title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2004 Case C-27/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Member State's failure to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 91/271/EEC — Decision 93/481/EEC — Collection and treatment of urban waste water — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 July 2004
   Case C-27/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Member State's failure to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Decision 93/481/EEC - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2004/C 217/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-27/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. van Beek) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by A. Cornet) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to the full implementing of Articles 3, 5 and 17 — the last being read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 — of Directive 91/271/EEC of the Council of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), and of Commission Decision 93/481/EEC of 28 July 1993 concerning formats for the presentation of national programmes as foreseen by Article 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ 1993 L 226, p. 23), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and that decision — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to the full implementing of Articles 3, 5 and 17 — the last being read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 — of Directive 91/271/EEC of the Council of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), and of Commission Decision 93/481/EEC of 28 July 1993 concerning formats for the presentation of national programmes as foreseen by Article 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ 1993 L 226, p. 23), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 226 EC and under that directive and that decision.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22 March 2003.


title: Case T-149/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Czigàny and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development review — 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Czigàny and Others v Commission
   (Case T-149/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Reports procedure - Career development review - 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   (2007/C 170/50)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Imre Czigàny (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium); Isabel Alves (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Georgette Henningsen (Brussels, Belgium); and Michel Lucas (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: initially G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, and subsequently by F. Frabetti alone)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicants; and, alternatively, of the applicants' career development reviews for that exercise.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis.

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 168, 26.6.2004.


title: Case C-474/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Farmakapothiki Pharma-Group Messinias Anonimi Etairia v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Farmakapothiki Pharma-Group Messinias Anonimi Etairia v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   (Case C-474/06)
   (2007/C 20/09)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Farmakapothiki Pharma-Group Messinias Anonimi Etairia

      Defendant: GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   Questions referred:

               1.

               Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceutical wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within the meaning of Article 82 EC? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the Member States of the European Union, that is to say by the fact that pure conditions of competition do not prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which is governed to a large extent by State intervention? Is it ultimately the duty of a national competition authority to apply Community competition rules in the same way to markets which function competitively and those in which competition is distorted by State intervention?

               2.

               If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive practice in every case where it is engaged in by an undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible abuse to be assessed? In particular:

               2.1

               Do the percentage by which normal domestic consumption is exceeded and/or the loss suffered by an undertaking holding a dominant position compared with its total turnover and total profits constitute appropriate criteria? If so, how are the level of that percentage and the level of that loss determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover and total profits), above which the conduct in question may be abusive?

               2.2

               Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be compared? In particular:

                           (a)

                           is the answer affected by the fact that the ultimate consumer/patient derives limited financial advantage from the parallel trade and

                           (b)

                           is account to be taken, and to what extent, of the interests of social insurance bodies in cheaper medicinal products?

               2.3

               What other criteria and approaches are considered appropriate in the present case?


title: Case T-455/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Bateni v Council

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/36

         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Bateni v Council
   (Case T-455/17)
   (2017/C 300/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Naser Bateni (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and M. Bever, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               1.

               order the European Union, represented by the Council, to pay to the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 250 000 for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of:

                           —

                           inclusion in Table III of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP by Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) and inclusion in Table III of Annex VIII to Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11);

                           —

                           inclusion in Table III of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1);

                           —

                           inclusion in Table III of the Annex to Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18) and in Table III of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3);

               2.

               order the European Union, represented by the Council, to pay default interest calculated at the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points, from 24 March 2017 until payment in full of the sum set out in 1.;

               3.

               order the European Union, represented by the Council, to pay the costs of the proceedings, in particular those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: by adopting the restrictive measures against the applicant, the Council seriously infringed provisions of law protecting the applicant. The applicant thereby suffered significant non-material damage, for which he must receive compensation.

                           —

                           The applicant brought successful actions for annulment against his inclusion in the sanctions lists. The General Court annulled those legal acts by final judgments of 6 September 2013 in Cases T-42/12 and T-181/12 and of 16 September 2015 in Case T-45/14, insofar as they concerned the applicant. The General Court thereby found that the Council had in each case failed to establish any grounds that could have justified the applicant’s inclusion in the sanctions lists and therefore committed manifest errors of assessment and failed to comply with its duty of diligence.

                           —

                           According to the case-law of the General Court (Safa Nicu Sepahan Co. v Council, Case T-384/11, judgment of 25 November 2014), which the Court of Justice has since confirmed (Case C-45/15 P, judgment of 30 May 2017), this constitutes a serious infringement both of the substantive, protective provisions of the respective enabling bases and also of the fundamental rights of the person concerned, in particular the right to effective legal protection.

                           —

                           Annulment alone of the legal acts in question does not constitute sufficient compensation. The far-reaching social, professional and private consequences of the unlawful listings of the applicant over the years can be offset only through the payment of compensation.


title: Case T-350/17: Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/68

         Action brought on 1 June 2017 — Singapore Airlines and Singapore Airlines Cargo v Commission
   (Case T-350/17)
   (2017/C 239/79)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Singapore Airlines Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) and Singapore Airlines Cargo Pte Ltd (Singapore) (represented by: J. Kallaugher and J. Poitras, Solicitors and J. Ruiz Calzado, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight), in whole or in part;

               —

               further, or in the alternative, substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs; and

               —

               make any other order as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled because its central finding of a single and continuous infringement covering air cargo services on all routes to and from the EU is vitiated by serious errors of law and factual appreciation.
               According to the applicants, the contested decision fails to establish in particular: (i) the existence of a worldwide cartel; (ii) jurisdiction over conduct involving air cargo sales outside the EU; (iii) application of Article 101 TFEU to conduct regulated or required by foreign governments; (iv) a sufficient link between conduct involving the three alleged elements of the single and continuous infringement, being fuel surcharges, security surcharges, and alleged refusal to pay commissions on surcharges; and (v) a sufficient link between airline contacts at headquarters level and conduct in local markets.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled insofar as it finds an infringement related to coordination regarding payment of commission to forwarders on surcharge revenue.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled to the extent that the finding on an infringement involving the applicants relies on evidence involving contacts exclusively between members of the WOW air cargo alliance.
               According to the applicants, the contested decision applies the incorrect legal test to assessing a full cooperation airline alliance and makes fundamental errors in assessing how the WOW alliance functioned. The applicants further submit that their contacts with WOW partners were part of a genuine effort to create a successful alliance and therefore were not manifestations of the common scheme or plan that was the supposed basis for the single and continuous infringement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled because it fails to establish participation by the applicants in the single and continuous infringement.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that if (contrary to the arguments set out in the fourth plea), the applicants participated in some aspects of the single and continuous infringement, the contested decision does not establish that the applicants were aware of all other aspects of conduct described in the contested decision, notably the clearly unlawful core group coordination, or that it should have been aware of such conduct as required by the case law.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that, if the contested decision is not annulled in full, the fine against the applicants should be reduced because the Commission has failed to follow the clear requirements of the Fining Guidelines (1) for identifying the relevant turnover, and because the fine imposed does not reflect the applicants limited participation in the single and continuous infringement and lesser gravity of the applicants’ conduct (as shown in the third, fourth and fifth pleas).

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 32(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006, C 210, p. 2).


title: Case T-58/11: Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Nolin v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations — Legal basis — Competence of the author of the act — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Nolin v Commission
   (Case T-58/11) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - Withdrawal of merit points and priority points following a promotion on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations - Legal basis - Competence of the author of the act - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2012/C 6/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Michel Nolin (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agent, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2010, delivered in Case F-82/09 Nolin v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Michel Nolin to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-385/08: Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/36

         Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Representation of a dog)
   (Case T-385/08)
   (2008/C 313/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research Development (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, A. Nordemann and A. Dustmann)

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

               —

               annul Decision R 1734/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008, together with the decision of the examiner of 25 September 2007 to the extent that protection was refused for the application for Community trade mark 4829321 for goods ‘leather goods included in Class 18; bags’ in Class 18 and ‘foodstuffs for animals and drinks for domestic animals’ in Class 31;

               —

               authorise the publication of the application for the registration of Community trade mark 4829321 in respect of those goods as well and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Representation of a dog for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 31 — Application No 4 829 321

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision as regards ‘clothing, footwear and headgear; belts’ in Class 25

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulatin No 40/94, as the mark applied for is neither directly nor exclusively descriptive, and has a sufficiently distinctive character.


title: Case T-578/14: Action brought on 1 August 2014 — VSM Geneesmiddelen v Commission

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/26

         Action brought on 1 August 2014 — VSM Geneesmiddelen v Commission
   (Case T-578/14)
   2014/C 339/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: VSM Geneesmiddelen BV (Alkmaar, Netherlands) (represented by: U. Grundmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Commission has unlawfully failed to initiate the assessment of Health Claims on Botanical Substances by European Food Safety Authority for the Procedure foreseen by Article 13 Section 3 of the Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 (1) since 01/08/2014; and

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision, allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 29/06/2014, not to initiate the assessment of Health Claims on botanical substances by EFSA through the procedure foreseen by Article 13 before 01/08/2014.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant submits that according to Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 — Health Claims Regulation (‘HCR’), the European Commission was under an obligation to adopt a list of permitting claims of substances used in food at the latest by 31/01/2010. In preparation of the adoption of such list the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to evaluate claims that had been submitted by the Member States. However, in September 2010 the Commission announced to suspend and review the assessment procedure as regards claims on botanical substances, where upon EFSA ceased to process these claims. The Commission suspended only the assessment procedure on botanical substances, but not the procedure on other, like chemical substances.
   The applicant has called upon the European Commission with letter dated 23/04/2014 to instruct EFSA to resume without delay the assessment of health claims on botanical substances used in food, since it is strongly affected by the present legal backlog and uncertainty in the field of Health Claims on botanical substances used in food.
   The Commission informed the applicant in its letter dated 19/06/2014 that it had received different concerns from Member States and stakeholders and that it will not initiate the assessment of Health Claims on botanicals at this stage. The applicant sent out a further letter to the Commission, dated 08/07/2014 with setting a deadline for initiation of the assessment of Health Claims on botanicals by EFSA, ending 31/07/2014. The Commission has not answered this letter.
   It can thus be concluded that the European Commission failed to establish a complete list of permitted Health Claims on substances used in food as required by Article 13(3) HCR. Article 13 HCR does not only foresee clear timelines but also clearly defined procedures for the adoption of the list on Health Claims on substances used in food. The Regulation does not foresee any discretion for the European Commission to alter the procedural steps nor to extend the timelines.
   Additionally, according to Recital 9, the Health Claims Regulation aims at establishing ‘general principles applicable to all claims’. This shows clearly that the legislator did not wish to establish different levels of assessments for specific kinds of substances. Therefore, all considerations taken by the European Commission with regard to a separate regime for the evaluation of claims on botanicals would not only lack any legal basis but would also contradict the overall aims of the Regulation.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ L 404, p. 9)


title: Case C-457/00: Action brought on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.2.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/13
       —     The Commission is wrong to accuse the French                             by the Walloon Region, to Hermann Heye consti-
             authorities of not having taken account of the                           tuted aid by virtue of the fact that the Walloon
             capacity of the market to absorb new quantities of                       Region had made a capital contribution in favour of
             regional wines produced following the planned                            Verlipack Holding II, the Commission misinterpret-
             varietal conversion.                                                     ed the concept of State aid and prejudged the
                                                                                substance of the file, in breach of Articles 87 and
                                                                                295 EC. The SRIW acted in accordance with the
                                                                                criterion of the private investor. Following the
                                                                                example of the private partners (the Beaulieu Group
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1493/2000 of 10 July 2000
                                                                                and the banks of the Verlipack Group), the SRIW,
    establishing the standard import values for determining the entry
    price of certain fruit and vegetables OJ 2000 L 170, p. 1.                        like the Walloon Region in the grant of its capital
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the                        contribution, behaved like a private investor in the
    common organization of the market in wine (OJ 1987 L 84, p. 1).                   procedure for examining the file and bearing in
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the                        mind information supplied by the Heye Group
    common organisation of the market in wine OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.                    which had all the appearances of credibility for
(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1227/2000 of 31 May 2000                            the future of the Verlipack Group. The fact that
    laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regu-                   insolvency occurred 22 months after the public
    lation (EC) No 1493/1999 (OJ 2000 L 143, p. 1).                                   interventions were made cannot demonstrate a
                                                                                posteriori that, in March 1997, the SRIW, like the
                                                                                Walloon Region, did not act as a private investor.
                                                                                The Heye Group is the actual debtor of the funds
                                                                                lent by the SRIW. The use made by the Heye Group
                                                                                of the funds placed at its disposal by the SRIW under
                                                                                normal market conditions cannot be made subject
                                                                                to examination by the Commission pursuant to the
                                                                                State aid rules, and, a fortiori, cannot be classified as
                                                                                aid on the ground that those funds were initially of
                                                                                public origin and their final beneficiary did not
Action brought on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom                                     remain the Heye Group.
of Belgium against the Commission of the European
                              Communities                                       —     By taking the view that the whole of the compulsory
                                                                                loan of 27 March 1997 of the Heye Group consti-
                            (Case C-457/00)                                           tuted aid, the Commission misinterpreted the con-
                                                                                cept of aid. The clause for abandoning the debt
                                                                                presented a less significant risk than the Commission
                             (2001/C 45/25)                                           might think, since, despite the insolvency of the
                                                                                three operating companies which occurred in Janua-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                             ry 1999, that clause cannot prevent the repayment
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          of the amount of the SRIW’s loan by reason of the
                                                                                early rescission of that agreement invoked by the
Communities on 18 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
Belgium, represented by A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, and by                            SRIW before the conditions of the contested aban-
                                                                                donment clause were met.
J.M. De Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                —     Concerning the loan of 28 March 1997, the Com-
                                                                                mission contented itself with applying its reference
The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should:                                  rate automatically without carrying out an examin-
                                                                                ation of the particular circumstances of the case,
—     annul the Commission decision of 20 September 2000,                             although the Belgian authorities were asking it to do
       No C 40/99, entitled ‘State Aid in favour of Verlipack —                       so. By so doing, the Commission declined to exercise
       Belgium’;                                                                      the discretion conferred upon it by Article 87 EC.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   —     In its examination of the capital contribution to
                                                                                Verlipack Holding II, the Commission generalised
                                                                                from interventions of a completely different legal
                                                                                character, since it took into consideration the two
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                       loans granted by the SRIW to Hermann Heye as if
                                                                                they had been direct capital contributions in favour
—      Infringement of Articles 87 and 295 EC                                         of Verlipack Holding II.
                                                                           —    Infringement of the duty to state reasons.
       —     By assuming that the loan of 28 March 1997 and
             the compulsory loan of 27 March 1997 granted by
             the Société Régionale d’Investissement de Wallonie
             (‘SRIW’), a limited liability company wholly owned


title: Case F-91/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Torijano Montero v Council

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/72

         Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Torijano Montero v Council
   (Case F-91/07)
   (2007/C 269/132)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Javier Torijano Montero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, R. Albelice and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the notice of vacancy of 31 October 2006 issued by the General Secretariat of the Council, by Staff Note No 171/06, concerning the post of Head of Department ‘External Security’ in the Council Security Office;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 31 May 2007 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               state to the appointing authorities the consequences of the annulment of the contested decision and, in particular, reconsider the grade requirements in the notice of vacancy in order to allow the applicant to submit his candidature;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official in Grade AD 6, challenges the above-mentioned notice of vacancy for limiting the possibility of submitting candidatures for the post of Head of Department ‘External Security’ in the Council Security Office, a post to be filled in Grade AD 11, to officials in Grade AD 8 at least.
   After drawing attention to his claim for classification in Grade AD 8 in Case F-76/05 (1), the applicant relies on breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as filling the post at issue would have the effect of causing him to lose his current position as head of the ‘External Security/Protection of Missions’ sector, to the benefit of the candidate selected.
   The applicant claims, in addition, infringement of the interests of the service, inasmuch as the grade required in the notice of vacancy does not allow his candidature to be accepted, despite the fact that he is the best qualified person to carry out the functions stated in the notice of vacancy. Moreover, the administration has not explained how the interests of the service justify the derogation from Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, according to which officials are recruited in Grades AD 5 to AD 8.
   The applicant maintains, finally, that the administration has breached the principle of equal treatment and has committed a manifest error of assessment.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 23 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-302/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case F-110/10: Action brought on 29 October 2010 — Couyoufa v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/43

         Action brought on 29 October 2010 — Couyoufa v Commission
   (Case F-110/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Denise Couyoufa (Athens, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision rejecting the applicant’s application for exemption from the mandatory staff rotation.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the decision of 31 July 2008 is vitiated by illegality;

               —

               Annul the decision of 26 February 2010 rejecting Ms Couyoufa’s application;

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting her appeal against that decision;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-541/12: Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Wedi v OHIM — Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade (BALCO)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/21

         Action brought on 12 December 2012 — Wedi v OHIM — Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade (BALCO)
   (Case T-541/12)
   2013/C 46/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wedi GmbH (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG (Herford, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2012 in Case R 2255/2011-4;

               —

               Alternatively, suspend the proceedings in Case R 2255/2011-4 until a final decision has been made on the applicant’s application of 15 November 2012 for a declaration of invalidity of the other party’s Community trade mark No 006095889 Balkogrün; reference No 000007267 C of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BALCO’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 9 023 771

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mehlhose Bauelemente für Dachrand + Fassade GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word marks ‘Balkogrün’, ‘Balkoplan’ and ‘Balkotop’ for goods in Classes 19, 21 and 27

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-143/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Romania) lodged on 20 March 2013 — Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei v SC Volksbank România SA
   (Case C-143/13)
   2013/C 171/29
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Specializat Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bogdan Matei, Ioana Ofelia Matei

      Defendant: SC Volksbank România SA

      Questions referred

   Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) the assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the contract nor to the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language;
   and
   given that, under Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of the total cost of the credit to the consumer, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage;
   Then:
   can the concepts of ‘subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’ referred to in Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that such terms — namely the ‘subject-matter’ and/or the ‘price’ of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage — also cover, among the elements which make up the consideration owed to the credit institution, the annual percentage rate of such a credit agreement secured by a mortgage, which is in particular made up of: the interest rate, whether fixed or variable; bank charges; and other costs included and defined in the credit agreement?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 September 2002 in Case C-351/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the vakuutusoikeus): Pirkko Niemi (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women — Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive 79/7/EEC — Concept of "pay" — Retirement pension scheme for public servants)

text:
9.11.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 274/13
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
                      of 12 September 2002
                                                                            in Case C-392/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v
in Case C-351/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durch-
            the vakuutusoikeus): Pirkko Niemi (1)                           führung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken
                                                                                mbH (1)
(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —                        (Raising of capital — Directive 69/335/EEC — Capital duty
Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117                 — Interest-free loans granted by members — Profit and loss
to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136                                            transfer agreement)
EC to 143 EC) or Directive 79/7/EEC — Concept of ‘pay’ —
        Retirement pension scheme for public servants)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/21)
                          (2002/C 274/20)                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: Finnish)                                              in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-392/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Finanzamt Hannover-Nord and Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur
                                                                            Beratung und Durchführung von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei
                                                                            Kernkraftwerken mbH, on the interpretation of Article 4(2)(b)
In Case C-351/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                            of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
EC by the vakuutusoikeus (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                            indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
the proceedings brought by Pirkko Niemi on the interpretation
                                                                            Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council Directive
of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC
Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and                 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23), the
                                                                            Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of
of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                            the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen
progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
                                                                            (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6,
                                                                            General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
p. 24), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D. A. O. Edward,                     has given a judgment on 17 September 2002, in which it has
                                                                            ruled:
M. Wathelet and C. W. A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
has given a judgment on 12 September 2002, in which it has                  Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
ruled:                                                                      concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
                                                                            Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted
                                                                            as not precluding the charging of capital duty on the amount of
A pension such as that paid under the Valtion eläkelaki (State              interest saved by a company by virtue of an interest-free loan granted
Pensions Law) 280/1966 as amended by Law 638/1994 falls                     to it by its members where a profit and loss transfer agreement was
within the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to           entered into by the members and the company before the loan was
120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143           granted, if the interest thereby saved has durably increased the
EC).                                                                        company’s assets. It is for the national court to determine, in the light
                                                                            of all the characteristics of the transaction at issue, whether, and if so
                                                                            to what extent, the interest saved has in fact had that effect.
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case T-67/16: Action brought on 15 February 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 Seasons Design (Lamps)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/39

         Action brought on 15 February 2016 — fleur ami v EUIPO — 8 Seasons Design (Lamps)
   (Case T-67/16)
   (2016/C 111/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: fleur ami GmbH (Willich, Germany) (represented by: B. Potthoff, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 8 Seasons Design GmbH (Eschweiler, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Lamps’ — Application No 2 252 213-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 December 2015 in Case R 2164/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative arrange a hearing;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-45/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Ítelőtábla lodged on 27 January 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Isztván Balázs and Dániel Papp

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fövárosi Ítelőtábla lodged on 27 January 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Isztván Balázs and Dániel Papp
   (Case C-45/14)
   2014/C 142/12
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Ítelőtábla

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

      Defendants: Isztván Balázs and Dániel Papp

      Other party: Fővárosi Fellebbviteli Főügyészség

      Question(s) referred

   The Court of Justice is asked give a preliminary ruling on the question whether the rules or lack of rules on lawful accusation in Paragraph 2 of the Hungarian Law on criminal procedure

               1.

               Breach the ‘right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’ enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

               2.

               Result in the breach of the ‘right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence’ enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in Article 14(7) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in Article 4(1) of Protocol No 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950?

               3.

               Result in the breach of the ‘prohibition of abuse of rights’ laid down by Article 54 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


title: Case C-408/08 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 2008 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case T-160/07 Lancôme v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/9

         Appeal brought on 22 September 2008 by Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case T-160/07 Lancôme v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle
   (Case C-408/08 P)
   (2009/C 6/16)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), CMS Hasche Sigle
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 in Case T-160/07;

               —

               dismiss, as unfounded, the appeal against the decision of the Office's Cancellation Division of 21 December 2006 in Case 892 C concerning the registration of the Community trade mark 2965804 COLOR EDITION, on grounds of the applicant having no right to bring an action or, alternatively, on account of there being no grounds for absolute refusal;

               —

               order the Office to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice;

               —

               order CMS Hasche Sigle to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Office's Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant advances two grounds of appeal in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground, which has two branches, it submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in its interpretation of Article 55(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (1).
   The error consists in the confirmation of the capacity to bring proceedings granted to the law firm CMS Hasche Sigle in the proceedings brought before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), then before the Court of First Instance. That party had not in fact demonstrated that it had an actual or potential economic interest which, in itself, might warrant a law firm, acting on its own behalf, having the capacity to bring legal proceedings for a declaration of the invalidity of a trade mark for cosmetics. Community law does not recognise actions brought in the absence of a private individual or economic interest (actio popularis).
   According to the appellant, to concede that a lawyer, acting on its own behalf, may bring an application for removal from the register of a trade mark is, on any view, incompatible with the professional profile of a lawyer, as a member of the legal profession.
   By its second plea, the appellant challenges the finding of the Court of First Instance that the trade mark COLOR EDITION is perceived as descriptive and consequently falls under Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94. That interpretation conflicts with the Court's case-law relating to the constituent elements of the concept of a descriptive mark. Being able to infer from a trade mark the protected goods and their characteristics is not an adequate test. It is necessary to ascertain whether the chosen terms, taken individually as well as jointly, are known and usually employed in the everyday language of the relevant public.

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: Case T-316/09: Order of the General Court of 25 February 2010 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Restriction of the list of goods for which registration is sought — Withdrawal of the objection to registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/46

         Order of the General Court of 25 February 2010 — Google v OHIM (ANDROID)
   (Case T-316/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Restriction of the list of goods for which registration is sought - Withdrawal of the objection to registration - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 113/74
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Google, Inc. (Mountain View, United States) (represented by: A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 May 2009 (Case R 1622/2008-2) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ANDROID as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the defendant shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case T-121/04: Action brought on 26 March 2004 by Henri Boquien and 12 other applicants against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/48

         Action brought on 26 March 2004 by Henri Boquien and 12 other applicants against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-121/04)
   (2004/C 118/103)
   Language of the Case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 2004 by Henri Boquien and 12 other applicants, all resident in France, represented by Jean-François Péricaud, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities jointly to pay to each applicant damages corresponding to the harm suffered plus interest at the legal rate from the date on which this application was filed;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those advanced in Case T-440/03 Arizmendi and Others v Council and Commission (1).

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004, p. 31.


C 173/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16.6.2001
1.    Is the ban on vaccination imposed by Article 13 of                      Removal from the register of Case C-403/00 (1)
      Directive 85/511/EEC(1) invalid on the ground of incon-
      sistency with Community law, in particular the principle                                (2001/C 173/56)
      of proportionality?
                                                                       By order of 27 March 2001 the President of the Court of
2.    Is the way in which the Commission has applied the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      aforesaid Article 13, in particular by the adoption of           from the register of Case C-403/00: Commission of the
      Decision 2001/246/EC (2), as amended by Decision                 European Communities v Republic of France.
      2001/279/EEC (3), invalid on the ground of inconsistency
      with Community law?                                              (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11.
(2) OJ 2001 L 88, p. 21.
(3) OJ 2001 L 96, p. 19.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-264/98 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/57)
                                                                       By order of 2 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-264/98: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Charleroi):
        Removal from the register of Case C-88/00 (1)                  Tibor Balog v Royal Charleroi Sporting Club ASBL (RCSC).
                         (2001/C 173/55)                               (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-88/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Directora-Geral                    Removal from the register of Case C-377/00 (1)
do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu
(DAFSE) v MOBILCROMO — Indústria de Mobiliário e                                            (2001/C 173/58)
Revestimentos Metálicos, Ltd.
                                                                       By order of 5 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.                                            the register of Case C-377/00: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-222/96)

text:
No C 269/6                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         Council Directive 91 /156/EEC ( ) of 18 March 1991
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                            amending Directive 75/442/EEC ( 2 ) on waste, or by not
                           ( Case C-222/96 )                                    communicating those measures, the French Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                             ( 96/C 269/ 14 )
                                                                          — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                 in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed in the Directive
Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,                 expired on 1 April 1993 .
Kirchberg.
                                                                          (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              ( 2 ) OJ No L 194 , 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 39 .
                                                                          ( 3 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 92/32/EEC (') of 30 April 1992
      amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 )
      on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions relating to the classification,
      packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, or by
      not communicating those measures , the Kingdom of                   Action brought on 27 June 1996 by SA Promotion Leopold
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                             against the European Parliament
      first-mentioned Directive,                                                                    ( Case C-224/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/ 16 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                27 June 1996 by SA Promotion Leopold, represented by
in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive            Lucien Simont and Paul Alain Foriers , acting as Agents, with
expired on 31 October 1993 .                                              an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J.
                                                                          Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
(') OJ No L 154 , 5 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .           The applicant claims that the Court should :
( 3 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
                                                                          — declare the application admissible and well founded
                                                                                and, consequently, rule that the final capital cost of
                                                                                Building D2 for the purposes of the building contract
                                                                                with an option to purchase dated 8 January 1 992 should
                                                                                include the sum of Bfr 23 355 000 by way of interest
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         during construction on the part of the initial advance of
      European Communities against the French Republic                          Bfr 1 000 000 000 on that building,
                             Case C-223 /96 )
                               96/C 269/ 15 )                             — as far as is necessary order the Parliament to pay charges
                                                                                calculated on the basis of the amended total and interest
                                                                                at the rate prescribed by law of 8 % from the date it
An action against the French Republic was brought before                        became due ,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities , represented by Maria Kontou-Durande,                        — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
acting as Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Gomez de la Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are based on a contract
                                                                          concluded between the parties which in addition contains an
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              arbitration clause .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with


title: Affaire T-788/16: Action brought on 10 November 2016 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/49

         Action brought on 10 November 2016 — De Geoffroy and Others v Parliament
   (Affaire T-788/16)
   (2017/C 014/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dominique De Geoffroy (Brussels, Belgium) and 14 others (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Forms of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Parliament’s Guidelines on leave, published on 21 March 2016;

               —

               annul the decision of 13 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mr Stéphane Grosjean;

               —

               annul the decision of 12 April 2016 accepting Mrs Françoise Joostens’ application for leave but including the days of leave applied for in the quota of 3.5 days;

               —

               annul the decision of 2 June 2016 refusing to grant leave applied for by Mrs Françoise Joostens;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants invoke six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging a complete failure to state reasons on the part of the defendant, in the light of the failure to respond to objections raised by the applicants against the Parliament’s Guidelines on leave, published on 21 March 2016 (‘the contested Guidelines’).

               2.

               Second plea, alleging that the adoption of the contested Guidelines by the Parliament was unlawful, as a result of infringement of the Staff Regulations and rights recognised by internal rules governing the management of leave, and infringement of the applicants’ acquired rights.

                           —

                           Therefore, the two applicants addressees of the three individual contested decisions, respectively of 2 June 2016, 13 June 2016 and 12 April 2016, the first two decisions refusing to grant leave applied for by them, and the last decision accepting the application for leave made by one of them but including the days of leave applied for in the quota of 3,5 days, consider that those individual decisions invoke the same plea in law seeking annulment of those decisions.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging a failure to consult the members of the Parliament staff during the adoption of the contested Guidelines by the latter, which amounts to an infringement of Article 27 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging a failure to weigh the interests of the institution with those of the interpreters, disregard for the principle of proportionality, an abuse of law, an error of assessment and infringement of the principle of good administration and of the duty of care, committed by the defendant institution in adopting the contested Guidelines.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging discrimination caused by the adoption of the contested Guidelines between interpreters and other officials and staff.

               6.

               Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the principles of equality and non-discrimination, infringement of the principle of legal certainty and predictability as regards exceptions and special cases provided for by those Guidelines.


title: Case C-352/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Angel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/4

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Spain) — Angel Lorenzo González Alonso v Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE
   (Case C-352/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 89/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angel Lorenzo González Alonso

      Defendant: Nationale Nederlanden Vida Cia De Seguros y Reaseguros SAE

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo — Interpretation of Article 3(2)(d) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — Contract, concluded away from business premises, under which life assurance is offered in return for payment of a monthly premium invested in various products of the company itself

      Operative part of the order

   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Audiencia Provincial de Oviedo by decision of 22 June 2010 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-237/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 3 June 2008 — Google France v Viaticum, Luteciel

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 3 June 2008 — Google France v Viaticum, Luteciel
   (Case C-237/08)
   (2008/C 209/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de Cassation (Commercial, Financial and Economic Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Google France

      Respondent: Viaticum, Luteciel
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (1) be interpreted as meaning that a provider of a paid referencing service who makes available to advertisers keywords reproducing or imitating registered trade marks and arranges by the referencing agreement to create and favourably display, on the basis of those keywords, advertising links to sites offering goods identical or similar to those covered by the trade mark registration is using those trade marks in a manner which their proprietor is entitled to prevent?

               2.

               In the event that such use does not constitute a use which may be prevented by the trade mark proprietor under the directive or [Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark] (2), may the provider of the paid referencing service be regarded as providing an information society service consisting of the storage of information provided by the recipient of the service, within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2000/31 of 8 June 2000 (3), so that that provider cannot incur liability before it has been informed by the trade mark proprietor of the unlawful use of the sign by the advertiser?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (‘Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2004 in Case T-186/02: BMI Bertollo Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier DIESEL word marks — Application for Community figurative trade mark DIESELIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 June 2004
   in Case T-186/02: BMI Bertollo Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Earlier DIESEL word marks - Application for Community figurative trade mark DIESELIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 239/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-186/02: BMI Bertollo Srl, established in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by F. Tedeschini, M. Pinnarò, P. Santer, V. Corbeddu and M. Bertuccelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto) intervening before the Court of First Instance being: Diesel SpA, established in Molvena (Italy), represented by G. Bozzola and C. Bellomunno, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 March 2002 (Case R 525/2001-3), concerning an opposition procedure between BMI Bertollo Srl and Diesel SpA — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 February 2005 in Case C-134/03: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova-Voltri) Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL (Freedom to provide services — Competition — Bill-posting services — Domestic legislation imposing a municipal tax on advertising — Supply by municipalities of a public bill-posting service — Power of the municipalities to regulate the supply of bill-posting services — Internal taxation not discriminatory)

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 17 February 2005
   in Case C-134/03: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova-Voltri) Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Competition - Bill-posting services - Domestic legislation imposing a municipal tax on advertising - Supply by municipalities of a public bill-posting service - Power of the municipalities to regulate the supply of bill-posting services - Internal taxation not discriminatory)
   (2005/C 93/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-134/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di pace di Genova-Voltri (Italy), by decision of 10 March 2003, received at the Court on 25 March 2003, in the proceedings between Viacom Outdoor Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J.-P. Puissochet, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February 2005, in which it rules that:

               1.

               The questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 82 EC, 86 EC, 87 EC and 88 EC are inadmissible;

               2.

               Article 49 EC does not preclude the levying of a tax such as the municipal tax on advertising imposed by the Decreto legislativo No 507 – Revisione ed armonizzazione dell'imposta comunale sulla pubblicità e del diritto sulle pubbliche affissioni (Legislative Decree No 507 revising and harmonising municipal advertising tax and bill-posting duty) of 15 November 1993.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.06.2003.


title: Case C-377/03: Action brought on 9 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
1.11.2003             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 264/21
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria
                                                                       1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
                                                                             mission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                        (Case C-362/03)                                      visions necessary to transpose Directive 2000/30/EC of
                                                                             the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June
                        (2003/C 264/34)                                      2000 on the technical roadside inspection of the road-
                                                                             worthiness of commercial vehicles circulating in the
                                                                             Community (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
                                                                             its obligations under that directive;
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                       2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                             proceedings.
Communities, represented by Arnaud Bordes and Gerald
Braun, Members of the Legal Service of the European Com-
mission, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt or to notify the Com-
      mission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
      visions necessary to transpose Council Directive 1999/           The period for transposition expired on 10 August 2002.
      74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards
      for the protection of laying hens (1), the Republic of
      Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                       (1) OJ 2000 L 203, p. 1.
      directive;
2.    Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the
      proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period for transposition expired on 1 January 2002.
                                                                       Action brought on 9 September 2003 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
(1) OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53.                                                                           Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-377/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/36)
Action brought on 21 August 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria
                        (Case C-363/03)                                An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       9 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
                        (2003/C 264/35)                                Communities, represented by C. Giolito and G. Wilms, acting
                                                                       as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                The Commission of the European Communities claims that
on 21 August 2003 by the Commission of the European                    the Court should:
Communities, represented by Wouter Wils, Member of the
Legal Service of the European Commission, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                             1.    Declare that,
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/22               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          1.11.2003
      —     by failing regularly to release certain transit docu-        Action brought on 9 September 2003 by the Commission
            ments (TIR carnets) with the result that the own             of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
            resources arising therefrom were not properly                                             Belgium
            accounted for or made available to the Commission
            within the prescribed periods;
                                                                                (Case C-378/03)
      —     by failing to forward to the Commission all the
            other undisputed customs duties treated in the same
                                                                                (2003/C 264/37)
            way (entry in B accounts instead of A accounts) in
            respect of the Belgium customs authority’s failure to
            release TIR carnets since 1996;
      —     by refusing to pay interest on the amounts due to            An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
            the Commission                                               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         9 September 2003 by the Commission of the European
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations        Communities, represented by C. Giolito and G. Wilms, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      under Articles 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC,
      Euratom) No 1150/2000 (1) of 22 May 2000
      implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom (2) on the
      system of the Communities’ own resources which, with               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
      effect from 31 May 2000, repealed and replaced Council             the Court should:
      Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (3) of 29 May
      1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom (4)
      on the system of the Communities’ own resources, the               —     Declare that, by making late payments of the own
      purpose of which is the same.                                            resources where debtors pay in stages, the Kingdom of
                                                                               Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 6,
                                                                               10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                           2000 (1) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/
                                                                               728/EC, Euratom (2) on the system of the Communities’
                                                                               own resources which, with effect from 31 May 2000,
                                                                               repealed and replaced Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom)
                                                                               No 1552/89 (3) of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                88/376/EEC, Euratom (4) on the system of the Communi-
                                                                               ties’ own resources, the purpose of which is the same.
During two checks of traditional own resources carried out in            —     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Belgium in 1996 and 1997, the Commission found that there
were anomalies in the customs transit scheme in relation to
the establishment, accounting and contribution of the own
resources and the application of the Community TIR transit
scheme. The anomalies were due to default or delay in the                Pleas in law and main arguments
payment of the own resources to the Commission because of
a failure to comply with the accounting rules laid down in
Article 6(3) of Regulation 1150/2000.
                                                                         During the check of traditional own resources carried out in
                                                                         Belgium in 1996, the Commission found that the Belgian
                                                                         authorities had not, within the period laid down by Com-
The Commission cannot accept the justifications put forward              munity rules, paid to it the own resources recovered in the
by Belgium for those anomalies and delays. The delays greatly            form of stage payments of import duties. Those duties ought
exceed the periods laid down by Article 6(3) of Regulation               to have been transferred from the B accounts to the A accounts
1150/2000 for entry in both the A and B accounts. Where an               as each stage payment was made by the debtor. The payment
item should have been entered in the A accounts, the effect of           of duties to a separate account from the B accounts over a
the delay has been belated availability of the own resources             period of several months resulted in delays in making available
concerned and, therefore, interest for late payment is due.              the own resources, for which interest for late payment is due.
(1) OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.                                         (1) OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 293 of 12.11.1994, p. 9.                                        (2) OJ L 293 of 12.11.1994, p. 9.
(3) OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.                                          (3) OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 185 of 15.7.1988, p. 24.                                        (4) OJ L 185 of 15.7.1988, p. 24.


title: Case T-698/15 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Juha Tapio Silvan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015 in Case F-83/14, Silvan v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/28

         Appeal brought on 2 December 2015 by Juha Tapio Silvan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 22 September 2015 in Case F-83/14, Silvan v Commission

   (Case T-698/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Juha Tapio Silvan (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order

                           —

                           that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) delivered on 22 September 2015 in Case F-83/14 (Tapio Silvan v Commission) is set aside;

               —

               give judgment again and

                           —

                           order

                                       —

                                       that the decision not to promote the appellant is annulled;

                                       —

                                       the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, relating to the admissibility of the pleas in law relied on and of the evidence adduced, which is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           the first part, alleging a breach of procedural rules and an error of law by the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) in the declaration of inadmissibility of the plea in law alleging that the appointing authority failed to carry out a comparative assessment of the merits;

                           —

                           the second part, alleging an error in law by the CST in its failure to assess the evidence submitted by the applicant showing the lack of a comparative assessment of the merits by the appointing authority at every stage of the promotion procedure.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 45 and the lack of a comparative assessment of the merits, which is divided in two parts:

                           —

                           the first part, alleging, first, an error in law by the CST in the context of the analysis of the documents submitted and the distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted by the parties, the lack of effective judicial review by the CST and failure to state reasons, and, secondly, an error of assessment, failure to state reasons, lack of effective judicial review by the CST and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence.

                           —

                           The second part alleging, first, an error in law in assessing the pleas set out by the appellant in that the CST held that the appellant had not raised a plea of illegality of the general implementing provisions C(2011) 8190 of Article 45 of the Statute, adopted by the European Commission on 14 November 2011, in that no comparative assessment is provided for at the stage of joint committee on promotions, and, second, an error of assessment and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging an error of assessment in the context of the analysis of the merits, which is divided in two parts:

                           —

                           the first part, alleging the error in law by the CST in assessing the burden of proof;

                           —

                           the second part, alleging the error of assessment and distortion of the clear sense of the evidence submitted.