title: Case T-252/01: Action brought on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/Graphite Group, Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 31/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
(Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application           The applicant does not substantially contest the facts men-
for suspension of operation of the decision of 4 December                 tioned by the Commission in the contested decision, and the
2000 of the appointing authority concerning the reassignment              pleas in its application relate to the amount of the fine
of the applicant to the translation service — the President of            imposed.
the Court of First Instance, has made an order on 21 September
2001, in which he:
                                                                          The applicant submits that the fine is unlawful, essentially
1.    Dismissed the application for interim measures;                     since it violates the duty of proportionality and of equal
                                                                          treatment. It alleges that the Commission has acted unlawfully
                                                                          and in violation of Articles 3(g), 5, 81 and 253 of the EC
2.    Reserved the costs.
                                                                          Treaty by merely determining the basic amount of the fine on
                                                                          the basis of the applicant’s world-wide turnover and not taking
                                                                          into account the scope of its activities in the EEA. The
                                                                          categorisation used by the Commission for the establishment
                                                                          of the basic amount of fine and the setting of this amount
                                                                          violate the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.
Action brought on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corporation                       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      violated the general principles of fairness and ‘non bis in idem’
                                                                          by not taking into account the sanctions previously imposed
                          (Case T-251/01)                                 on the applicant by the US competition authorities.
                           (2002/C 31/25)
                                                                          Finally, it alleges that, when examining possible mitigating
                                                                          circumstances, the Commission violated the principles of equal
                   (Language of the case: English)                        treatment and of proportionality by not making sufficient
                                                                          distinction between the Japanese producers, all being regarded
                                                                          as active members of the cartel. By disregarding the applicant’s
                                                                          passive role and ‘follow my leader’ approach, the Commission
                                                                          has disregarded its own Guidelines as well as the case law of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 October 2001 by SEC Corpor-
ation, represented by Mr Koen Platteau of Linklaters & Alliance,
Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 18 July
      2001 in Case COMP/E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes,                 Action brought on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/Graph-
      in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 12,2 million on the           ite Group, Inc. against the Commission of the European
      applicant, or, at the least, substantially reduce this fine;                                  Communities
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-252/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 31/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a Japanese manufacturer of graphite electrodes
and other graphite products. By the contested decision, fines
were imposed on the applicant and seven other companies for
having infringed the provisions of Article 81(1) of the EC
Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
graphite electrodes sector. The fine imposed on the applicant             European Communities on 4 October 2001 by The Carbide/
was of EUR 12,2 million. Parallel proceedings relating to these           Graphite Group, Inc., represented by Mr Marc Seimetz and
agreements and practices have been undertaken in other                    Mr Jean Brücher of Brücher & Seimetz in association with
jurisdictions, e.g. in the United States.                                 Dechert, Luxembourg (Luxembourg).
 ---pagebreak--- 2.2.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 31/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Commission’s approach was unfair to the applicant in several
                                                                        ways and, given the nature of the applicant’s infringement and
                                                                        the negligible impact it had on the market, a significantly
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of the European              lower starting figure should have been assigned to the applicant
      Communities of 18 July 2001 relating to a proceeding              than to some of the other undertakings.
      under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of
      the EEA Agreement in Case No COMP/E-1/36.490 —
      Graphite electrodes, in so far as it imposes a fine on the        Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission erred
      applicant;                                                        in finding that the applicant should be given only a 40 %
                                                                        reduction for mitigating circumstances. The Commission failed
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                to take into account the ways in which the applicant acted
      applicant in the Decision of the Commission of the                directly contrary to the fundamental principles and purposes
      European Communities of 18 July 2001 relating to a                of the cartel, and the Commission should have given the
      proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and                  applicant an additional reduction based on its early cessation
      Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case No COMP/                  of the illegal practices. The Commission should also have
      E-1/36.490 — Graphite electrodes; and                             considered the applicant’s disadvantages relative to its competi-
                                                                        tors and the applicant’s precarious financial position. Finally,
                                                                        the applicant should have been given a much more significant
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          reduction than the 20 % reduction granted to it under the
                                                                        Leniency Notice (1).
                                                                        (1) Commission Notice of 18 July 1996 on the non-imposition or
                                                                            reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ [1996] C 207, p. 4).
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is an American company which historically has
been a small participant in the electrode business. The decision
which forms the subject matter of its action found that
the applicant, together with seven other undertakings, had
infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty by participating in a
complex of agreements and concerted practices in the graphite           Action brought on 11 October 2001 by UPS Europe
sector. The decision imposed a fine of EUR 10,3 million on              NV/SA against the Commission of the European Com-
the applicant. Proceedings relating to these agreements and                                            munities
practices were also undertaken in other jurisdictions, e.g. in
the United States, where the applicant was not charged with                                        (Case T-253/01)
any criminal violation. After receipt of the contested decision,
the applicant filed for bankruptcy.
                                                                                (2002/C 31/27)
The purpose of the applicant’s action is not to contest the                                 (Language of the case: English)
finding of the cartel or the applicant’s involvement, but rather
to obtain a reduction in the fine imposed by the Commission.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant submits that the Commission, in fixing the                European Communities on 11 October 2001 by UPS Europe
amount of the fine imposed on the applicant, has infringed the          NV/SA, represented by Mr T.R. Ottervanger of Allen & Overy,
general principles of the Treaty and incorrectly appreciated the        Brussels (Belgium).
factors that should determine the level of such a fine. The fine
of EUR 10,3 million is wholly unjustified and excessive in all
the circumstances.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare in accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty
The applicant alleges that the Commission erred in finding                    that the Commission has failed to act by not having
that the appropriate starting point for the applicant’s fine was              rendered a definitive decision within a reasonable period
EUR 16 million and that it failed to distinguish the gravity of               of time upon the Applicant’s complaints lodged with the
the applicant’s infringement from that of the other producers’                Commission on 7 July 1994 and on 8 June 1998 and
infringements. The Commission ignored the fact that the                       upon the opening of the procedure under Article 88(2)
applicant was a price follower before, during and after the                   of the EC Treaty on 17 August 1999 (published in the
cartel and that its conduct had no impact on competition. The                 Official Journal of 23 October 1999, C 306/25);


title: Case T-532/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 September 2015 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/39

         Appeal brought on 11 September 2015 by Z against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice
   (Case T-532/15 P)
   (2016/C 016/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               accordingly set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 in Case F-64/13, Z v Court of Justice of the European Union;

               —

               rule in accordance with the application initiating proceedings in Case F-64/13;

               —

               order the Court of Justice of the European Union to pay the costs;

               —

               reserve to the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging an infringement of the basic rights of defence.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as the plea in law alleging lack of competence on the part of the Complaints Committee and of illegality of Article 4 of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 May 2004 (1) was rejected in manifest breach of the principle of legality, of textual interpretation and of the hierarchy of norms of the EU legal order.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the right to an effective remedy, with regard in particular to the limited review by the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) of the content of staff reports.

               4.

               Fourth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST did not rule on the application for measures of inquiry and organisation of procedure.

               5.

               Fifth ground of appeal, alleging unjustified refusal to examine the validity of the criticisms expressed by the appellant and failure to take into consideration the opinions expressed by the rating committee.

               6.

               Sixth ground of appeal, alleging an error of law in so far as, in the judgment under appeal, the CST held that the appellant was obliged to apply to the Court under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union seeking compensation for the delay in drawing up the staff report.

      (1)  Decision of the Court of Justice of 4 May 2004 concerning the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union on the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment.


title: Case C-147/07: Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/34

         Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-147/07)
   (2007/C 95/66)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, J. Hottiaux, J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The quality of water intended for human consumption in France does not comply with the provisions of Directive 98/83 in so far as the thresholds laid down in that directive are regularly exceeded, as regards nitrates and pesticides, in the Deux-Sèvres, Charente-Maritime and Vendée Departments.

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32.


title: Case C-238/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 1 July 2009 — Handelsmaatschappij J. van Hilst and Others v The Jaguar Collection Limited and Others

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 1 July 2009 — Handelsmaatschappij J. van Hilst and Others v The Jaguar Collection Limited and Others
   (Case C-238/09)
   2009/C 312/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Handelsmaatschappij J. van Hilst and Others

      Defendants: The Jaguar Collection Limited and Others
   By order of 20 July 2009 the case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice


title: Case T-238/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zimara)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/23

         Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zimara)
   (Case T-238/15)
   (2015/C 228/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zimara’ — Application for registration No 9 782 764

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2015 in Case R 636/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: An appeal brought on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-189/98 P)

text:
C 258/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.8.98
     law and, in particular, of Decision 94/90. According to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     the Court of First Instance, it is for the national court
     Ð at least for as long as the proceedings remain
     pending before that national court Ð to determine, on           The award of the above allowances to women subject to
     the basis of its procedural rules, whether access to            conditions which are not laid down for men employees is
     specified documents should be granted. This means               contrary to the requirements of Article 119 of the EC
     that access to Commission documents will vary                   Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC.
     according to the legal system applied.
                                                                     Removal of that discrimination should have taken place
Ð Infringement of Article 33 in conjunction with
                                                                     on 1 January 1981, the date of entry into force in Greece
     Article 44 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice:
                                                                     of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117/
     the Court of First Instance failed to state adequate
                                                                     EEC. The Hellenic Republic harmonised its legislation
     reasons for the contested judgment, in that it omitted
                                                                     with the above provisions, but did not give it retroactive
     to indicate the manner in which Article 6 of the
                                                                     force. The failure to award the above allowances to
     European Convention of Human Rights, on which the
                                                                     married women employees retrospectively from 1 January
     Court of First Instance bases the principle of the
                                                                     1981 not only deprived them of part of their pay in the
     procedural autonomy of national courts, is infringed
                                                                     period from that date until the Greek legislation was
     in the event that it is the Commission which decides
                                                                     harmonised, but continues to produce unlawful effects to
     whether access is to be granted to documents drawn
                                                                     the extent to which those allowances are taken into
     up by that institution for the purposes of particular
                                                                     account for pension calculation purposes. Consequently it
     court proceedings.
                                                                     is contrary also to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC,
                                                                     which prohibits any discrimination in matters of social
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.                                     security on ground of sex, in particular as concerns the
(2) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.                                     calculation of benefits.
(3) Judgment of 5 March 1997 in Case T-105/95 WWF UK v
    Commission.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 45 of 19.2.1975, p. 19.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-187/98)                              An appeal brought on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal
                                                                     against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the
                         (98/C 258/30)                               Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                     Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal, supported by the
                                                                     Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                                      European Communities
before the Court of Justice on 18 May 1998 by the                                          (Case C-189/98 P)
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Dimitrios Gouloussis, of its Legal Service, with an                                        (98/C 258/31)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March
                                                                     1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
                                                                     supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Ð the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal, represented by
     under Community law, in particular under Article 119
                                                                     L. Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in
     of the EC Treaty, Article 3 of Directive 75/117/EEC (1)
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue.
     and the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), in so far as it has not repealed, with
     retroactive effect from the date of the entry into force
     of the above Community provisions in Greece, rules              The appellant claims that the Court should:
     which, in respect of the award to employees of a
     family allowance or marriage allowance, which are
     taken into account in the determination of the level of         (1) declare the present appeal against the judgment
     pensionable salary, laid down special substantive                   delivered on 19 March 1998 by the Court of First
     conditions for married women employees which were                   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/
     not laid down for married men employees.                            96 (1) admissible;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 258/19
(2) set aside the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by                Commission and supplements the grounds for the
    the Court of First Instance in Case T-83/96 and,                    Commission's refusal, without the appellant having
    adjudicating afresh in the matter, annul the decision of            been able to put forward any argument in fact or in
    29 March 1996 addressed by the Commission to the                    law concerning that point.
    appellant;
                                                                    (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.
(3) order the Commission of the European Communities                (2) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
    to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings
    at first instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC,                   Appeal brought on 19 May 1998 by Georges Tzoano
    EC, Euratom on public access to Commission                      against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the
    documents (2):                                                  Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                    European Communities in Case T-74/96 between Georges
                                                                    Tzoano and the Commission of the European
    Ð The Court of First Instance failed to have regard
                                                                                Communities
         to the rule, based on Decision 94/90, requiring the
         Commission, before denying access to any                                         (Case C-191/98 P)
         document, to show that, by reason of the
                                                                                (98/C 258/32)
         information which it contains, its dissemination
         may cause actual prejudice to the public interest,
         which is protected by the first category of
         exceptions in Decision 94/90.                              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March
                                                                    1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
    Ð By applying, for the purposes of deciding whether             Instance of the European Communities in Case T-74/96
         to grant access to the Commission documents                between Georges Tzoano and the Commission of the
         concerned, the criterion of the addressee(s) of            European Communities was brought before the Court of
         those documents Ð in the present case, the                 Justice of the European Communities on 19 May 1998 by
         national courts to which the letters in question           Georges Tzoano, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
         were sent Ð the Court of First Instance infringed          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
         the provisions and objectives of Decision 94/90.           the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
    Ð Neither Decision 94/90 nor any other rule of law              The appellant claims that the Court should:
         provides any support for the view expressed by the
         Court of First Instance that the exception
         concerning protection of the public interest (more         (a) set aside the contested judgment (1);
         particularly: court proceedings') is designed to
         ensure general respect for the principle of the
         procedural autonomy of courts and that the scope           (b) itself adjudicate on the dispute and allow the
         of that exception is therefore not restricted solely           appellant's initial application:
         to the protection of the interests of the parties but
         encompasses the procedural autonomy of national
                                                                        Ð annul the respondent's decision of 22 June 1995
         and Community courts.
                                                                             removing the appellant from his post without loss
                                                                             of entitlement to a retirement pension and annul
Ð Infringement of the European Convention on Human                           the decision of 19 February 1996 expressly
    Rights: the European Convention on Human rights, in                      rejecting the complaint lodged by the appellant on
    particular Article 6 thereof and the case-law relating                   21 September 1995 against the contested decision;
    thereto, provides no support for the view expressed by
    the Court of First Instance that it gives rise to the
                                                                        Ð order the respondent to pay the costs, including
    principle of procedural autonomy'. Neither the
                                                                             those relating to the proceedings at first instance.
    objective of Article 6 of the Convention nor the
    construction placed on the guarantees described in
    that article provide any legal basis for the reasoning of       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the Court of First Instance.
Ð Breach of the obligation to provide a statement of                Breach of Community law, in particular:
    reasons.
                                                                    Ð infringement of Article 33 of the EC Statute of the
Ð Breach of the principle of the autonomy of the parties                Court of Justice; the obligation to state the reasons on
    and of the rights of the defence: in its judgment, the              which a judgment is based is, in particular, such that
    Court of First Instance substitutes itself for the                  the grounds on which it purports to be based must be


title: Case C-5/07: Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/20

         Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-5/07)
   (2007/C 42/38)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and P. Guerra e Andrade, Acting as Agents)

      Defendant: the Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) or, in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of that directive into domestic law expired on 23 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 16 of 23 January 2004, p. 44.


title: Case C-556/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 October 2013 — UAB ‘Litaksa’ v ‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 28 October 2013 — UAB ‘Litaksa’ v ‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE
   (Case C-556/13)
   2014/C 24/06
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UAB ‘Litaksa’

      Defendant:‘BTA Insurance Company’ SE

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2 of Directive 90/232/EEC, (1) as amended by Article 4 of Directive 2005/14/EC, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the parties to an insurance contract do not have the right to agree on a territorial restriction of the insurance cover for the person insured (to apply a different insurance premium depending on the territory in which the vehicle is used — either in the whole of the European Union or only in the Republic of Lithuania), but in any event without the cover of victims being restricted, that is to say, to define use of the vehicle outside the Republic of Lithuania in another Member State of the European Union as a factor increasing the insurance risk, in which event an additional insurance premium has to be paid?

               2.

               Are the principle of the free movement of persons and vehicles in the entire area of the European Union and the general European Union principle of equality (non-discrimination) to be interpreted as being contravened by the aforementioned agreement of the parties to an insurance contract, whereby the insurance risk is linked to the territorial use of the vehicle?

      (1)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).


title: Case T-206/02: Action brought on 2 July 2002 by the Congrès National du Kurdistan against the Council of the European Union

text:
12.10.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 247/13
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 2 July 2002 by the Congrès National                     is composed. Moreover, the contested decision, which is
 du Kurdistan against the Council of the European Union                   tantamount to a penalty, was enacted without the slightest
                                                                          statement of reasons, thereby infringing essential procedural
                                                                          requirements.
                         (Case T-206/02)
                         (2002/C 247/22)                                  Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contested
                                                                          decision is founded on a substantive factual error in so far as
                                                                          the PKK dissolved itself before the contested decision was
                   (Language of the case: French)                         adopted and since 1999 at least has been advocating non-
                                                                          violent action. The decision is also vitiated by a manifest error
                                                                          of assessment inasmuch as it seriously prejudices the freedom
                                                                          of expression guaranteed by the European Convention for
An action against the Council of the European Union was                   Human Rights.
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 2 July 2002 by the Congrès National
du Kurdistan (Kurdistan National Congress), established in                (1 ) Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May 2002 implementing
Brussels, represented by Jérôme Boisseau, Lawyer.                              Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific
                                                                               restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities
                                                                               with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    927/EC (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33).
                                                                          (2 ) OJ 2002 L 344, p. 70.
—     hold that Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May
      2002 ( 1) adversely affects the applicant’s reputation, name
      and credibility;
—     find that the contested decision proceeds from a substan-
      tive error in that it refers to the PKK in the list of legal
      persons covered by the Community measures to combat
                                                                          Action brought on 15 July 2002 by Santiago Gómez-
      terrorism;
                                                                          Reino against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
—     declare that the contested decision is manifestly vitiated
      by an error of assessment in that it denies a political party
      the means of expressing itself freely;                                                         (Case T-215/02)
—     for all those reasons, partially annul the contested                                           (2002/C 247/23)
      decision;
—     order the Council to pay a sum of EUR 10 000 in respect                                  (Language of the case: French)
      of irrecoverable expenditure incurred by the applicant.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 15 July 2002 by Santiago Gómez-
                                                                          Reino, resident in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,
The applicant seeks the annulment of Council Decision 2002/               Lawyer.
334/EC of 2 May 2002. That decision refers to the PKK (the
Kurdistan Workers’ Party) in the updated list of persons,
groups and entities to which Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/             The applicant claims that the Court should:
2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to              —      find that the European Anti-Fraud Office acted unlawfully
combating terrorism (2) is applicable.                                           by not notifying him of a decision to open investigations
                                                                                concerning him individually, not informing him of
                                                                                investigations liable to implicate him and not enabling
The applicant contends that that reference adversely affects the                 him to express his views on all the facts concerning him
reputation and credibility of the action engaged in by it and                    before conclusions referring to him personally were
numerous independent associations and persons of which it                        drawn from the investigations;


title: Case T-254/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Kühne + Nagel International and Others v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final prices — Whether trade between Member States affected — Errors of assessment — Duration of the infringement — Amount of the fine — Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales — Mitigating circumstances — Proportionality — Rights of the defence)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Kühne + Nagel International and Others v European Commission
   (Case T-254/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final prices - Whether trade between Member States affected - Errors of assessment - Duration of the infringement - Amount of the fine - Point 13 of the 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales - Mitigating circumstances - Proportionality - Rights of the defence))
   (2016/C 136/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Kühne + Nagel International AG (Feusisberg, Switzerland), Kühne + Nagel Management AG (Feusisberg), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge, United Kingdom), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai, China), and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. Klöppner and C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, N. von Lingen and G. Meessen, and subsequently by C. Hödlmayr, G. Meessen and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Uxbridge), Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Shanghai) and Kühne + Nagel Ltd (Hong Kong) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-228/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Reinhard Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 28 April 2017 — Reinhard Wittmann v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-228/17)
   (2017/C 231/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Reinhard Wittmann

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-342/04: Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Herta Adam against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/54

         Action brought on 9 August 2004 by Herta Adam against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-342/04)
   (2004/C 262/99)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 August 2004 by Herta Adam, residing at Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in that the period during which she worked in the office of the representation of a German Land in Brussels is not considered by the Commission as employment arising from services carried out for another State. The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-721/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/39

         Action brought on 31 December 2013 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
   (Case T-721/13)
   2014/C 112/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 October 2013 given in Case R 1961/2012-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘DIRECTV’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 243 774

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked CTM registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and revoked CTM registration in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) CTMR.


title: Case C-467/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Genova (Italy) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Consel Gi. Emme Srl v Sistema Logistico dell'Arco Ligure e Alessandrino Srl (SLALA)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/48

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Genova (Italy) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Consel Gi. Emme Srl v Sistema Logistico dell'Arco Ligure e Alessandrino Srl (SLALA)
   (Case C-467/06)
   (2006/C 326/97)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale civile di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consel Gi. Emme Srl

      Defendant: Sistema Logistico dell'Arco Ligure e Alessandrino Srl (SLALA)
   Question referred

               1.

               Does Community law (with particular reference to Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, 82 EC, 86 EC and 87 EC) preclude a Member State from entrusting public services and the management of public infrastructure — on the basis of special legislation with characteristics similar to those of the provisions introduced into Italian law by Article 12 of Decree-Law No 262/06 of 3 October 2006 — to private-law companies (in this case, ANAS spa) which, at the same time, perform the function of regulating and controlling the particular market (of the kind conferred on ANAS spa by the legislation at issue), and are in a position to determine the substance, progress and possible termination of the contract of concession which exists between the State and competitors of the body on which that role has been conferred?

               2.

               Is a rule (such as the rule introduced by the Italian State under the aforementioned Article 12 of Decree-Law No 262/06 of 3 October 2006) which integrates or actually modifies (in particular by replacing them with a sole agreement, adopted by administrative act) the contractual agreements already in place, thereby substantially changing the balance of contractual relations, compatible with Community law (from the perspective of Community law itself or, at least, of law with Community relevance, concerning the freedom to engage in commercial activities, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice on this point)?


Avis juridique important

|

52003XX1024(04)

Court of Justice - Assignment of the Judges to the Chambers

Official Journal C 255 , 24/10/2003 P. 0006 - 0006

Assignment of the Judges to the Chambers(2003/C 255/10)At its meeting on 9 October 2003, the Court decided to assign the Judges to the Chambers as follows:First Chamber:P. Jann, President of Chamber, and D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges.Second Chamber:C. W. A. Timmermans, President of Chamber, and C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges.Third Chamber:A. Rosas, President of Chamber, and D. A. O. Edward, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges.Fourth Chamber:J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of Chamber, and J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and K. Lenaerts, Judges.Fifth Chamber:C. Gulmann, President of Chamber, and A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges.


title: Case T-404/13: Action brought on 8 August 2013 — NIIT Insurance Technologies v OHIM (SUBSCRIBE)

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/24

         Action brought on 8 August 2013 — NIIT Insurance Technologies v OHIM (SUBSCRIBE)
   (Case T-404/13)
   2013/C 274/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: NIIT Insurance Technologies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by M. Wirtz, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2013 in Case R 1308/2012-5 concerning Community trade mark registration 010355527, Word: SUBSCRIBE and the preceding decision of the Trade Mark Department of OHIM of 22 May 2012, in so far as protection was denied to the mark;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SUBSCRIBE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 10 355 527

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with the principle of equal treatment and Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 in the version of Protocol No 11, which entered into force on 1 November 1998;

               —

               Infringement of Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.


title: Case C-466/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Damonte (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Games of chance — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form — Requirement of police authorisation — Criminal penalties)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/21

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 March 2007 — (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Lecce (Italy)) — Criminal proceedings against Gianluca Damonte
   (Case C-466/05) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Games of chance - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Exclusion of certain operators by reason of their type of corporate form - Requirement of police authorisation - Criminal penalties)
   (2007/C 96/36)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Lecce
   Criminal proceedings against
   Gianluca Damonte
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Lecce — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — National law requiring authorisation to be obtained before the activity of collecting bets can be pursued
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               National legislation which prohibits the pursuit of the activities of collecting, taking, booking and forwarding offers of bets, in particular bets on sporting events, without a licence or a police authorisation issued by the Member State concerned constitutes a restriction on the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC respectively.

               2.

               It is for the national court to determine whether, in so far as national legislation limits the number of operators active in the betting and gaming sector, it genuinely contributes to the objective of preventing the exploitation of activities in that sector for criminal or fraudulent purposes.

               3.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes — and, moreover, continues to exclude — from the betting and gaming sector operators in the form of companies whose shares are quoted on the regulated markets.

               4.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a criminal penalty on persons such as the defendant in this case for pursuing the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or a police authorisation as required under the national legislation, where those persons were unable to obtain licences or authorisations because that Member State, in breach of Community law, refused to grant licences or authorisations to such persons.

      (1)  OJ C 74 of 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-177/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Harz Guss Zorge v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/50

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Harz Guss Zorge v Commission
   (Case T-177/14)
   2014/C 142/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Harz Guss Zorge GmbH (Zorge, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision, in respect of State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, to initiate the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, notified with the invitation to submit comments (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the defendant failed to give sufficient reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for its decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The decision to initiate the investigation procedure contains no specific substantive assessment based on factual and legal aspects with regard to the existence of all the constituent elements for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

                           If the Court is of the opinion that State aid exists, that aid would, in the applicant’s view, be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU.


title: Case T-517/09: Order of the General Court of 24 April 2012 — Alstom v Commission (Competition — Market for power transformers — Letter from the Commission’s accounting officer — Refusal to accept the provision of a bank guarantee as a means of provisional cover of the fine — Disappearance of interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/23

         Order of the General Court of 24 April 2012 — Alstom v Commission
   (Case T-517/09) (1)

   (Competition - Market for power transformers - Letter from the Commission’s accounting officer - Refusal to accept the provision of a bank guarantee as a means of provisional cover of the fine - Disappearance of interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 174/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alstom (Levallois-Perret, France) (represented by: J. Derenne and A. Müller-Rappard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, agents)

      Re:

   First, action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/39.129 — Power Transformers), imposing a fine on the applicant and, second, action for annulment of the letter from the Commission’s accounting officer of 10 December 2009 refusing to allow the provision of a bank guarantee as a means of provisional recovery of that fine.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               It is not necessary to give a ruling on the action for annulment of the letter from the Commission’s accounting officer of 10 December 2009 refusing to allow the provision of a bank guarantee as a means of provisional cover of the fine imposed by Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/39.129 — Power Transformers).

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-447/15: Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi v OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/43

         Action brought on 3 August 2015 — Indecopi v OHIM — Synergy Group (PISCO SOUR)
   (Case T-447/15)
   (2015/C 320/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Instituto Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia y de la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (Indecopi) (San Borja, Peru) (represented by: M. Pomares Caballero and A. Pomares Caballero, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Synergy Group sp. z o.o. (Wrocław, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘PISCO SOUR’ — Application for registration No 1016 7682

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2015 in Case R 1292/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               alter the contested decision, by declaring that the requirements for the application of the relative ground for refusal laid down in Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 are met in the present case; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 110/2008;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-520/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2012 by Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-369/11: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/35

         Appeal brought on 16 November 2012 by Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2012 in Case T-369/11: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE v European Commission, Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)
   (Case C-520/12 P)
   2013/C 26/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Diadikasia Symvouloi Epicheiriseon AE (represented by: A. Krystallidis, Δικηγόρος)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Delegation of the European Union to Turkey, Central Finance & Contracts Unit (CFCU)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the order under appeal

               —

               Declare its action before the General Court admissible

               —

               Hold the case and repair the damages caused to Appellant by the unlawful Defendant’s decision of 5 April 2011 issued by the EU Delegation in Turkey and received by the Applicant on 6 April 2011, on the cancellation of the award of the contract ‘Enlargement of the European Turkish Business Centers Network to Sivas, Antakya, Batman and Van — Europe Aid/128621/D/SET/TR’ to the Consortium “DIADIKASIA BUSINESS CONSULTANS S.A. (GR) — WYG INTERNATIONAL LTD (UK) — DELEEUW INTERNATIONAL LTD (TR)’ — CYBERPARK (TR) due to allegedly false declaration, in view of the Appellant’s horizontal interest in the case in question.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all of the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the first plea, the Appellant maintains that the General Court erred in law in the application of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), in the sense that it failed to understand that the term ‘institution’ contained in the above-mentioned article is not only referring to the Institutions of the European Union, but also to the servants of the EU, they being equally liable for the recovery of damages by individuals who have suffered loss as a result of its action.
   In the second plea, the Appellant maintains that the General Court violated the duty to state reasons and violated Articles 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6 (right to a fair trial) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), as principles of the Union's law, since it dismissed the Appellant's action as inadmissible without making reference to its observations on the plea of inadmissibility of the Defendant, referring to the relevant case law of damages caused by EU officials (Case 9/69, 4/69, 60/81), and to the interpretation of Article 263 TFEU, according to the above mentioned case law. The order also failed to reply to the Appellant's arguments regarding the Defendant's serious violation of the fundamental European principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and right to be heard as well as of the article 4 of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour.
   In the third plea, the Appellant maintains that the General Court wrongly presented and distorted the evidence adduced by the Appellant at first instance, when it decided, that ‘the CFCU alone had the status of contracting authority. to adopt a decision to award the contract at issue. and the Commission's competence was solely to establish whether or not conditions for EU financing had been met’, based on documents that the Appellant put before the Court, which actually prove that the CFCU functions under the control and the limits set by European Commission. The findings of the order under appeal are therefore incorrect and distort the clear sense of the evidence available to the General Court.


title: Case T-187/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Sonova Holding v OHIM (Flex)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/30

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Sonova Holding v OHIM (Flex)
   (Case T-187/14)
   2014/C 151/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 357/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Flex’ for goods in Class 10 — Community trade mark application No 10 866 887

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for not eligible for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) CTMR.


title: Case C-132/12 P: Appeal brought on 9 March 2012 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-203/10 Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/7

         Appeal brought on 9 March 2012 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-203/10 Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-132/12 P)
   2012/C 138/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woningstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: P. Glazener and E. Henny, advocaten, and L. Hancher, university teacher)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in whole or in part the order [of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 16 December 2011 in Case T-203/10] in accordance with the pleas in law put forward by this appeal;

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings as well as the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               According to the
                     first plea in law
                   the General Court infringed European Union law, erred in its assessment of the relevant facts and provided insufficient grounds for the order by regarding the appellants as merely potential beneficiaries of the aid scheme approved by the Commission. The General Court disregards the fact that, before the decision [C(2009) 9963 final], (1) the appellants benefited from the existing aid measures that were required to be amended as a result of the decision. The appellants are not, therefore, merely potential beneficiaries of the modified aid, but also in fact beneficiaries of the existing aid. In the latter capacity the decision at issue is indeed of individual concern to them.

               2.

               According to the
                     second plea in law
                   the General Court infringed European Union law, erred in its assessment of the relevant facts and provided insufficient grounds for the order in ruling that the appellants do not belong to a closed group of existing housing corporations. The purely theoretical possibility that a certain group of beneficiaries of aid might be expanded in the future is not sufficient for it to be regarded as not being a closed group. Furthermore the existing housing corporations do form a closed group, as they are more severely affected by the decision than a hypothetical institution that may yet be approved as a housing corporation after the decision.

               3.

               By the
                     third plea in law
                   the appellants challenge the General Court’s view that the appellants have no legal interest in having the decision relating to State aid N 642/2009 annulled. The General Court misapplied European Union law, erred in its assessment of the relevant facts and provided insufficient grounds for the order.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2009) 9963 final of 15 December 2009 relating to State aid E 2/2005 and N 642/2009 — (Netherlands) — Existing and special project aid to housing corporations


C 184/28                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        2.8.2003
Action brought on 16 June 2003 by the Commission of the                  2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
             European Communities against Ireland
                           (Case C-256/03)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 184/49)                               The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on
                                                                         20 July 2002.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 June 2003 by the               (1) OJ L 181 of 20.07.2000, p. 65.
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Messrs Xavier Lewis and Michel van Beek, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-135/00 (1)
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                                          (2003/C 184/51)
      Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating
      to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (1) Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and in        By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      particular its Article 9 and under the Treaty establishing         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      the European Community.                                            register of Case C-135/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): ANAS-Ente Nazionale per le Strade,
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         Lauro Cantieri Valsesia Spa v Consorzio Cooperative Costru-
                                                                         zioni.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1) OJ C 176 of 24.06.2000.
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 9 April 2002.
(1) OJ L 94, 09.04.1999, p. 24.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-225/00 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/52)
Action brought on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of                      By order of 6 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             Luxembourg                                  register of Case C-225/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         by the Consiglio di Stato): Cavalleri Ottavio SpA v ANAS —
                           (Case C-273/03)                               Ente Nazionale per le Strade, Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA.
                           (2003/C 184/50)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 24 June 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-243/00 (1)
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the                                        (2003/C 184/53)
Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or         By order of 7 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      tive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the              register of Case C-243/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
      Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the                 by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench
      laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Secretary of State for
      civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and        Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress.
      amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC
      (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (1) and, in any event,
      failing to communicate them to the Commission, the                 (1) OJ C 233 of 12.08.2000.
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;


title: Case C-220/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 22 May 2002 in the case of Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der Privatangestellten against Wirtschaftskammer Österreich

text:
C 202/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
1)    Is a carer within the meaning of Paragraph 44 of                       from the equal pay point of view,
      Volume XI of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Code of
      Social Law) a worker for the purposes of Article 48 EC                 in the case of a system of pay that awards termination
      and/or Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)?                   payments to workers essentially based on past loyalty to
                                                                             their employer and graduated according to the length of
      If the answer to Question One is no:                                   their employment in order to tide them over the actual
                                                                             termination of that employment, unless the employment
2)    Where care is provided in the country where the person                 is brought to an end by the worker without good cause,
      reliant on care is insured, does the fact that a carer’s               or if the termination of it is the result of fault on his
      entitlement to social security cover under Paragraph 44                part, whereby individual periods of employment are
      of Volume XI of the Sozialgesetzbuch is conditional on                 categorised as independent and the exclusion of periods
      his or her being resident in that country, as opposed to               of unpaid leave is permitted, if that unpaid leave is taken
      any other Member State, infringe Articles 19, 25 or 28 of              for reasons that are in the worker’s interests and at his or
      Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, following the Court’s                     her own instigation and if those reasons do not constitute
      decisions in Cases 150/85 (Drake) (2) and C-160/96                     a good cause that would entitle the worker to terminate
      (Molenaar) (3)?                                                        his or her employment and safeguard his or her termin-
                                                                             ation payment,
(1) OJ L 149 [1971] of 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(2) [1986] ECR 1995.                                                         the internal worker group covered by Paragraph 8 APSG
(3) [1998] ECR I-843.                                                        (Group A)
                                                                             is to be compared with that group of female workers
                                                                             who decide, in accordance with Paragraph 15 of the
                                                                             Mutterschutzgesetz (Law on Maternity Benefits, herein-
                                                                             after ‘the MSchG’), to take parental leave (‘childcare leave’)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                           to care for their children without pay after their normal
Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 22 May 2002 in the                     16-week period of ‘maternity leave’ has expired and until,
case of Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerk-                         at the maximum, the child reaches its second birthday
schaft der Privatangestellten against Wirtschaftskammer                      (Group B)?
                           Österreich
                                                                        3.   Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/
                        (Case C-220/02)                                      117/EEC to be construed as meaning that, where the
                                                                             differences between the internal worker groups referred
                        (2002/C 202/10)                                      to in Question 2 principally consist of the fact that, in the
                                                                             case of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Group A, ‘men on military service’,
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court) of 22 May 2002, received at the Court                        1.    there is normally an obligation to ‘report for duty’
Registry on 14 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the                          or, in any event, if they should report voluntarily,
case of Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, Gewerkschaft der
Privatangestellten against Wirtschaftskammer Österreich on                  2.    reporting for duty is only permissible in so far as it
the following questions:                                                           is in the public interest, and
1.    Is the term ‘pay’ in Article 141 EC and in Article 1 of                3.    it is normally not possible to perform services under
      Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on                          an employment relationship governed by private
      the approximation of the laws of the Member States                           law — even another employment relationship,
      relating to the application of the principle of equal pay
      for men and women (OJ 1975 L 045, p. 19) to be                         whereas, in the case of Group B, ‘unpaid parental leave’,
      construed as meaning that it also encompasses statutory
      provisions of general application, such as Paragraph 8 of              1.    it is left to the individual worker in a particular
      the Bundesgesetz über die Sicherung des Arbeitsplatzes                       employment relationship alone to choose whether
      für zum Präsenz — oder Ausbildungsdienst einberufene                         she wishes to take unpaid parental leave to care for
      oder zum Zivildienst zugewiesene Arbeitnehmer (Federal                       her child and
      law on job security for workers called up for military or
      training service or assigned to alternative civilian service,          2.    whether, during that parental leave and in the time
      hereinafter ‘the APSG’), where, in the public interest,                      available to her after caring for her children, she can
      periods of service in the performance of public duties as                    also undertake work of a limited nature in a private
      defined therein, during which it is generally not possible                   employment relationship,
      to perform services of a private-employment nature, is to
      be taken into account for the purposes of claims under                 those differences constitute sufficient objective justifi-
      employment law calculated according to length of service               cation for the different treatment of those periods for the
      in a private-employment relationship?                                  purposes of claims based on length of service?
2.    Are Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/
      EEC to be construed as meaning that,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 8 February 1996 in Case C-202/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Gerechtshof, 's-Hertogenbosch): Criminal proceedings against Godefridus van der Feesten (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - Scope - Protected species - Application of the Directive to a subspecies not occurring naturally in the wild in the European territory of the Member States)

text:
13 . 4 . 96        I EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108 /3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                       ( Third Chamber )                                European Communities on 3 February 1996 by Giovanni
                                                                        Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch, represented
                     of 8 February 1996                                 by Michele Tamburini and Franco Colussi , Avvocati , with
in Case C-202/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
made by the Gerechtshof, 's-Hertogenbosch ): Criminal                   Franco Colussi at 36 Rue de Wiltz .
     proceedings against Godefridus van der Feesten ( 1 )
(Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild               The appellants claim that the Court should :
birds — Scope — Protected species — Application of the
Directive to a subspecies not occurring naturally in the wild           — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
       in the European territory of the Member States)                      7 December 1995 in Joined Cases T-544/93 and
                           ( 96/C 108 /04 )                                 T-566/93 and proceed to judgment in those cases or
                                                                            refer them back to the Court of First Instance for a
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                               judgment granting the forms of order sought at first
                                                                            instance , namely that the court should :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                          — order the Commission to give precise details of the
                                                                                headings, surveys and prices on the basis of which it
In Case C-202/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                determined the basic exchange rates used in order to
                                                                                fix the weightings refèrred to in Regulations ( EEC,
of the EC Treaty by the Gerechtshof ( Regional Court                            Euratom, ECSC ) No 3761 /92 ('), ( EEC , Euratom,
of Appeal ), ' s-Hertogenbosch ( the Netherlands ), for a                       ECSC ) No 3765/92 ( 2 ) and ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC )
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that                      No 3766/92 ( 3 ),
court against Godefridus van der Feesten — on the
interpretation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
 1979 on the conservation of wild birds ( OJ 1979 L 103 , p . 1 )
                                                                            — make an assessment of the suitability of those
— the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: J. -P.
                                                                                headings, surveys and prices, and of the conclusions
                                                                                drawn from them in order to fix the abovementioned
 Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
                                                                                weightings ,
 de Almeida and C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), Judges;
 N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
 Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                      — declare that the applicants' remuneration, as given in
 8 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as                            the salary slips for December 1992 et seq., does not
 follows :                                                                      correspond to what is owed to them and that
                                                                                Regulations ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3761 /92 ,
                                                                                ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3765/92 and ( EEC,
 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the                            Euratom, ECSC ) No 3766/92 therefore do not apply
 conservation of wild birds applies to bird subspecies which                    to them,
 occur naturally in the wild only outside the European
 territory of the Member States if the species to which they
                                                                            — declare those salary slips to be unlawful and annul
 belong or other subspecies of that species occur naturally in                  them,
 the wild within the terrirtory in question .
                                                                             — annul the Commission's decision of 12 August 1993
 (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                                rejecting the complaint submitted by Gerhard Riesch
                                                                                under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                             — order any measure which may be considered
                                                                                appropriate as a result,
 Appeal brought on 3 February 1996 by Giovanni Battista
 Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch against the jugdment                   — order the Commission to pay the sums due and to
 delivered on 7 December 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of                           pay compensation for any loss ( including loss
 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                      resulting from currency depreciation in the
 Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 between Giovanni                             intervening period from the due date of payment ),
 Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch and the                           together with the costs of the case, to be calculated by
  Commission of the European Communities, supported by                           reference to the maximum permitted under the
              the Council of the European Union                                  Italian legal fee structure currently in force .
                         ( Case C-30/96 P)
                             ( 96/C 108/05 )                             Pleas and main arguments adduced in support:
  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December                 The appellants challenge the judgment of the Court of First
  1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance              Instance on the ground that it constitutes a manifest
  of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-544/93 and               infringement of Community law .
  T-566/93 , between Giovanni Battista Abello and Others
  and Gerhard Riesch and the Commission of the European                  The judgment of the Court of First Instance is contrary to
  Communities, supported by the Council of the European                  the fundamental principles of legal procedure , such as the