   Party to the main proceedings
   Inga Rinau
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Interpretation of Articles 21, 23, 24, 31(1), 40(2) and 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Application for non-recognition in Member State A of a decision delivered by a court in Member State B ordering the return of a child, who is regarded as being unlawfully held by her mother in Member State A, to her father, who is resident in Member State B and has been awarded custody of the child
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Once a non-return decision has been taken and brought to the attention of the court of origin, it is irrelevant, for the purposes of issuing the certificate provided for in Article 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, that that decision has been suspended, overturned, set aside or, in any event, has not become res judicata or has been replaced by a decision ordering return, in so far as the return of the child has not actually taken place. Since no doubt has been expressed as regards the authenticity of that certificate and since it was drawn up in accordance with the standard form set out in Annex IV to the Regulation, opposition to the recognition of the decision ordering return is not permitted and it is for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the child.

               2.

               Except where the procedure concerns a decision certified pursuant to Articles 11(8) and 40 to 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003, any interested party can apply for non-recognition of a judicial decision, even if no application for recognition of the decision has been submitted beforehand.

               3.

               Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, in so far as it provides that neither the person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child is, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to make any submissions on the application, is not applicable to proceedings initiated for non-recognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition has been lodged beforehand in respect of that decision. In such a situation, the defendant, who is seeking recognition, is entitled to make such submissions.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


C 358/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de              The time-limit here passed on 23 November 1995 without
Prud'hommes (Industrial Tribunal), Bobigny, by judgment             the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
of 2 July 1998 in the case of Bernard Bauduin and                   necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA                      form of order sought by the Commission.
                        (Case C-360/98)
                                                                    (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1.
                         (98/C 358/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
Prud'hommes, Bobigny, of 2 July 1998, which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1998, for a                   Removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (1)
preliminary ruling in the case of Bernard Bauduin and
                                                                                (98/C 358/23)
Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA on the following
question:
                                                                    By order of 16 September 1998 the President of the Court
Is Article 18 of the Agreement of 5 July 1991 compatible            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
with the provisions of Community law, and Article 119 of            removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (reference for
the Treaty of Rome in particular?                                   a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
                                                                    Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State
                                                                    for Defence ex parte: Terence Perkins.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Action brought on 9 October 1998 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                        (Case C-362/98)
                         (98/C 358/22)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (1)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                                    (98/C 358/24)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 October 1998 by the Commission of the European                    By order of 25 September 1998 the President of the Court
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal               of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in            removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (reference for a
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           AngouleÃme): SA Otor Godard v. Administration des
                                                                    Impôts.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,            (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary
    to comply with Council Directive 93/103/EC (1) of
    23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety
    and health requirements for work on board fishing
    vessels, and/or by failing to notify the Commission of
    those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to                   Removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (1)
    fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                                              (98/C 358/25)
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
    proceedings.
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (reference for a
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is            Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. The Secretary of
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 State for Trade and Industry ex parte: The Consumers'
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an                  Association and Which? Ltd.
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.          (1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 7 February 2002 in Case T-211/00: Aldo Kuĳer v Council of the European Union (Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for access — Protection of the public interest — International relations — Manifest error — Partial (access)

text:
C 109/44               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4.5.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                        7 February 2002                                  European Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for
                                                                         annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 October
in Case T-88/00: Mag Instrument Inc. v Office for Harmon-                1999 fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant’s
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                 definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1 — the Court of
                             (OHIM) (1)                                  First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras,
                                                                         President, V. Tiili and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,
(Community trade mark — Torch shape — Three-dimen-                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 Janu-
sional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive                  ary 2002, in which it:
  character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                         (2002/C 109/87)                                 1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 8 October 1999
                                                                               fixing, with effect from 16 January 1999, the applicant’s
                  (Language of the case: German)                               definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 1.
                                                                         2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-88/00, Mag Instrument Inc., established in Ontario
(United States of America), represented by A. Nette, W. von
der Osten-Sacken, H. Stratmann, G. Rahn and U. Hocke,
                                                                         (1) OJ 2000 C 285.
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly and
S. Bonne): Action brought against the decision of the Second
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 February
2000 (Cases R-237/1999-2 to R-241/1999-2) refusing regis-
tration of five three-dimensional trade marks consisting of
torch shapes, Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura
Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, Registrar, has                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                                7 February 2002
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                         in Case T-211/00: Aldo Kuijer v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                         (Transparency — Council Decision 93/731/EC on public
                                                                         access to Council documents — Refusal of an application for
                                                                         access — Protection of the public interest — International
                                                                                relations — Manifest error — Partial (access)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 31 January 2002                                                            (2002/C 109/89)
in Case T-206/00: Merja Hult v the Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Classification — Statement of reasons —
Article 32 of the Staff Regulations — Commission decision
on the criteria applicable to appointment to grade and                   In Case T-211/00, Aldo Kuijer, residing in Utrecht (Nether-
classification in step on recruitment — Additional seniority             lands), represented by O.W. Brouwer and T. Janssens, lawyers,
    in grade — Conditions — Principle of legal certainty)                with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the
                                                                         European Union (agents: M. Bauer and M. Bishop): Application
                         (2002/C 109/88)                                 for annulment of the Council’s decision notified to the
                                                                         applicant by letter of 7 June 2000 refusing him access to
                   (Language of the case: French)                        certain documents from the Centre for Information, Discussion
                                                                         and Exchange on Asylum (‘CIREA’) which were requested
                                                                         under Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on
In Case T-206/00: Merja Hult, an official of the Commission of           public access to Council documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43),
the European Communities, residing in Howald (Luxembourg),               Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 109/45
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;            composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
J. Plingers, Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on            Judges; J. Plingers, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
7 February 2002, in which it:                                             judgment on 23 January 2002, in which it:
                                                                          1.   Annuls the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General
1.    Annuls the Council’s decision of 5 June 2000 refusing the
                                                                               of the Parliament terminating the applicant’s secondment in the
      applicant access to certain reports drawn up by the Centre for
                                                                               interests of the service to the political group EDD and
      Information, Discussion and Exchange on Asylum, to certain
                                                                               reinstating him in the Directorate-General for Information and
      reports of joint missions or reports of missions undertaken by
                                                                               Public relations with effect from 15 July 2000;
      Member States sent to the Centre, and to information contained
      in the list of persons responsible in the Member States for
                                                                          2.   Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant a sum corresponding
      asylum applications to which access is permitted in certain
                                                                               to the difference between the remuneration which he should
      Member States, with the exception of those persons’ telephone
      and fax numbers;                                                         have received as an official on secondment in Grade A2, Step 1,
                                                                               and that which he received following his reinstatement in
                                                                               Grade LA5, Step 3, for the period 15 July 2000 to
2.    Orders the Council to pay the applicant’s costs and to bear its          30 November 2000, plus default interest at the rate of 5,25 %
      own costs.                                                               from the date on which the amounts making up the sum
                                                                               referred to in paragraph 149 were payable until the date of
                                                                               actual payment;
(1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
                                                                          3.   Declares the action for damages inadmissible in so far as the
                                                                               applicant seeks compensation for the harm caused by the
                                                                               conduct, not involving the taking of decisions, of the EDD
                                                                               group and certain of its members;
                                                                          4.   Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant the sum of 1 euro
                                                                               by way of symbolic damages for the non-pecuniary harm
                                                                               sustained as a result of the adoption of the contested decision;
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               5.   Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs of the main
                                                                               proceedings;
                        of 23 January 2002
                                                                          6.   Orders the parties to bear their own costs in the interlocutory
                                                                               proceedings.
in Case T-237/00 Patrick Reynolds v European Parlia-
                               ment (1)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302, 21.10.2000.
(Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service —
Article 38 of the Staff Regulations Po — litical group —
Early termination of secondment — Rights of the defence —
         Non-contractual liability of the Community)
                         (2002/C 109/90)                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             of 11 December 2001
                                                                          in Case T-99/97: Willem Stols v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
In Case T-237/00: Patrick Reynolds, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by P. Legros                (Officials — Application for reclassification in grade —
and S. Rodrigues, lawyers, with an address for service in                 Objection of inadmissibility — Material new fact —
Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von                                              Admissibility)
Hertzen and D. Moore) — application for, first, annulment of
the decision of 18 July 2000 of the Secretary-General of the
Parliament terminating the applicant’s secondment in the                                           (2002/C 109/91)
interests of the service to the political group ‘Europe of
Democracies and Diversities’ and reinstating him in the                                      (Language of the case: French)
directorate-General for Information and public Relations and,
second, damages in respect of the harm sustained by the
applicant as a result of the adoption of that decision by the
defendant and of the acts of the political group and certain of           In Case T-99/97: Willem Stols, an official of the Council of the
its members — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                European Union, residing at SE Halsteren (Netherlands),


title: Case T-169/99: Action brought on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.10.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/27
Action brought on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp against                   — the fact that, having regard to those irregularities, the
       the Commission of the European Communities                            defendant refused to permit inspection of the results of the
                                                                             tests already concluded prevented the applicant from
                          (Case T-169/99)                                    pursuing his legal interests, and consequently constitutes
                                                                             an unlawful obstacle placed in the way of a citizen of the
                                                                             Union.
                         (1999/C 299/38)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 97 A of 31.3.1998.
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 July 1999 by Michael Rupp,
residing in Brussels, represented by Silke Wöhlert, Rechtsan-
wältin, of 11B In der Aue, Heidelberg (Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 10 August 1999 by Georgios Karavelis
                                                                                against the European Parliament
I.   annul the defendant’s decision not to admit the applicant
     to the (competition) test held on 16 July 1999;
                                                                                (Case T-182/99)
II. order that the applicant’s representative be given the
     opportunity to inspect the competition file relating to the                                 (1999/C 299/39)
     applicant, in order to make sure that the test results are
     correct;
III. order the defendant to invite the applicant to take part in                            (Language of the case: Greek)
     the main test held in Brussels on 16 July 1999;
                                                                         An action against the European Parliament was brought before
IV. order the defendant to pay the costs.                                the Court of First Instance on 10 August 1999 by Georgios
                                                                         Caravelis, represented by Professor Haris Tagaras, of the
                                                                         Athens Bar.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
The applicant, who is currently employed in a temporary
position in Directorate-General IA of the European Com-
mission, took part in open competition No COM/A/10/98 (1),               — hold the application admissible;
which was organised by the Commission. On the strength of
his good results, he was admitted to that competition, in which          — annul the contested acts in so far as the applicant’s name
he was awarded the requisite minimum number of marks.                        is not included on the 1998 list of those to be promoted
However, by letter from the defendant dated 25 June 1999 he                  to Grade A 4 or, in the alternative, order the defendant
was informed that his complaint concerning the decision not                  to pay compensation for non-material damage of BEF
to admit him to the main test in the competition had been                    100 000;
rejected. Only after the applicant had insisted on being given
an answer was he sent a definitive refusal to admit him to the
                                                                         — order the Parliament to pay the costs.
test; this failed to take into account the imminence of the
subsequent test, since he did not receive an answer until 8 July
1999.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims, as a matter of law, that the competition
procedure was vitiated by manifest defects, which give rise to           The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, chal-
an imperative requirement that he be admitted to the main                lenges the legality of the 1998 procedure for promotion to
test:                                                                    Grade A 4. In his view that procedure was vitiated by the
                                                                         following defects:
— it was only during one of the breaks that a typographical
     error in the Swedish-language part of the test was disco-
     vered. The candidates were given the opportunity of                 1. The Promotions Committee downgraded the staff reports
     re-sitting that test following the conclusion of the entire             of those eligible for promotion, attaching special weight to
     test procedure. It was therefore possible for the candidates            the recommendations of the Directorates-General.
     concerned to obtain the answers to the corresponding
     questions from other candidates during the breaks, before           2. Those recommendations took into account only up to
     sitting the test in question. This seriously-prejudiced the             20 % of those eligible for promotion in each Directorate-
     applicant, and thus constitutes a breach of the principle of            General. The cases of the other officials eligible for
     equal treatment for all candidates;                                     promotion were not examined.


C 219/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-144/01 ( 1)              register of Case C-279/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                        (2002/C 219/23)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-144/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-365/01 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/27)
                                                                     By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
        Removal from the register of Case  C-247/01 ( 1)             register of Case C-365/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Ireland.
                        (2002/C 219/24)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-247/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-391/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/28)
                                                                     By order of 27 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case  C-258/01 ( 1)             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-391/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2002/C 219/25)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 14 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-258/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-412/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/29)
                                                                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case C-279/01 ( 1)              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-412/01: Commission of the European
                        (2002/C 219/26)                              Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the


title: Case C-70/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/72/EC — Statute for a European Cooperative Society — Involvement of employees in the decision-making of the society — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-70/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/72/EC - Statute for a European Cooperative Society - Involvement of employees in the decision-making of the society - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 301/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and J. Enegren, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt or notify, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees (OJ 2003 L 207, p. 25)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees, or by not ensuring that management and labour introduce the required provisions by way of agreement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-38/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 November 2009 in Case F-70/07, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/43

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 November 2009 in Case F-70/07, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-38/10 P)
   2010/C 80/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was admissible in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever.

               —

               Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought at first instance.

               —

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

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 10 November 2009. That order dismissed as manifestly inadmissible the first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in an action for an order that the Commission pay compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the refusal to reimburse the appellant in respect of the recoverable costs purportedly incurred in Case T-176/04 Marcuccio v Commission.
   In support of his claims, the appellant alleges misinterpretation and misapplication of the concept of a request within the meaning of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations, illogical and unreasoned failure to have regard to the relevant case-law, absolute failure to state reasons, breach of the obligation to disregard the defence when it is lodged out of time, an error in accepting a document entitled ‘application for a declaration that there is no need to adjudicate’, and infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.