title: Case C-353/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2001 by Olli Mattila against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-204/99 between Olli Mattila and the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/18                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.11.2001
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Appeal brought on 19 September 2001 by Olli Mattila
                                                                      against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by the
                                                                      Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those            European Communities in case T-204/99 (1) between Olli
submitted in Case C-323/01 (2); the period prescribed for             Mattila and the Council of the European Union and the
transposition expired on 14 March 2000.                                        Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-353/01 P)
(1) OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36.
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2001/C 317/34)
                                                                      An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 July 2001 by
                                                                      the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities in case T-204/99 between Olli Mattila
                                                                      and the Council of the European Union and the Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities, was brought before the Court
Action brought on 19 September 2001 by the Com-                       of Justice of the European Communities on 19 September
mission of the European Communities against the                       2001 by Olli Mattila, residing in Hyvinkää, Finland, represented
                        Kingdom of Spain                              by Z. Sundström and M.R. Kauppi, Lawyers, with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-352/01)
                                                                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                         (2001/C 317/33)
                                                                      —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   Chamber) of 12 July 2001;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Sep-
tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agent,         —     annul the decision of the Council and the Commission
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                  which is the subject of the present appeal;
L. Escobar Guerrero, Wagner Centre C 254.
                                                                      —     invite the Council and the Commission to reconsider
                                                                            their position and give access to the Appellant to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 requested documents;
1.    Declare that by not having adopted the laws, regulations        —     give access, at least partial access, to such documents after
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                cancelling or editing the sections which may justifiably
      Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the               qualify as liable to prejudice the international relations of
      Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of                 the European Community;
      biocidal products on the market (1) or, in any event, not
      having communicated those provisions to the Com-
      mission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its          —     order jointly the Council and the Commission to pay the
      obligations under that directive.                                     costs incurred by the Appellant in these proceedings.
2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      The Appellant contends that the Court of First Instance
                                                                      has incorrectly applied European Community Law, namely
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in          93/731/EC of 20 December 1993(2) on public access to
Case C-323/01 (2); the deadline for transposition expired on          Council documents and 94/90 ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 Febru-
13 May 2000.                                                          ary 1994 (3) on public access to Commission documents.
(1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 63.                                     The pleas in support of the appeal are the following:
(2) See page 12 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      a.    Manifest error of assessment in interpreting the exception
                                                                            concerning the protection of international relations;
 ---pagebreak--- 10.11.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 317/19
b.    Breach of the principle of proportionality in that partial              of Protocol No 9 to the Act of Accession 1994 (1) and full
      access to the documents in question has not been granted                award of ecopoints for the year 2001.
      or even considered;
                                                                        —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
c.    Breach of the principle that an application for access to
      documents must be considered with regard to each
      individual document;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
d.   Failure in the duty to state reasons;
e.   Failure to apply objectivity and equality in considering
      the Appellant’s interest in having access to the documents;       (Main plea)
f.    Breach of the duty of independent review;                         Infringement of the EC Treaty or Protocol No 9 to the Act of
                                                                        Accession 1994 by definitively refusing the request under the
g.    Misuse of power; and                                              second paragraph of Article 232 EC. The Commission wrongly
                                                                        seeks to deduct journeys declared as transit journeys in respect
h.    Failure to comply with the duty to co-operate.                    of which there is no information on departure (92 816 ), and
                                                                        journeys declared as transit journeys where both entry and
                                                                        departure were effected at the same border point (54 386 ),
(1) OJ C 333, 20.11.1999, p. 32.                                        from the number of transit journeys declared overall for the
(2) OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43.                                               year 2000 (1 696 794 ). The ecopoint system under Protocol
(3) OJ 1994 L 46, p. 58.                                                No 9 to the Act of Accession 1994 is based on the principle
                                                                        of declarations. Accordingly, if journeys are clearly declared by
                                                                        a driver as transit journeys, they fall within the ecopoint
                                                                        statistics and are relevant to whether the 108 % threshold has
                                                                        been exceeded; this is the point at which the Commission is
                                                                        bound under Article 11(2)(c) of Protocol No 9, in conjunction
                                                                        with Annex 5(3) thereof, to adopt certain measures, namely to
                                                                        reduce the number of ecopoints the following year according
Action brought on 20 September 2001 by the Republic of                  to a calculation method laid down in the Annex to the
Austria by the Commission of the European Communities                   Protocol. It cannot, in the light of the principle of declarations,
                                                                        be for the Republic of Austria, either legally or factually, to
                         (Case C-356/01)                                provide evidence in each individual case that, where a journey
                                                                        is clearly declared to be a transit journey, such a transit journey
                                                                        actually took place. The Republic of Austria merely has to
                         (2001/C 317/35)                                deduct journeys declared to be transit journeys where it is
                                                                        beyond doubt that, despite a clear declaration, there cannot
                                                                        have been a transit journey (which is the case in respect of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        9 210 nbsp;statistically proven journeys on trains for the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        carriage of heavy goods vehicles). The result is therefore clearly
Communities on 20 September 2001 by the Republic of
                                                                        that the 108 % threshold was exceeded in the year 2000. In
Austria represented by Dr Harald Dossi, of the Administrative
                                                                        the light of its decision of 25 July 2001, the Commission
Service of the Federal Chancellor’s Office of the Republic of
                                                                        therefore failed to fulfil its obligations under Protocol 9 to the
Austria with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                        Act of Accession 1994, in particular its obligations under
of the Ambassador Dr Christian Strohal, Austrian Embassy,
                                                                        Article 11(2)(c) in conjunction with Article 16 and Annex 5(3)
3 rue des Bains.
                                                                        to that Protocol, and that it has therefore created grounds for
                                                                        annulment for infringement of the EC Treaty and/or Protocol
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             No 9 of the Act of Accession 1994 pursuant to the second
                                                                        paragraph of Article 230 EC Treaty.
—     Annul the negative opinion of the Commission of 25 July
      2001 definitively refusing the Republic of Austria’s
      request under the second paragraph of Article 232 EC to           (In the alternative)
      the Commission to act.
—    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Infringement of the EC Treaty and/or Protocol No 9 to the Act
                                                                        of Accession 1994. The applicant refers to the first plea in law
                                                                        in relation to the grounds for its observations.
In the alternative the Republic of Austria claims that the Court
should
                                                                        (1) Protocol No 9 on road, rail and combined transport in Austria.
—     Declare null and void the Commission’s decision of
      25 July 2001 ordering non-application of Article 11(2)(c)


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2000 in Case C-44/00 P: Société de distribution mécanique et d'automobiles SA (Sodima) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Complaint — Action for failure to act, for annulment, and for compensation — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 200/27
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                            ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                               (Third Chamber)
                       of 13 December 2000
                                                                                of 15 December 2000
in Case C-44/00 P: Société de distribution mécanique et
d’automobiles SA (Sodima) v Commission of the Euro-                         in Case C-87/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        pean Communities (1)                                the Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Genova v Eliana
                                                                                Fasciolo (1)
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Complaint
— Action for failure to act, for annulment, and for compen-
                                                                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
sation — Inadmissibility — Appeal in part manifestly                             identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
        inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
                           (2001/C 200/47)                                                               (2001/C 200/48)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-44/00 P: Société de distribution mécanique et
d’automobiles SA (Sodima), a company being wound up by                      In Case C-87/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
court order, having its registered office in Istres, France,                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Consiglio di Stato
represented by J.C. Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address             (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue              before that court between Questore di Genova and Eliana
Béatrix de Bourbon — Appeal against the judgment of the                     Fasciolo on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First                  Treaty on freedom to provide services — the Court (Third
Chamber) of 13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-190/95                       Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-
and T-45/96 Sodima v Commission [1999] ECR II-3617,                         er, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the             Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                   order on 15 December 2000, the operative part of which is as
(Agents: G. Marenco and F. Siredey-Garnier) — The Court                     follows:
(Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has made an order on 13 December 2000, the operative part                   The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not
of which is as follows:                                                     preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
                                                                            reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
                                                                            if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                              to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
                                                                            which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
2.    Société de distribution mécanique et d’automobiles SA (Sodima)        objectives.
      is ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case C-563/10: Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Kashayar Khavand v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Kashayar Khavand v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-563/10) (1)

   2011/C 186/31
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Case T-556/11: Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/21

         Action brought on 21 October 2011 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v OHIM
   (Case T-556/11)
   2012/C 6/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to reject the bid of the applicants filed in response to the open call for tender AO/029/10 (E-Alicante: software development and maintenance services) (1), communicated by letter dated 11.08.2011, and all the related decisions of the OHIM including those to award the respective contract to the first, second and third cascade contractor; and

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question in the amount of 67 500 000 euros (EUR); and

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ damages suffered on account of loss of opportunity and damage in its reputation and credibility in the amount of 6 750 000 euros (EUR); and

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the applicants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the present application, even if the present application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           Non-compliance of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with the provisions of Article 100(2) of the Financial Regulation; in that:

                                       (a)

                                       it failed to state reasons;

                                       (b)

                                       it failed to disclose the relative merits of successful tenderers.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           Manifest errors of assessment; use of new award criteria, contrary to the tender specification; use of criteria which were not clarified in the Q&A session; deficient motivation; vague and unsubstantiated comments given by the OHIM; use of erroneous financial formula, which allowed for distortions; and modification of the scope and object of the contract.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           Discriminatory treatment of tenderers and non-compliance with exclusion criteria of the wining tenderers; infringement of Articles 93(1)(f), 94 and 96 of the Financial Regulation; of Articles 133a and 134b of the Implementing Rules and the principle of good administration, in that:

                                       (a)

                                       members of the winning consortium are subject to a conflict of interest;

                                       (b)

                                       one member of the winning consortium is involved in fraud, corruption and briberies.

      (1)  OJ 2011/S 10-013995


C 83/28                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      5.4.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-43/01 (1)                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                           T-288/01: OPI Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in
                          (2003/C 83/59)                                   the Internal Market.
                    (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
By order of 10 January 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-43/01: Jean-Jacques Rateau v Commission of the European
Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-192/02 (1)
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/61)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
        Removal from the register of Case T-288/01 (1)
                                                                           By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Fourth
                          (2003/C 83/60)                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the Case: English)                         T-192/02: G.D. Searle LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                           Internal Market.
By order of 7 January 2003 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 March 1996 in Case C-275/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van Belgïe): Roger Van der Linden v. Berufsgenossenschaft der Feinmechanik und Elektrotechnik (Brussels Convention - Interpretation of Article 47 (1) - Documents to be produced by a party applying for enforcement - Obligation to produce proof of service of the judgment delivered - Possibility of producing proof of service after the application has been made)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/3
Directive itself against a lender who is a private person, on               which, for the protection of the interests of members
account of inadequacies in the supply ofgoods or provision                  and others, are required by Member States of companies
ofservices by the supplier or provider with whom the lender                 within the meaning of the second paragraph of
concluded an exclusive agreement with regard to the grant                   Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of
of credit and assert that right before a national court.                    public limited liability companies and the maintenance
                                                                            and alteration of their capital, with a view to making
                                                                            such safeguards equivalent precludes national
(>) OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                           legislation under which the capital ofa bank constituted
                                                                            in the form of a public limited liability company which,
                                                                            as a result of its debt burden, is in exceptional
                                                                            circumstances may be increased by an administrative
                                                                            measure, without a resolution of the general meeting.
                                                                      2 . Publication of an offer of subscription in daily
                                                                            newspapers does not constitute information given in
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        writing to the holders of registered shares within the
                      of 12 March 1996                                      meaning of third sentence of Article 29 (3) of Directive
                                                                            77/9 1 /EEC.
in Case C-441 /93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon ): Panagis Pafitis and
    Others v. Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados AE and Others ( l )           ( ] ) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
(Company law — Directive 77/91/EEC — Alteration of
capital ofa bank constituted in the form ofa public limited
liability company — Direct effect of Articles 25 (1) and
          29 (3) of the Directive — Abuse of rights)
                          ( 96/C 180/05 )
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 14 March 1996
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    in Case C-275/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Hof van Cassatie van Belgïe ): Roger Van der
                                                                      Linden v. Berufsgenossenschaft der Feinmechanik und
In Case C-441 /93 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                     Elektrotechnik (1 )
of the EC Treaty from the Polymeles Protodikeio Athinon                (Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Article 47 (1) —
( Court of First Instance, Athens ) for a preliminary ruling in       Documents to be produced by a party applying for
the proceedings pending before that court between Panagis             enforcement — Obligation to produce proof of service of
Pafitis and Others, supported by Investment and Shipping              the judgment delivered — Possibility ofproducing proof of
Enterprises Est and Others, and Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados                       service after the application has been made)
AE and Others , supported by Trapeza tis Ellados AE and                                            ( 96/C 180/06 )
Others — on the interpretation of Article 25 et seq. and
Article 29 of the Second Council Directive, Directive
77/91 /EEC of 13 December 1976 on coordination of
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of
members and others, are required by Member States of
companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Article 5 8 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public                 published in the European Court Reports)
limited liability companies and the maintenance and
alteration of their capital , with a view to making such
safeguards equivalent ( OJ No L 26 , 1 977, p . 1 ) — the Court,      In Case C-275/94 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of Chamber, acting              of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
for the President, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch                      of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.                      and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn             Matters, by the Hof van Cassatie van Belgïe ( Belgian Court
( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm                of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H.                pending before that court between Roger Van der Linden
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given          and Berufsgenossenschaft der Feinmechanik und
a judgment on 12 March 1 996 , in which it rules:                     Elektrotechnik on the interpretation of Article 47 ( 1 ) of the
                                                                      Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                      Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
 1 . Article 25 of the Second Council Directive (77/91 /EEC)          Matters ( OJ No L 304, 1978 , p . 17 ), as amended by the
      of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards               Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
 ---pagebreak---  No C 180/4            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
 Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                  Article 7 (1 ) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
 Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, 1978 ,                Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
 p . 1 and — in its amended form — p . 77 ) — the Court ( Fifth         workers within the Community must be interpreted as
 Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of                  meaning that a worker who is a national of one Member
 Chamber ), J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                State and is employed in the territory of another Member
  ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,          State is not entitled to have payment of contributions
 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                      (employer's and employee's contributions) to the
 judgment on 14 March 1996, in which it rules :                         supplementary old-age and survivors ' pension scheme for
                                                                        workers in the public service continued, at the same level as
                                                                        would have been payable if the employment relationship
 Article 47 (1 ) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on              had not been suspended because of his call-up for military
 Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and              service, where nationals of that State employed in the public
  Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of                   service are so entitled when performing military service in
 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of                      that State.
 Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
 and Northern Ireland, is to be interpreted as meaning that,
 where the domestic procedural rules so permit, proof of                (') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .
 service of the judgment may be produced after the
 application has been made, in particular during the course of
 appeal proceedings subsequently brought by the party
 against whom enforcement is sought, provided that that
 party is given a reasonable period of time in which to satisfy
 the judgment voluntarily and that the party seeking
 enforcement bears all costs unnecessarily incurred.
 (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 14 March 1996
                                                                        in Case C-238/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( ! )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/67/EEC —
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                               Assessment of risks to man and the environment posed by
                       of 14 March 1996
                                                                                dangerous substances)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/08 )
in Case C-3 15/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling
 from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld ): Peter de Vos v. Stadt
                             Bielefeld ( J )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 (Freedom of movement for persons — Military service —
                        Social advantage)
                          ( 96/C 180/07 )
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           In Case C-238/95 : Commission of the European
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Communities ( Agents : Laura Pignatoro and Maria
                                                                       Condou-Durande ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Professor
                                                                       Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri, avvocato
In Case C-3 1 5/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          dello Stato ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld                     to adopt and communicate the laws, regulations and
( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
pending before that court between Peter de Vos and Stadt               Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993 laying
Bielefeld on the interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation             down the principles for assessment of risks to man and the
( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on                environment of substances notified in accordance with
freedom of movement for workers within the Community                   Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( OJ No L 227, 1993 , p. 9 ),
( OJ, English Special Edition 1968(11 ), p . 475 ) — the Court         the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of             that Directive and the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth
the Chamber, G. Hirsch, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.                   Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and J. L. Murray, Judges; D.                    Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; Registrar, R.                   Almeida, L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Grass, gave a judgment on 14 March 1996, the operative                 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
part of which is as follows :                                          judgment on 14 March 1996 in which it:


title: Case T-383/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2009 — New Europe v Commission of the European Communities (Formal inadmissibility of the application — Name of the applicant — Legal person governed by private law — Authority — Manifest inadmissibility — Intervention)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/11

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 April 2009 — New Europe v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-383/08) (1)

   (Formal inadmissibility of the application - Name of the applicant - Legal person governed by private law - Authority - Manifest inadmissibility - Intervention)
   2009/C 167/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: New Europe (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A.-M. Alamanou, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision taken in the form of a letter of 2 July 2008 refusing to inform the applicant of the names of the companies and persons cited in the documents disclosed by the Commission relating to the ‘Eximo’ case,

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs.

               3.

               There is no need to rule on the application for leave to intervene submitted by the European Data Protection Supervisor.

      (1)  OJ C 301 of 22.11.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2000 in Case T-82/99: Michael Cwik v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Authorisation to publish — Second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the Communities — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
9.9.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                          of 14 July 2000                                 offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, v
                                                                          European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
                                                                          (Cedefop) (Agent: B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment
in Case T-82/99: Michael Cwik v Commission of the
                                                                          of the decision of the European Centre for the Development of
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          Vocational Training of 3 June 1998 rejecting the applications
                                                                          submitted by the applicant for the grade A 7/A 5 post of Head
(Officials — Authorisation to publish — Second paragraph                  of General Support Services (Administration) and the grade
of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations — Interests of the                 A 5/A 4 post of Head of Administration and refusing to renew
        Communities — Manifest error of assessment)                       the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff
                                                                          beyond 30 June 1998 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                         (2000/C 259/31)                                  Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and
                                                                          P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
                                                                          trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000,
                    (Language of the case: French)                        in which it:
In Case T-82/99: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission              1.    Declares the action inadmissible in so far as it concerns the
of the European Communities, residing at Tervuren (Belgium),                    decision not to renew the applicant’s contract beyond 30 June
represented by N. Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                  1998;
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Becker &
Cahen, 3 Rue des Foyers, v Commission of the European                     2.    Annuls the contested decision in so far as it rejects the
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment                     application submitted by the applicant for the post of Head of
of the Commission’s decision of 10 July 1998 refusing the                       Administration;
applicant authorisation to publish the text of the conference
speech given by him on 30 October 1997 — the Court of First               3.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,                  4.    Orders Cedefop to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       costs of the applicant. The applicant is ordered to bear half of
14 July 2000, in which it:                                                      his own costs.
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 10 July 1998 refusing
                                                                          (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
      the applicant authorisation to publish the text of the conference
      speech given by him on 30 October 1997;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 July 2000
                                                                          in Case T-134/99: Anna Skrzypek v Commission of the
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                   European Communities (1)
                          of 13 July 2000                                 (Officials — Family allowances — Orphan’s pension —
                                                                             Conditions of grant — Actual maintenance of the child)
in Case T-87/99: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre for
   the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (1)                                             (2000/C 259/33)
(Officials — Non-renewal of contract — Rejection of
applications for two posts — Admissibility — Competence                                       (Language of the case: French)
  — Legality of vacancy notices — Recruitment procedure)
                                                                          In Case T-134/99: Anna Skrzypek, residing in Brussels,
                         (2000/C 259/32)                                  represented by E. Causin and I. Jiménez Rojas, of the Brussels
                                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of D. Phong, 222a Avenue Gaston Diderich, v
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Commission of the European Communities (Agent: F. Clotu-
                                                                          che-Duvieusart) — application principally for annulment of
In Case T-87/99: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the Council             the Commission’s decision of 9 March 1999 refusing to grant
of the European Union, residing at Ambelokipon (Greece),                  the applicant family allowances for herself and an orphan’s


title: Case C-363/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2008 — Romana Slanina v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Wien

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2008 — Romana Slanina v Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Wien
   (Case C-363/08)
   (2008/C 285/35)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Romana Slanina

      Defendant: Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Außenstelle Wien
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does it follow from Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) (‘the regulation’) that the divorced wife, who is not in employment, of a man who lives in Austria, and who is not self-employed, maintains her right to family allowance (in respect of a child) vis-à-vis Austria, if she establishes a permanent residence in another Member State and centres her life there, and if she continues not to be in employment there?

               2.

               Is it relevant to the answer to question 1 that Austria, where the divorced man remains and where he is exclusively resident and employed, grants him under certain conditions the right to family allowances (in respect of the child), if the divorced wife's right no longer exists?

               3.

               Does the regulation give the divorced wife a right to family allowances (in respect of the child) vis-à-vis Austria, where the divorced man and father of the child is resident and employed, if the circumstances as described in question 1 change so that the wife takes up employment in the new Member State?

      (1)  OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.


title: Case T-102/13: Action brought on 14 February 2013 — Heli-Flight v EASA

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/18

         Action brought on 14 February 2013 — Heli-Flight v EASA
   (Case T-102/13)
   2013/C 123/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heli-Flight GmbH & Co. KG (Reichelsheim, Germany) (represented by: T. Kittner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 13 January 2012 rejecting the applicant’s application for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034);

               —

               declare that the defendant failed, without justification, to act in respect of the applicant’s applications for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034) of 11 July 2011 and 10 January 2012;

               —

               declare that the defendant is obliged to compensate the applicant for all loss incurred as a result of the fact that it rejected the applicant’s applications for approval of flight conditions for the Robinson R66 helicopter (serial No 0034) of 11 July 2011 and 10 January 2012 and/or failed, without justification, to act as regards the decisions on the approval of flight conditions for that helicopter;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the first head of claim, the applicant essentially submits the following:

               1.

               In the applicant’s view, the decision on the approval of flight conditions is not a discretionary decision. It is submitted in that regard, inter alia, that the burden of proof as to the fact that the aircraft in question can fly safely under specified conditions is on the defendant, not the applicant.

               2.

               Further, the applicant submits that, in the event that the defendant’s decision on the approval of flight conditions is a discretionary decision, the defendant failed to exercise its discretion, or in any event exercised it erroneously. In the applicant’s view, the defendant exercises its discretion erroneously when it relies on safety information obtained during the type-certification process, to which the applicant was not a party. In addition, the applicant complains that the defendant has failed sufficiently to particularise the alleged safety concerns in the present proceedings. In that context, the applicant submits that it was given no opportunity to comment on specific alleged sources of risk. The applicant also claims that the defendant’s reasoning is manifestly contradictory.

               3.

               In the alternative, the applicant submits that it has produced proof that the aircraft in question can be flown safely under specified conditions.

               4.

               Finally, in relation to its application for annulment the applicant pleads breaches of the duty of good administration on the part of the defendant. According to the applicant, the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation to investigate, wrongly relied on confidentiality in connection with the type-certification process, infringed the applicant’s right to be heard and infringed the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case C-7/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2011 — Public Prosecutor v Fabio Caronna

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo (Italy) lodged on 5 January 2011 — Public Prosecutor v Fabio Caronna
   (Case C-7/11)
   2011/C 80/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Palermo

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Fabio Caronna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 77(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use to be construed as meaning that pharmacists are included among the persons who must obtain authorisation for the wholesale distribution of medicinal products or was it the Community legislature’s intention, instead, to exempt pharmacists from the requirement to apply for that authorisation, as would appear to be suggested by a reading of recital 36 in the preamble to the directive? It is appropriate to set out the arguments put forward by the suspect’s lawyer in support of the latter interpretation.

               2.

               In more general terms, what is the correct interpretation to be given to the rules governing authorisation to distribute medicinal products laid down by Article 76 to 84 of the Directive, with particular reference to the requirements to be met in order for a pharmacist (that is, a natural person, not a company) who, by virtue of that status, is already authorised to retail medicinal products under national law, also to be able to distribute medicinal products?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67.


title: Case T-520/10: Action brought on 10 November 2010 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/32

         Action brought on 10 November 2010 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission
   (Case T-520/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/62
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: S. Martínez Lage and H. Brokelmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision N 178/2010 of 29 September 2010 approving public-service compensation for Spanish electricity producers;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the same decision as that challenged in Case T-484/10 Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission.
   The applicant puts forward three pleas in support of its action:

               —

               Infringement of procedural rights ensured by Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, (1) since the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure, which it is obliged to do whenever there are serious doubts as to the compatibility of the aid under consideration with the common market.

               —

               Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (2).

               —

               Infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, inasmuch as the conditions of necessity and proportionality required by that provision if the aid in the present case, which was granted by the Spanish authorities to compensate for the additional costs resulting from the provision of a public service, is to be approved are not met.

               —

               Infringement of Article 34 TFEU, since the aid in the present case is a measure having equivalent effect, which cannot be justified under Article 36 TFEU by the need to secure the electricity supply.

               —

               The aid in the present case constitutes an undue cumulation of aid granted to the coal industry in the period 2008-2010, contrary to the provision made in Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry, (3) and seriously distorts competition in the electricity sector, disregarding Article 4(d) and (e) of Regulation No 1407/2002.

               —

               Infringement of Articles 11 and 191 TFEU and of Article 3(3) TEU, since the contested decision fails, in the applicant’s submission, to have to regard to the damaging effects which the decision will have so far as the environment is concerned.

         Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the right to property safeguarded by Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1

      (3)  OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1.


title: Appeal brought on 11 July 1997 by D. Coussios against the judgment delivered on 15 May 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-273/94 between D. Coussios and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-252/97 P)

text:
C 295/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27 . 9 . 97
Action brought on 10 July 1997 by the French Republic                    the reorganization of working time which the
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     undertakings concerned have had to accept, not
                                                                         the normal cost of such reorganization which
                       ( Case C-251 /97 )                                undertakings in other sectors or in other Member
                                                                         States would have to bear. The fact that a substantial
                         ( 97/C 295/ 16 )
                                                                         number of undertakings have declined to benefit from
                                                                         the measure for the reduction of social charges on the
                                                                         ground that what is required by the State in return is
                                                                         too burdensome sufficiently shows that the measures
An action against the Commission of the European                         do not bring the beneficiary undertakings any clear
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                   competitive advantage .
the European Communities on 10 July 1997 by the French
Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
Assistant Director in the Directorate for Legal Affairs,
                                                                     — The Commission made a manifest error of assessment
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Gautier Mignot, Secretary
for Foreign Affairs in that directorate, acting as Agents,               of the facts by failing to accept that the measures
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                  were financially and economically neutral for the
Embassy, 8 B Boulevard Joseph II .                                       beneficiary undertakings .
The Government of the French Republic claims that the
Court should :
                                                                     Appeal brought on 11 July 1997 by D. Coussios against
    annul Commission Decision C(97 ) 1162 final of                   the judgment delivered on 15 May 1997 by the Fourth
    9 April 1997 concerning aid granted by France to the             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities in Case T-273/94 between D. Coussios and
    textile, clothing, leather and footwear sectors,
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case C-252/97 P )
    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                    ( 97/C 295/ 17 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 May
                                                                     1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities in Case T-273/94
                                                                     between D. Coussios and the Commission of the European
Infringement of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty by the             Communities was brought on 11 July 1997 by D.
contested decision                                                   Coussios, represented by Xavier Magnee, Batonnier, of the
                                                                     Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue Fort Rheinsheim.
— The Commission erred in law in classifying measures
    consisting of the grant of specific financial advantages
    to undertakings, in return for actions whose financial           The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
    cost balances the amount of that aid, as aid within the
    meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty, in so far as
    they exceed the de minimis threshold set by the                  hold the present appeal admissible and well-founded, set
     Commission's communication of 24 January 1996 .                 aside the judgment under appeal and, as the Court of First
    The argument which the French Government presents                Instance should have done,
     in the present case is in fact analogous to an argument
     it put forward in the Kimberly Clark case ( Case
     C-241 /94, [ 1996] ECR 1-4551 ), which the Court
                                                                     — annul the Commission 's decision of 4 October 1993
     basically did not reject, namely that a financial
     advantage granted by the State to an undertaking in                  removing the appellant from his post and the decision
     return for optional action by that undertaking in                    of 2 May 1994 rejecting his complaint,
     favour of its employees does not constitute aid which
     distorts or is liable to distort competition within the
     meaning of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty, since the            — order the appellant's retroactive reinstatement with
     amount of that advantage does not exceed the cost to                 effect    from  1   December      1993 and  order     the
     the undertaking of that action, or exceeds it only by                Commission to pay arrears of salary without
     an amount below the de minimis threshold . In the                    interruption together with interest at the rate of 8 %
     present case, the measures for reducing social charges               p. a . from the date on each month when those arrears
     compensate only for the additional cost of                           became payable,
 ---pagebreak--- 27 . 9 . 97             I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 295/ 11
— order the Commission to pay to the appellant as                              of interpreting the rules or of the fact that all the
      compensation for non-material damage the sum of                          sums relating to operations in which there were
      Bfrs 3 million, or any such sum as the Court of Justice                  found to be irregularities were recovered.
      shall determine,
                                                                         ( B) Removal of land from production on multiannual
— in the alternative, failing a decision ordering the                          basis
      appellant's reinstatement, declare that the removal
      from his post was unfounded and accordingly order
      the Commission to pay him Bfrs 57 443 399 as                             The dispute is based on a 'linguistic' ambiguity with
      compensation for financial damage and the sum of                         regard to the interpretation be given to the term
      Bfrs 20 000 000 as compensation for non-material                         'fallowing', which, according to EAGGF officials
      damage , or any such sum as the Court of Justice shall                   means 'traditional fallowing' whereas agricultural
      determine,                                                               producers and those in charge of inquiries understood
                                                                               it to mean 'dressed fallowing combined with green
                                                                               manuring'.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .
                                                                               In view of this, the financial adjustment at issue is
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            unlawful inasmuch as the technical term used in the
                                                                               abovementioned legislation is ambiguous .
— Irregularity of the procedure before the Court of First
     Instance as regards, in particular, the findings of fact.                 There is another aspect to be borne in mind : even if
                                                                               traditional fallowing had been intended, since it is
— Breach of Community law. In this respect the                                 practised in rotation it would have affected only part
     appellant maintains the arguments put forward at first                    of the area of farms and not necessarily that in
     instance (').                                                             respect of which the premium was granted.
(>) OJ C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994, p . 32 .                                   ( C ) Reimbursement of sugar storage expenditure
                                                                               The adjustment concerned is in respect of the period
                                                                               between 15 October 1992 and 31 December 1992 .
                                                                               According to the Commission, the fact that there was
Action brought on 10 July 1997 by Italian Republic                             no monitoring presented a high risk for the EAGGF' s
      against Commission of the European Communities                           resources, which authorized an adjustment of 10% .
                           ( Case C-253 /97 )
                             ( 97/C 295/18 )                                   There was a system of administrative checks on
                                                                               specialized traders which was particularly close and
                                                                               efficient with regard to sugar stocks. That monitoring
An action against the Commission of the European                               system, backed up by heavy penalties in the event of
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                         breaches, is believed to be such as to guarantee the
the European Communities on 10 July 1997 by the Italian                        almost complete absence of irregularities. This is
Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza,                             indirectly confirmed by checks put in place
acting as Agent, assisted by Gianni De Bellis, Avvocato                        subsequently by the AIMA, which found there to
dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      have been no infringements in the preceding period
the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie Adelaide .                                    either.
The applicant claims that the Court should annul the                           Finally, the adjustment should be annulled or, in the
Commission's decision of 23 April 1997 C(97) 1180                              alternative, appropriately reduced .
final (') to the extent to which, in clearing the accounts
submitted by the Italian Republic for expenditure for
1993 , it declares the sum in issue in the present case is not           ( D ) Reimbursement of storage costs ( sugar)
chargeable to the EAGGF.
                                                                               The dispute is similar to the preceding one, but
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            relating to the period between 1 January 1993 and
                                                                               30 June 1993 , for which a fixed-rate adjustment of
                                                                               2 % was determined .
( A ) Prepayment of refund for beef
                                                                         ( E ) Aid to consumption of olive oil
       The Italian Government requests an appropriate
       reduction of the fixed-rate adjustment, inasmuch as it
       is excessive with respect to the risk run by the                        The Commission unilaterally carried out two
       EAGGF and does not take account of the difficulties                     adjustments : one which was geometrically progressive


               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/5

         Designation of the judge to replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures
   (2008/C 272/05)
   On 30 September 2008, in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal decided that, for the period from 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009, Judge Kanninen, President of the Second Chamber, will replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures in the event of the President's absence or his being prevented from attending.


title: Case F-36/11: Action brought on 5 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/22

         Action brought on 5 April 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-36/11)
   2011/C 179/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (Etterbeck, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond its expiry date and, consequently, reinstatement of the applicant in his duties as from 1 November 2010. Second, an order that the Commission pay to the applicant a sum of EUR 10 000 in compensation for non-material damage suffered and to bear the financial costs incurred in the pre litigation procedure.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision contained in the note of 30 August 2010 informing the applicant that his contract would not be extended beyond its expiry date;

               —

               consequently, reinstate the applicant in his duties in the delegation to Albania as from 1 November 2010 and order the defendant to pay his remuneration retrospectively. Failing such reinstatement, order the defendant to pay unemployment allowances until the applicant is again in employment;

               —

               withdraw the contested decision and any document linked to this procedure from the applicant’s personal file;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 in compensation for the non-material damage suffered, subject to increase in the course of proceedings, and to bear the financial costs incurred in the pre-litigation procedure;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-77/08: Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/57

         Action brought on 15 September 2008 — Vicente Carbajosa and Others v Commission
   (Case F-77/08)
   (2008/C 285/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Isabel Vicente Carbajosa (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   An application for a declaration that the Commission's decision to restrict publication of the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to three languages is unlawful, and that those competition notices are unlawful and, consequently, for annulment of EPSO's individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in those competitions.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               Declare that the Commission's decision to restrict publication of the competition notices EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 to three languages is unlawful and that those competition notices are unlawful;

               —

               Annul EPSO's individual decisions not to admit the applicants to the tests in competitions EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 respectively;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 6 August 1997 by Franco Campoli against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-235/97)

text:
C 318/32                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
grant in question, the administration had concluded that                taken into account for the transfer of pension rights
the grant could no longer be regarded as an allowance of                should be calculated for each transfer separately. In its
like nature to the household allowance provided for in                  submission, the conversion calculations used by the
Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and that it             applicant would result in a number of years of
had therefore been decided that it would no longer deduct               pensionable service greater than the number of years in
that grant from the household allowance paid to the                     which the applicant was affiliated to the Danish pension
applicants . The applicants thereupon requested retroactive             funds in question.
reimbursement of all of the sums deducted together with
default interest. Those requests were rejected by the                   The applicant considers in that respect that the wording of
defendant .
                                                                        Article 11 ( 2 ) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is
                                                                        perfectly clear, in that it concerns retirement pension rights
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced by the                     acquired through the pursuit by an official of an activity
applicants against those rejection decisions are the same as            in an employed or self-employed capacity before he took
those in Case T-181 /97 (').                                            up his duties. The 'period' of prior service is thus credited
                                                                        and taken into account in calculating the retirement
(') Case T-181 /97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice ( OJ            pension provided for in the Staff Regulations. It follows,
    C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 35 ).                                     in his submission, that both the wording and the rationale
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations require the Community institution
                                                                        to take into account the whole of the rights acquired by
                                                                        the official concerned before he took up his duties.
                                                                        What is to be taken into account in that respect is, he
Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Folmer Bang                         argues, the retirement pension rights acquired by reason of
                                                                        those activities, whether or not those activities were on an
      Hansen against the Commission of the European
                              Communities                               employed basis. The Commission should therefore have
                                                                        taken into account all contributions giving rise to pension
                           ( Case T-233/97 )                            rights, the essential point being to define the rights to
                             ( 97/C 318/61 )                            which those contributions gave rise . It is those rights, the
                                                                        applicant argues, and not, in themselves, the contributions
                                                                        and the funds to which they are paid, which underlie the
                   (Language of the case: French)                       letter and the spirit of the provision of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations cited above .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       There is therefore nothing to prevent the transfer amounts
Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1997                   in question — even though emanating from two different
by Folmer Bang-Hansen, residing in Overijse ( Belgium ),                funds, each establishing as far as it is concerned the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an              amount of the actuarial equivalent — from being added
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    together in order to determine the number of years of
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                pensionable service to be taken into account and the
                                                                        resulting credit. In the applicant's submission, it is only
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the aggregation of rights which corresponds to the
                                                                        intention of the Community legislature, since it is the
                                                                        whole of those rights which he has acquired by way of
— annul the decision of 16 October 1996 ( Reference                     retirement pension.
     IX.B.6/LAD ) ( 96 ) 14687), signed by E. Tserepa ( Head
     of the Transfers Sector ), whereby the Commission
     decided that the limitation of the period to be taken              The applicant ends by arguing that any general provision
     into account for a transfer of pension rights was to be            for implementing the rules in the Staff Regulations
     calculated separately for each transfer, and therefore             which supports the interpretation put forward by the
     refused the applicant's request to aggregate transfers             Commission should be regarded as unlawful .
     from Andelspensionsforeningen and Juristernes Pen
     sionskasse,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 August 1997 by Franco Campoli
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-235/97
The applicant complains of the Commission's refusal to                                           ( 97/C 318/62 )
 aggregate transfers emanating from two Danish pension
 funds to which he had successively contributed before he
took up his duties with the Commission, for the purposes                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 of calculating the period to be taken into account on a
transfer of pension rights. The Commission justified its                An action against the Commission of the European
refusal on the basis that the limitation of the period to be             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 318/33
Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 1997                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
by Franco Campoli, residing in Brussels, represented by
Sergio Diana , of the Cagliari Bar.
                                                                         1.    annul the Commission 's decision not to increase the
                                                                               amount in Danish krone transferred to the applicant's
                                                                               building loan savings account;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         2. order the Commission to pay :
— annul        the     Commission 's     decision   rejecting  the
       applicant's application to be classified in Grade A 7 at                — Ecu 3 per day as from 28 August 1996 by way of
       the time of taking up his duties,                                           compensation for the non-material damage it has
                                                                                caused to the applicant,
       order the Commission to pay the costs .                                     and
                                                                               — the costs of these proceedings .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-16/97 Chauvin v. Commission (').                               The application seeks the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                         decision rejecting the applicant's request to increase by
                                                                         Danish Krone 15 000 per month the amount transferred
                                                                         to a building loan savings account opened under his name .
The applicant maintains that the judgment in Case T-17/
95 Alexopoulou v. Commission ( 2 ) and the Commission
decision published in March 1996 constitute new facts,                   The applicant states in this regard that he has made the
and also indications of the will of the administration to                application as a result of the judgment of the Court of
reapply a provision of the Staff Regulations ( Article 31 ( 2 ))         First Instance of the European Communities of 1 1 June
which was unlawfully disapplied. The applicant argues in                 1996 which held his application inadmissible in Case
that respect that, in correcting the unlawfulness of its                 T- 11 1 /94 (') after finding that the administrative
earlier conduct as impugned in the case cited above,                     procedure had been exhausted in the absence of an act
the Commission should give Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff                 adversely affecting him and of a request that a decision
Regulations an application not limited in time to the date               relating to him be taken .
of the judgment in that case .
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the
(') OJ C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                      same as those in the applications in Cases T- 11 0/94 ( 2 )
( 2 ) 119951 ECR-SC 11-683 .                                             and T-l 11 /94 ( 3 ), basically alleging an error of assessment
                                                                         of the conditions required by the applicable legislation in
                                                                         order to be entitled to an increase in the amount of the
                                                                         transfer referred to herein, as well as disregard for the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         (') ECR-SC 11-819 .
Action brought on 11 August 1997 by Giovanni                             ( 2 ) OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 27.
        Ouzounoff Popoff against the Commission of the                   n OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 28 .
                       European Communities
                           ( Case T-236/97 )
                             ( 97/C 318/63 )
                                                                         Action brought on 14 August 1997 by Comunidad
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                               Autonoma de Cantabria against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                                                                                Case T-238/97 )
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                    ( 97/C 318/64 )
Instance of the European Communities on 11 August
 1997 by Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, residing at Brussels,                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Alex
 Subirachs Amigo, both of the Barcelona Bar, with an
 address for service at 78 Avenue d'Audeghem, 1040                        An action against the Council of the European Union
 Brussels .                                                              was brought before the Court of First Instance of


title: Case C-274/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC — Workers — Recognition of diplomas)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-274/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Workers - Recognition of diplomas)
   (2008/C 313/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Recognition of professional qualifications acquired in another Member State for the purposes of employment in the public sector and registration in the Tekhniko Epimelitirio Elladas
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Hellenic Republic,

                           —

                           by failing to recognise the diplomas awarded by the competent authorities of another Member State following education and training provided within the framework of an agreement pursuant to which education and training provided by a private body in Greece is homologated by those authorities;

                           —

                           by providing for the application of compensatory measures in more cases than those allowed by Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001;

                           —

                           by entrusting to the Council Responsible for Recognising Professional Equivalence of Higher Education Qualifications the power to assess whether ‘the educational establishment in which the applicant completed his education and training belongs to the higher education sector’ and whether ‘the applicant has the necessary professional experience, in a case where the duration of the education and training falls short by at least one year of that required in Greece in order to pursue that profession’, and

                           —

                           by not allowing, in the public sector, the reclassification in a higher grade of persons recruited at a level lower than that to which they would have been entitled if their diplomas had been recognised in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1, 3, 4, 8 and 10 of Directive 89/48 as amended by Directive 2001/19.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The Hellenic Republic shall pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and bear its own costs.

               4.

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case T-121/13: Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/24

         Action brought on 28 February 2013 — Oil Pension Fund Investment Company v Council
   (Case T-121/13)
   2013/C 129/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oil Pension Fund Investment Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and also Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 as regards inclusion in Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as those legal acts concern the applicant;

               —

               adopt a measure of organisation of procedure pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, requiring the defendant to produce all documents relating to the contested decision, in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective legal protection
               In this context it is claimed, inter alia, that the statement of reasons in the contested acts is incomprehensible to the applicant, and comprehensible reasons were not communicated separately to the applicant by the defendant. As a result the applicant’s rights of defence and its right to effective legal protection have been breached. There has also been a breach of the principle of the right to be heard. The applicant claims that the contested acts were not served on it by the defendant and that there was no hearing of the applicant. Further, it is submitted that the defendant did not correctly assess the circumstances relating to the applicant. The applicant takes the view that it was deprived of a fair trial based on the rule of law, having been unable, in the absence of adequate knowledge, to comment specifically on the relevant allegations and alleged evidence of the Council, or to put forward any contrary evidence in the proceedings.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality
               In the applicant’s view the Council made a manifest error of assessment when it adopted the contested acts. The Council failed adequately and/or correctly to investigate the facts underlying the contested acts. In that context, it is submitted, inter alia, that, so far as concerns the applicant, the grounds for adoption of the restrictive measures that are stated in the contested acts are inapplicable. The contested acts also breach the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
               Here, the applicant claims that its fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389) (‘the Charter’) have been infringed by the contested acts. It invokes, in that regard, breach of the freedom to conduct a business in the European Union (Article 16 of the Charter) and of the right to use its lawfully acquired possessions in the European Union and, in particular, to dispose of them freely (Article 17 of the Charter). Furthermore, the applicant claims breach of the principle of equal treatment (Article 20 of the Charter) and of the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21 of the Charter).


title: Case C-349/09: Action brought on 1 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/11

         Action brought on 1 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-349/09)
   2009/C 312/18
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Simerdova, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not implementing in full Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, (1) or in any event by not informing the Commission of the provisions adopted to that end, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2005/28/EC had to be transposed expired on 29 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 91, p. 13.