title: Case F-86/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Dubus v Parliament

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/49

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Dubus v Parliament
   (Case F-86/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Charles Dubus (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision by the European Parliament not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted from grade AST3 to AST4 for the 2009 promotions year.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision by the European Parliament not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted from grade AST3 to AST4 for the 2009 promotions year;

               —

               in consequence of such annulment, carry out a fresh comparative examination of the merits of the applicant and other candidates for the 2009 promotions year and promote the applicant to grade AST4 with retrospective effect from 1 January 2009; interest on arrears of remuneration as from 1 January 2009 at two points above the European Central Bank rate for main refinancing operations;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-507/08: Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/34

         Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Psytech International v OHIM — Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)
   (Case T-507/08)
   (2009/C 19/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Psytech International Ltd (Pulloxhill, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (Champaign, United States)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2008 in case R 1012/2007-2 and remit the application for a declaration of invalidity to the OHIM to allow it to proceed, and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘16PF’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 1 892 652

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal: (i) should have found on the evidence before it that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of any distinctive character; (ii) failed to apply the correct legal test and failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it; and (iii) should have found on the evidence before it that the application for the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was made in bad faith.


title: Case T-32/15: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1) (EU trade mark — Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — GRE v EUIPO (Mark1)
   (Case T-32/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark Mark1 - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 232/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 October 2014 (Case R 647/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign Mark1 as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 April 2004 in Case T-313/01: R v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Social security — Refusal of prior authorisation of a surgical procedure — Refusal on the ground of the exclusively cosmetic nature attributed by the administration to the operation — Infringement of the provisions of the Community rules)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/36

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 April 2004
   in Case T-313/01: R v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Social security - Refusal of prior authorisation of a surgical procedure - Refusal on the ground of the exclusively cosmetic nature attributed by the administration to the operation - Infringement of the provisions of the Community rules)
   (2004/C 118/76)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case T-313/01: R, a Commission official residing in Brussels, represented by C. Tagaras, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, assisted by P. Anestis, lawyer) – application for, first, annulment of the refusal of prior authorisation of a surgical procedure and, secondly, reimbursement of the costs of the operation at issue – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, and V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas (Administrator), Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 22 May 2001 rejecting the application for prior authorisation submitted by the applicant;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to reimburse the applicant 85 % of the cost of the surgical procedure as set out by the applicant's surgeon in his prescription of 16 May 2001;

               3.

               Orders the parties to determine by agreement the amount to be reimbursed to the applicant for the costs of the operation undergone according to the terms of the prescription and inform the Court of the agreed amount within a period of three months from the delivery of this judgment;

               4.

               Orders the parties, in the absence of agreement, to submit to the Court, within a period of three months from the delivery of this judgment, the figures they propose in respect of the amount to be reimbursed; and

               5.

               Reserves the costs, including those incurred for the purposes of the expert medical report.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 16. 2. 2002.


title: Case F-2/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2008 — Kröppelin v Council

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/37

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 June 2008 — Kröppelin v Council
   (Case F-2/05)
   (2008/C 197/73)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/1

         Taking of the oath by the new Members of the Court of Justice
   2009/C 267/02
   Following their appointment as Judges at the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the period from 7 October 2009 to 6 October 2015 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 25 February 2009, (1) Mr Safjan and Mr Šváby took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2009.
   Following her appointment as Judge at the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the period from 7 October 2009 to 6 October 2012 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 8 July 2009, (2) Ms Berger took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2009.
   Following his appointment as Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Communities for the period from 7 October 2009 to 6 October 2015 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 25 February 2009, (1) Mr Jääskinen took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2009.

      (1)  OJ L 63 of 7 March 2009, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ L 181 of 14 July 2009, p. 26.


title: Case F-52/08 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 July 2008 — Plasa v Commission (Staff case — Application for interim measures — Application for the suspension of operation of a decision to reassign — Urgency — None)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/21

         Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 July 2008 — Plasa v Commission
   (Case F-52/08 R)
   (Staff case - Application for interim measures - Application for the suspension of operation of a decision to reassign - Urgency - None)
   (2008/C 260/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Wolfgang Plasa (Algiers, Algeria) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the suspension of operation of the decision of 8 May 2008 by which the Commission of the European Communities reassigns the applicant to Brussels (Belgium) from 1 August 2008.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-282/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 June 2011 — Concepción Salgado González v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Spain) lodged on 6 June 2011 — Concepción Salgado González v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
   (Case C-282/11)
   2011/C 269/46
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Concepción Salgado González

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it in accordance with the Community objectives set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and in Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71/EEC, (1) of 14 June, and with the wording of Annex VI(D)(4) to Regulation No 1408/71/EEC of 14 June, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and their families moving within the European Union to interpret Annex VI(D)(4) to the effect that, for the calculation of the theoretical Spanish benefit carried out on the basis of the actual contributions of the insured person, during the years immediately preceding payment of the last contribution to the Spanish Social Security, the sum thus obtained is divided by 210, that divider being established by the calculation of the basis for determination of the retirement pension in accordance with Article 162(1) of the General Law on Social Security?

               2.

               (if the first question should be answered in the negative): Is it in accordance with the Community objectives set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71/EEC, of 14 June, and with the wording of Annex VI(D)(4) of Regulation No 1408/71/EEC of 14 June, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and their families moving within the European Union to interpret the said Annex VI(D)(4) to the effect that, for the calculation of the theoretical Spanish benefit carried out on the basis of the actual contributions of the insured person, during the years immediately preceding payment of the last contribution to the Spanish Social Security, the sum thus obtained is divided by the number of years of contribution in Spain?

               3.

               (in the event of a negative response to the first question and whatever the answer to the first question, whether affirmative or negative): Is Annex (XI)(G)(3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems applicable by analogy, in the case described in these proceedings, with the aim of satisfying the Community objectives set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71/EEC of 14 June, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and their families moving within the European Union, and, as a result, is it possible to cover the contribution period in Portugal with the basis of contributions in Spain closest in time to that period, taking into account the evolution of consumer prices?

               4.

               (if the first, second and third questions are all answered in the negative): What, if none of the previously mentioned interpretations were held to be wholly or partly correct, would be the interpretation of Annex VI(D)(4) of Regulation No 1408/71/EEC of 14 June, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and their families moving within the European Union that, being useful for the resolution of the dispute described in these proceedings, is most in accordance with the Community objectives set out in Article 48 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71/EEC, of 14 June and with the actual wording of Annex VI(D)(4)?

      (1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1


title: Case C-264/09: Action brought on 14 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/19

         Action brought on 14 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-264/09)
   2009/C 282/36
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: O. Beynet, F. Hoffmeister and J. Javorský, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               that by failing to grant non-discriminatory access to its transmission system the Slovak Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 20(1) and 9(e) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/54/EC of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (1)

               —

               order the Slovak Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37


title: Case F-66/13: Action brought on 4 July 2013 — ZZ v Europol

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/30

         Action brought on 4 July 2013 — ZZ v Europol
   (Case F-66/13)
   2013/C 274/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s fixed-term contract.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision taken by the defendant on 28 September 2012 by which the defendant informed the applicant that her fixed-term contract expiring on 31 December 2012 would not be renewed, as well as the confirmatory decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint, taken on 9 April 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the difference between (i) the amount of the remuneration to which she would have been entitled had she remained in her post with the defendant and (ii) the amount of the remuneration, fees, unemployment benefits and any other compensation actually received by her since 1 January 2013 by way of replacement for the remuneration she was receiving as a temporary agent;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 December 1999 in Case T-81/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Change of capital of a Member State — Manifest inadmissibility — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/27
Benkelberg, Rechtsanwalt, Emmerich and Kleve, with an                     2. There is no need to adjudicate on the Council’s application for
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz                    leave to intervene.
and Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)            3. The parties shall bear their own costs.
(Agents: Detlef Schennen and Emmanuel Joly) — application
for annulment of the decision of the first Board of Appeal of             4. The Council, which has applied to intervene, shall bear its own
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade                    costs.
marks and designs) of 26 January 1999 (Case R 14/1998-1),
notified to the applicant on 1 February 1999 — the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung,                  (1) OJ 1999 C 160.
President, and A. Potocki and W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has made an order on 8 December 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                                        of 7 December 1999
                                                                          in Case T-108/99, Gemma Reggimenti v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Actions — Time-limits — Public policy —
                                                                          Distinction between complaint and request under
                                                                          Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Rejection of
                                                                                complaint — Late action — Inadmissible)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2000/C 79/61)
                       of 1 December 1999
in Case T-81/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer v Commission of                                       (Language of the case: French)
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-108/99, Gemma Reggimenti, official of the European
(Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Change of capital of                  Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by Claudine
a Member State — Manifest inadmissibility — Action                        Junion, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                   manifestly unfounded in law)                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christine Nabozny, 3 Rue
                                                                          Mathias Tresch, against European Parliament (Agents: Hannu
                                                                          von Hertzen and Yannis Pantalis) — application for annulment
                           (2000/C 79/60)                                 of the decision of the European Parliament of 18 June 1998
                                                                          refusing the payment, on behalf of and in the name of the
                                                                          applicant, of family allowances, to which she is entitled in
                                                                          respect of her child, to third parties who have the child in their
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          care, for the period from 29 August to 31 December 1997 —
                                                                          the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
In Case T-81/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer, former official of the           K. Lenaerts, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                    H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 7 December 1999,
Hermann J. Winzen, Rechtsanwalt, Munich, with an address                  the operative part of which is as follows:
for service in Luxembourg at the address of Marco Steil, 12
rue d’Anvers, against Commission of the European Communi-                 1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
ties — application for compensation amounting to
DEM 17 677,57, together with interest — the Court of First                2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 1 December 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
1. The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and,
    for the rest, as manifestly unfounded in law.


No C 299/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
Limited, Effem Management Services Limited, Vickers                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Public Limited Company v. Council of the European Union                                       of 9 August 1995
and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      in Case T-541/93 : Sean Coughlan and Others v. Council of
                                                                                the European Union (')
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
                                                                                (Partial removal from register)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/40 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 ( )
                                                                      In Case T-541 /93 : Sean Coughlan , James Connaughton,
                          ( 95/C 299/37 )                             Gregory Walsh, Patrick Heffernan , Thomas Fitzsimons,
                                                                      Patrick Wall, Patrick Griffin and John Harris, represented
              (Language of the case: English)                         by James O'Reilly SC , of the Bar of Ireland, and by Philippa
                                                                      Watson, Barrister, of the Bar of Ireland , instructed by Oliver
By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First                  Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre , 29 Rue Jean-Pierre
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Brasseur, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Arthur
from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 : Freda Elsie Locke and          Brautigam and Michel Bishop ), supported by Commission
Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission                of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and
of the European Communities .                                         Xavier Lewis ) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially J. D. Colahan, then S. T.
(') OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .                                     Braviner ) — application under Article 173 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                      compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
                                                                      products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade
                                                                      ( OJ 1993 L 196 , p. 6 ), and in particular Articles 8 and 14
     Removal from the register of Case T-529/93 ( )                   thereof — the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                      made an order on 9 August 1995 , the operative part of
                          ( 95/C 299/38 )                             which is as follows :
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      1 . the names Sean Coughlan, Gregory Walsh, Patrick
                                                                           Heffernan, Patrick Wall and John Harris shall be
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First                      removed from the list of applicants in Case
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                     T-541 /93 ;
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-529/93 : Wallace A. Rodgers,              2 . the parties shall bear their own costs including those
Teresa McVeigh, John Rogan, Patrick O'Brien v. Council of                  relating to the interlocutory proceedings;
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      3.   the interveners shall bear their own costs .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
     Removal from the register of Case T-540/93 ( )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-5 5 0/93 ( )
                           ( 95/C 299/39 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/41 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-540/93 : Kathleen Early v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                   T-550/93 : Dimitrios Benecos v.           Commission of the
European Communities .                                                European Communities .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .


23.1.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/23
reimbursed (less turnover tax), regardless of which                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
purchaser receives the reimbursement (taxpayer or end
user) and how many people there are in the chain of
purchasers. There is no need to adjust the provisional               The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
turnover since it is the retailer who is taxed on the net            paragraph of Article 189 and of the first paragraph of
value of the coupons which the end user presents to                  Article 5 of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member
obtain a price reduction when purchasing the goods. Thus             States to adopt the measures necessary for the
the applicable law on turnover tax in the Federal Republic           implementation of directives within the time-limit
of Germany, and in particular Paragraphs 10(1) and 17(1)             prescribed therein, and to communicate those measures to
of the Law on Turnover Tax, as it is to be applied                   the Commission forthwith. The time-limit in question
pursuant to the German Government's binding                          expired on 21 November 1996 but the Kingdom of
administrative notice of 15 April 1998, infringes Article 11         Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures.
Part 1 1(a) and Article 11 Part C 1 of the Sixth Directive,
since those provisions of that Directive give expression to
the principle that turnover taxes are to be neutral in that          (1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.
the end result should not be that a taxpayer who, because
he has to pay tax on a higher amount than he received for
his supply, ultimately bears part of the turnover tax.
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(2) Judgment in Case C-317/94 [1996] ECR I-5368.
                                                                     Action brought on 30 November 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-430/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/39)
Action brought on 30 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                            Belgium                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                       (Case C-429/98)                               Communities on 30 November 1998 by the Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities, represented by Pieter Jan
                        (1999/C 20/38)                               Kuijper, Legal Adviser, and Nicola Yerrell, a national civil
                                                                     servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                     Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                 Kirchberg.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 30 November 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service          that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     (a) declare that, by failing to adopt and/or to
                                                                          communicate to the Commission the laws,
                                                                          regulations and administrative measures necessary in
The Commission of the European Communities claims                         order to comply with Council Directive 94/45/EC of
that the Court should:                                                    22 September 1994 on the establishment of a
                                                                          European Works Council or a procedure in
                                                                          Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale
                                                                          groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                          and consulting employees (1), alternatively by failing
      and administrative measures necessary in order to
                                                                          to ensure the introduction by the social partners of
      comply with Council Directive 94/56/EC of
                                                                          the necessary measures by voluntary agreement, and
      21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental
                                                                          thus by failing to adopt and/or to communicate to
      principles governing the investigation of civil aviation
                                                                          the Commission the measures necessary in order to
      accidents and incidents (1), alternatively by failing to
                                                                          guarantee the results to be achieved under that
      communicate the measures taken in order to comply
                                                                          directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
      therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
                                                                          to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                     (b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                        costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/24                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.1.1999
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                         from 1 March 1983, together with compound
Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the                            legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;
directive expired on 22 September 1996.
                                                                           Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                                the respondent to pay the costs of the present
(2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.                                      proceedings, together with the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                               the European Communities in Case T-237/87.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Nicolaos
Progoulis against the order made on 21 September 1998                Ð     manifest error of law on the part of the Court of
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 First Instance, in that it wrongly assimilated the
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              present case to Case T-16/97 Chauvin v. Commission:
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European                      the appellant pleaded, as a material new fact,
                           Communities                                     the revelation in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
                                                                           Commission that the respondent applied a restrictive
                        (Case C-431/98 P)                                  policy as regards (re)grading after 1 September 1993,
                                                                           even in respect of officials recruited prior to that
                          (1999/C 20/40)
                                                                           date. He at no time claimed that the respondent had
                                                                           refused to apply to him the decision of 1 September
                                                                           1993, as amended following delivery of the judgment
An appeal against the order made on 21 September 1998                      in Alexopoulou, with a view to a subjective
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 examination of his exceptional' qualifications, as
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              was the case in Chauvin.
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 30 November 1998 by                      Ð     absence of an adequate statement of reasons.
Nicolaos Progoulis, represented by Konstantinos
Adamantopoulos and Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias
Hardt.
                                                                     Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                     30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                     T-154/96 between Christiane Chvatal and Others and the
(1) set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
                                                                     Court of Justice of the European Communities, supported
      Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                     by the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom
      21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97, in which the
                                                                                of the Netherlands
      appellant's application was dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Case C-432/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/41)
(2) itself determine the dispute concerning:
      Ð annulment of the respondent's decision of 13 May             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
          1997 rejecting the appellant's complaint                   1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
          concerning refusal of his application to be                of the European Communities in Case T-154/96 between
          regraded in step 2 of grade B 1 with retroactive           Christiane Chvatal and Others and the Court of Justice of
          effect from 1 March 1983 and for the financial             the European Communities, supported by the Council of
          consequences of the regrading applied for to be            the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
          taken into account and calculated retroactively            was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
          from 1 March 1983, together with compound                  Communities on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the
          legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;                 European Union, represented by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ,
                                                                     Director in its Legal Service, and Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                     TheÂreÁse Blanchet, of its Legal Service, with an address for
      Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring           service in Luxembourg at the Office of Alessandro
          the respondent to pay him the amount                       Morbilli, Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate
          corresponding to the financial consequences of             of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad
          the regrading applied for, calculated retroactively        Adenauer.


               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/1

         (2008/C 260/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

      OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

      OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

      OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

      OJ C 183, 19.7.2008

      OJ C 171, 5.7.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-50/04: Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
20.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 71/17
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare, principally, that, by having failed to adopt the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                         order to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC (1)of the
                                                                                European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December
      —     Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament                      2000 on the incineration of waste, the Portuguese
            and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
            the approximation of the laws, regulations and                       Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/76/EEC;
            administrative provisions of the Member States
            relating to the classification, packaging and labelling        —     declare, in the alternative, that by failing to have immedi-
            of dangerous preparations (1) and                                    ately informed the Commission of any such provisions,
                                                                                the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      —     Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August                          under Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/76/EEC;
            2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/
            45/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
            Council concerning the approximation of the laws,
            regulations and administrative provisions of the
            Member States relating to the classification, packag-
            ing and labelling of dangerous preparations (2),               Pleas in law and main arguments
      or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of
      those provisions, the French republic has failed to fulfil           The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive expired
      its obligations under those directives;                              on 28 December 2002.
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000, p. 91.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period prescribed for implementation of those two
directives expired on 30 July 2002.
                                                                           Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Portuguese
(1) OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1.                                                                                Republic
(2) OJ 2002 L 226, p. 5.
                                                                                (Case C-50/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/30)
                                                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                           on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
                              Republic
                                                                           Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Gonçalo
                                                                           Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                          (Case C-48/04)                                   Luxembourg.
                          (2004/C 71/29)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that, by maintaining in force Article 508(1) of the
                                                                                Portuguese Civil Code, the Portuguese Republic has failed
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                            to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Directive 84/
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                          5/EEC (1) of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of
on 6 February 2004 by the Commission of the European                             the laws of the Member States relating to insurance
Communities, represented by A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis,                    against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                     vehicles;
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/18                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
—     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs of this               Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
      action.                                                              of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-55/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 71/32)
The Portuguese rule in Article 508 of the Civil Code, which
provides, essentially in so far as it deals with strict liability, for
maximum amounts of compensation which are lower than
the minimum guarantee amounts laid down in the Second                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Compulsory Motor Insurance Directive, is incompatible with                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
that Directive.                                                            2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Borde, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 8 of 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                           the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission                             Council Directive 2002/11/EC of 14 February 2002 on
of the European Communities against the Republic of                              the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation
                                Austria                                          of the vine and repealing Directive 74/649/EEC (1), and
                                                                                in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission,
                           (Case C-54/04)                                        the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
                           (2004/C 71/31)
                                                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Pleas in law and main arguments
10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Gregorio
Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in           The period prescribed for the transposition of that directive
Luxembourg.                                                                expired on 23 February 2003.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) OJ 2002 L 53, p. 20.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative measures necessary to comply with
      Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
      emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
      combustion plants (1), or, in any event, by failing to
      inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;           Action brought on 11 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-59/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 71/33)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on
27 November 2002.
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1.                                                   2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-72/09: Action brought on 18 February 2009 — Pilkington Group e.a. v Commission

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/24

         Action brought on 18 February 2009 — Pilkington Group e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-72/09)
   2009/C 102/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pilkington Group Ltd (St Helens, United Kingdom), Pilkington Automotive Ltd (Lathom, United Kingdom), Pilkington Automotive Deutschland GmbH (Witten, Germany), Pilkington Holding GmbH (Gelsenkirchen, Germany), Pilkington Italia SpA (San Salvo, Italy) (represented by: J. Scott, S. Wisking and K. Fountoukakos-Kyriakakos, Solicitors)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               order the annulment of Article 1(c) of the decision, or in the alternative, order the annulment of Article 1(c) in so far as it states that Pilkington infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA before January 1999;

               —

               order the annulment of Article 2(c) of the decision and/or order a substantial reduction of the fine;

               —

               order that the Commission pay the applicants' costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 230 EC, the partial annulment of the Commission decision C (2008) 6815, of 12 November 2008, (Case COMP/39.125 — Carglass) and, in particular, its Article 1(c), which states that the applicants infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by participating, from 10 March 1998 to 3 September 2002, in a complex of agreements and/or concerted practices in the automotive glass sector in the EEA, or in the alternative; the annulment of Article 1(c) of the contested decision insofar as it states that the applicants have infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA before 15 January 1999. In addition and accordingly, the applicants seek the annulment of Article 2(c) of the contested decision which imposes a fine on the applicants jointly and severally of EUR 370 million and/or order a substantial reduction of that fine.
   The applicants put forward eleven pleas in law in support of their application, three of which concern serious errors in the decision’s factual characterisation of the infringing conduct, seven of which concern errors in setting the fine, while the final one relates to the fact that the circumstances of the case as a whole would allegedly justify the exercise by the Court of its unlimited jurisdiction in order to reduce substantially the fine.
   First, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) by incorrectly assessing the nature, and therefore substantially overstating the gravity, of any infringing conduct. It is submitted in particular that the Commission has substantially mischaracterised the infringing conduct as the latter did not amount to a fully-fledged cartel with predetermined rules, nor was it underpinned by any market-wide objective.
   Second, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 by incorrectly assessing the duration of any infringing conduct by the applicants; specifically by concluding that they participated in a single and continuous infringement from 10 March 1998 onwards.
   Third, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 by incorrectly assessing and substantially overstating the extent of the applicants' individual roles in any infringing conduct.
   Fourth, it is submitted that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or the Fining Guidelines (2) by imposing a fine which is manifestly excessive having regard to the overall nature of the conduct described in the decision; in particular by assessing the gravity percentage of relevant sales to be used in calculating the fine, pursuant to paragraphs 19 to 23 of the Fining Guidelines, at 16%.
   Fifth, the applicants claim that, as a result of the error described in the second plea summarised above, the Commission also infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or the Fining Guidelines by calculating the basic amount of the fine imposed on the applicants using a multiplier for duration of 4.5 years.
   Sixth, the applicants claim that the Commission also infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or the Fining Guidelines by failing to take into account relevant attenuating circumstances in relation to the applicants in setting the fine imposed on them.
   Seventh, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Article 253 EC and/or Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or the Fining Guidelines by using an inappropriate relevant sales figure to calculate the fine imposed on the applicants.
   Eighth, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or the Fining Guidelines by imposing a fine on the applicants which is, irrespective of any of the claims raised in any of the other pleas summarised above, manifestly disproportionate having regard to the overall circumstances of the case.
   Ninth, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and/or the Fining Guidelines in that the fine imposed on the applicants is substantially excessive having regard to the requirement imposed on the Commission under Community law to afford equal treatment to parties when imposing fines under Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.
   Tenth, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA and/or Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and paragraph 32 of the Fining Guidelines by imposing a fine on the applicants which exceeds the limit prescribed by the abovementioned provisions.
   Eleventh, the applicants contend that the fine imposed on them is, in all circumstances, manifestly disproportionate; excessive; and inappropriate, and therefore claim that the Court should exercise its unlimited jurisdiction pursuant to Article 229 EC and Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 to review the level of the fine an in doing so substantially reduce it.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      (2)  Guidelines on the method setting fines imposed pursuant to article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p.2)


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2001 in Case T-236/00 R: Gabriele Stauner and Others v. European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities (Interim relief proceedings — Framework agreement on Relations between the European Parliament and the Commission — Article 197 CE — Admissibility)

text:
C 134/22                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
ed by D. Fosselard, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt &                                                 INSTANCE
Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: M.-J. Jonczy and E. Paasivirta)
– application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of                                         of 15 January 2001
23 March 2000 terminating the contract concluded with the
applicant relating to the Dionysos project — the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,                  in Case T-236/00 R: Gabriele Stauner and Others
President, and V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung,              v. European Parliament and Commission of the European
Registrar, made an order on 9 January 2001, the operative                                              Communities
part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         (Interim relief proceedings — Framework agreement on
                                                                            Relations between the European Parliament and the Com-
2.    The applicant is to pay the costs, including those relating to the             mission — Article 197 CE — Admissibility)
      proceedings for interim measures.
                                                                                (2001/C 134/49)
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Case T-236/00 R: Gabriele Stauner, residing in Wolfrats-
                                                                            hausen (Germany), Freddy Blak, residing in Næstved (Den-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 mark), Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark),
                                                                            Theodorus Bouwman, residing in Eindhoven (Netherlands),
                        of 10 January 2001                                  Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, residing in Amsterdam (Nether-
                                                                            lands), Mogens Camre, residing in Copenhagen, Rijk van Dam,
                                                                            residing in Rotterdam (Netherlands), Michl Ebner, residing
in Case T-153/00: Spain Pharma S.A. v Commission of the                     in Bolzano (Italy), Christopher Heaton-Harris, residing in
                   European Communities (1)                                 Kettering, Northamptonshire (United Kingdom), Lousewies
                                                                            van der Laan, residing in Brussels, Joost Lagendijk, residing in
(Action for a declaration of failure to act — Case not                      Rotterdam, Nelly Maes, residing in Sinaai (Belgium), Franz-
                     proceeding to judgment)                                Xaver Mayer, residing in Landau-sur-l’Isar (Germany), Franzis-
                                                                            ka Emilia Müller, residing in Bruck (Upper Palatinate) (Germ-
                          (2001/C 134/48)                                   any), Alexander Radwan, residing in Rottach-Egern (Germany),
                                                                            Alexander de Roo, residing in Amsterdam, Heide Rühle,
                                                                            residing in Stuttgart (Germany), Ursula Schleicher, residing in
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          Munich (Germany), Inger Schöring, residing in Gävle (Sweden),
                                                                            Esko Olavi Seppänen, residing in Helsinki, Bart Staes, residing
                                                                            in Antwerp (Belgium), Claude Turmes, residing in Esch-sur-
In Case T-153/00: Spain Pharma S.A., established in Madrid,                 Alzette (Luxembourg), Members of the European Parliament,
represented by R. Gutiérrez Sánchez, of the Madrid Bar, with               represented by J. Sedemund et T. Lübbig, Rechtsanwälte,
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     Berlin, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Messrs Molitor, Feltgen & Harpes, 55 Boulevard de la Pétrusse,              Chambers of M. di Stefano, 49 Avenue de la Gare, against
v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gip-                    European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera et M. Berger) and
pini Fournier) — application for a declaration that the                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker
Commission has improperly failed, in breach of the Treaty, to               et X. Lewis) — application for suspension of application, first,
take a decision on a complaint concerning alleged infringe-                 of paragraphs 17 and 19 of the Framework Agreement of
ments of Articles 81 and 82 EC — the Court of First Instance                5 July 2000 on Relations between the European Parliament
(Second Chamber), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, and                  and the Commission and, second, Annex 3 to that Framework
A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an              Agreement, the President of the Court of First Instance has
order on 10 January 2001, the operative part of which is as                 made an order on 15 January 2001, the operative part of
follows:                                                                    which is as follows:
1.    There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.
                                                                            1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                            2.    The decision as to costs is reserved.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.


title: Case F-56/15: Action brought on 17 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/46

         Action brought on 17 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-56/15)
   (2015/C 213/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of decisions reducing the correction coefficient applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who reside in Denmark, as is apparent from their pension slips of June 2014 and the compensation for the non-pecuniary loss allegedly incurred as a result of discrepancies and contradictions in the information used to justify the contested decisions.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions contained in the pension slips of June 2014 by which the correction coefficient applicable to the applicants’ pensions is reduced from 1 January 2014;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs and to pay a fixed sum ex aequo et bono as compensation for the non-pecuniary loss suffered.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 April 2005 in Case T-353/02 Duarte y Beltrán SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark INTEA — Earlier national word marks INTESA — Refusal of registration — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 April 2005
   in Case T-353/02 Duarte y Beltrán SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark INTEA - Earlier national word marks INTESA - Refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 155/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-353/02: Duarte y Beltrán SA, established in Santander (Spain), represented initially by N. Moya Fernandez, and subsequently by J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: M. Schneider and P. Jurado Montejano), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Mirato SpA, established in Novara (Italy) — action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2002 (Case R 407/2001-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Duarte y Beltrán SA and Mirato SpA — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N. J. Forwood and I. Pelikánová, Judges; B. Pastor, Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  JO C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case C-601/12 P: Appeal brought on 20 December 2012 by Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-150/09: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/8

         Appeal brought on 20 December 2012 by Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 10 October 2012 in Case T-150/09: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-601/12 P)
   2013/C 71/14
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd (represented by: F. Graafsma, J. Cornelis, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Industrial Fasteners Institute AISBL (EIFI)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should adopt a judgment that:

               —

               sets aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 10 October 2012 in Case T-I50/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co., Ltd. v Council by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (1) of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China;

               —

               annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People's Republic of China, in so far as it concerns the Appellant; and

               —

               orders the Council of the European Union to pay the Appellant's costs of this appeal as well as those of the proceedings before the General Court in Case T-150/09.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the General Court's findings with respect to Appellant's first plea before the General Court are vitiated by several errors of law as well as a distortion of the evidence. The Appellant therefore submits that the Contested Judgment should be set aside. In addition, the Appellant submits that the facts underlying the first plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on that plea. The Appellant only challenges the General Court's findings with respect to the (original) first plea and this on the basis of three grounds of appeal.
   First, by introducing an ‘only plausible hypothesis’ criterion as a result of which the three-month time-limit in the second paragraph of Article 2 (7) (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (hereafter the ‘basic regulation’) allegedly does not apply, the Contested Judgment renders the three-month time limit meaningless. As a result, the Contested Judgment interpreted the second paragraph of Article 2 (7) (c) of the basic Regulation in a legally impermissible way since an interpreter is not free to adopt a reading that would result in rendering whole provisions or paragraphs to redundant or useless.
   Second, in examining the legal consequences of a failure to comply with a procedural time-limit, the Contested Judgment applied the incorrect test, thereby imposing an unreasonable burden of proof on the Appellant. If the Contested Judgment had applied the correct test, as set out by this Court in previous cases, it would have found that the failure to comply with the procedural time-limit justified the annulment of the Contested Regulation.
   Finally, in arriving at its findings, the General Court distorted the evidence and the facts before it.

      (1)  OJ L 29, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 56, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2005 in Case T-5/04: Carlo Scano v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Multiple-choice questions — Refusal by the selection board not to take account of certain questions — Equal treatment — Principle of good administration — Ambit of judicial review — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 July 2005
   in Case T-5/04: Carlo Scano v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Internal competition - Multiple-choice questions - Refusal by the selection board not to take account of certain questions - Equal treatment - Principle of good administration - Ambit of judicial review - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2005/C 229/31)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-5/04: Carlo Scano, official of the Commission of the European Communities, resident in Brussels (Belgium), represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities, (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in the internal competition COM/PA/02 for advancement from category B to category A establishing the results of the applicant in the pre-selection tests and refusing to admit him to the oral test of that competition, of the subsequent confirmatory decisions, of the list of successful candidates in that competition in the field in which the applicant was assessed and of any decision adopted on that basis, and second, damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 January 1998 in Case C-315/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Lopex Export GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Customs duty - Classification of goods - Regulation amending classification - Binding tariff information issued previously - Validity)

text:
C 72/4               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.3.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 29 January 1998                                                    of 29 January 1998
in Case C-161/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     in Case C-315/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Südzucker Mannheim/Ochsenfurt
                                                                     the Finanzgericht Hamburg): Lopex Export GmbH v.
             AG v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim (1)
                                                                                Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
(Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector
Ð Failure to complete the customs formalities for export             (Customs duty Ð Classification of goods Ð Regulation
from the Community Ð Consequences Ð Principle of                     amending classification Ð Binding tariff information
                        proportionality)                                              issued previously Ð Validity)
                          (98/C 72/06)                                                         (98/C 72/07)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-161/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal
Finance Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings          In Case C-315/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
pending before that court between Südzucker Mannheim/                of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Hamburg
Ochsenfurt AG and Hauptzollamt Mannheim Ð on the                     (Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of                pending before that court between Lopex Export GmbH
14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing                  and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Ð on the validity of
rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota          the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
(OJ L 262, 16.9.1989, p. 14), read in conjunction with               Council Regulation (EEC) No 1715/90 of 20 June 1990
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3183/80 of 3 December                 on the information provided by the customs authorities of
1980 laying down common detailed rules for the                       the Member States concerning the classification of goods
application of the system of import and export licences              in the Customs Nomenclature (OJ L 160, 26.6.1990, p. 1)
and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products            and, if it is declared invalid, on the consequences of such
(OJ L 338, 13.12.1980, p. 1) Ð the Court (Fifth                      invalidity Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C.
Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                     Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet
D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger,            and P. Jann, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate General; H. A.
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 January                a judgment on 29 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
1998, in which it has ruled:
Consideration of the question referred has not revealed              Consideration of the first indent of the first paragraph of
any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of               Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1715/90 of
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of                            20 June 1990 on the information provided by the customs
14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing                  authorities of the Member States concerning the
rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota,         classification of goods in the Customs Nomenclature, in
read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EEC)                 the light of the principle of the protection of legitimate
No 3183/80 of 3 December 1980 laying down common                     expectations and the principle of legal certainty, has not
detailed rules for the application of the system of import           disclosed the existence of any factors of such a kind as to
and export licences and advance fixing certificates for              affect its validity.
agricultural products.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.


title: Case F-118/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Psarras v ENISA (Civil Service — Assignment — Reassignment — Interest of the service — Leave on personal grounds)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 October 2012 — Psarras v ENISA
   (Case F-118/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Assignment - Reassignment - Interest of the service - Leave on personal grounds)
   2013/C 38/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristidis Psarras (Heraklion, Greece) (represented initially by: É. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers, and subsequently by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (represented by: E. Maurage, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Civil service — Firstly, application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant for the Agency and to appoint another person to that post. Secondly, application for payment to the applicant of a sum by way of compensation for the loss suffered owing to the contested acts and the harassment of which he claims to have been a victim.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 7 February 2010 of the Board of the European Network and Information Security Agency to dismiss Mr Psarras from his duties as accountant, with immediate effect, and to appoint Mr X, budget officer, to the post as account for a unlimited term, and the decision of 1 March 2010 adopted as a consequence by the Executive Director reassigning Mr Psarras to new duties;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Network and Information Security Agency to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr Psarras.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 34.


title: Case F-29/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 October 2015 — Drakeford v EMA

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/80

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 October 2015 — Drakeford v EMA
   (Case F-29/13) (1)

   (2015/C 398/96)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013, p. 57.


title: Case T-371/10: Order of the General Court of 15 April 2011 — Amor v OHIM — Jablonex Group (AMORIKE)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/15

         Order of the General Court of 15 April 2011 — Amor v OHIM — Jablonex Group (AMORIKE)
   (Case T-371/10) (1)

   2011/C 173/33
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Removal from the register of C-243/96

text:
8 . 2 . 97           I EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 40/ 15
from the register of Case C-134/96 : Commission of the                removal from the register of Case C-l 79/96 : Commission
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
                                                                      Luxembourg.
(') OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-l 52/96 (')                           Removal from the register of C-243/96 f 1 )
                             97/C 40/35 )                                                         ( 97/C 40/37 )
                                                                      By order of 19 November 1996 the President of the Court
By order of 12 September 1996 the President of the Court              of Justice of the Communities ordered the removal from
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                the register of Case C-243/96 : Commission of the
removal from the register of Case C-l 52/96 : Commission              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg .                                                          (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
(') OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-265/96 f 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/38 )
            Removal from the register of C-l 79/96 (')                By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
                             97/C 40/36 )                             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                      removal from the register of Case C-265/96 : Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
By order of 18 November 1996 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                    (') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                      of 11 December 1996                             Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
                                                                      Marie-Adelaide v. European Community, represented by 1 .
in Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG and Others v. Council of               Council of the European Union (Agents : Jean-Paul Jacque,
the European Union and Commission of the European                     Arthur Brautigam , Jürgen Huber and Anna Lo Monaco )
                          Communities C )                             and 2 . Commission of the European Communities
 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —                       ( Agents : Peter Gilsdorf and Ulrich Wölker ), supported by
           Import arrangements — Action for damages)                  the French Republic ( Agents : Edwige Belliard and Gautier
                                                                       Mignot) and by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                            ( 97/C 40/39 )                             Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially S. Lucinda Hudson,
                                                                       then Lindsey Nicoll ) — application for an order requiring
                 (Language of the case: German)                        the European Community, represented by the Council and
                                                                       the Commission , to pay compensation for damage alleged
                                                                       to have been incurred as a result of the adoption of
 In Case T-521 /93 : Atlanta AG, established at Bremen                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 of 13 February
 ( Germany), Atlanta Handelsgesellschaft Harder & Co .                  1993 on the common organization of the market in
 GmbH, established at Bremen, Afrikanische Frucht-                     bananas ( OJ No L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ), the Court
 Companie GmbH, established at Hamburg ( Germany ),                     ( Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
 Cobana Bananeneinkaufsgesellschaft mbH & Co . KG,                     K. Lenaerts, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, P.
 established at Hamburg, Edeka Fruchtkontor GmbH ,                      Lindh , J. Azizi and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
 established at Hamburg, Internationale Fruchtimport                    Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 December 1996 , in
 Gesellschaft Weichert & Co., established at Hamburg and                which it :
 Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established at Hamburg,
 represented by Erik A. Undritz and Gerrit Schohe,                      1 . dismisses the application;


title: Case T-442/11: Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               1.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 290/17

         Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-442/11)
   2011/C 290/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Commission of 27 May 2011, not to take any remedial action after the European Ombudsman came to the conclusion that the Decision taken by the Commission in November 2006, to select the products and services of a third company, was not in conformity with the applicable EU public procurement legislation;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s damages in order to neutralise the impact it suffered on account of its decision of November 2006;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant 1 million EURO for a loss of opportunity to participate in the call for tenders which it decided to cancel;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant 1 million EURO for an authorised use of intellectual property rights;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the amount of 10 million EURO for a non-pecuniary loss, consisting of its reputation and credibility being undermined;

               —

               Order the Commission to issue a public notice, informing the market and all users interested in CIRCA (an IT tool which enables the electronic collaboration among employees or groups of individuals located in different locations), that such is not an obsolete platform, that the platform developed by Alfresco Software Ltd. is not a privileged platform and that the users are free to select as a substitute for CIRCA the platform of their choice; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the obligation arising from Articles 27, 88, 89 and 91 of the financial regulation (1), as well as of Articles 116, 122 and 124 of the implementing rules (2), to conduct an open or restricted call for tenders.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of non discrimination and equal treatment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of good administration and the obligation to state reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission misused its powers.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1)


title: Case T-6/13: Action brought on 8 January 2013 — NICO v Council

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/24

         Action brought on 8 January 2013 — NICO v Council
   (Case T-6/13)
   2013/C 71/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, G. Pandey, P. Gjørtler, D. Rovetta, D. Sellers and N. Pilkington, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2), in so far as the contested acts include the Applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures; and

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant submits five grounds of challenge concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, manifest error of assessment, and breach of the fundamental right to property.
   The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this, especially in relation to the imposition on current contractual engagements. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Council failed to supply a sufficient statement of reasons, which has been confirmed by the Council to the applicant, while requests for access to documents were not replied to. The applicant states that by these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Contrary to the claim of the Council, the applicant claims that it is not a subsidiary of NICO Ltd, as this company no longer exists in Jersey, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even it were a subsidiary, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the aim of the contested decision and regulation. Finally, the applicant finds that by imposing on the property rights and current contractual engagements managed by the applicant, the Council has violated the basic right of property by taking measures for which the proportionality cannot be ascertained.

      (1)  OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p. 58

      (2)  OJ 16.10.2012, L 282, p. 16