title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-191/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court): North Western Health Board v Margaret McKenna (Equal pay for men and women — Illness arising prior to maternity leave — Pregnancy-related illness — Person subject to the general sick-leave scheme — Effect on pay — Absence offset against the maximum total number of days of paid sick leave over a specified period)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-191/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court): North Western Health Board v Margaret McKenna (1)

   (Equal pay for men and women - Illness arising prior to maternity leave - Pregnancy-related illness - Person subject to the general sick-leave scheme - Effect on pay - Absence offset against the maximum total number of days of paid sick leave over a specified period)
   (2005/C 281/05)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-191/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Labour Court (Ireland), made by decision of 14 April 2003, received at the Court on 12 May 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between North Western Health Board and Margaret McKenna — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               A sick-leave scheme which treats identically female workers suffering from a pregnancy-related illness and other workers suffering from an illness that is unrelated to pregnancy comes within the scope of Article 141 EC and Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women.

               2.

               Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 must be construed as meaning that the following do not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex:

                           —

                           a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides, in regard to female workers absent prior to maternity leave by reason of an illness related to their pregnancy, as also in regard to male workers absent by reason of any other illness, for a reduction in pay in the case where the absence exceeds a certain duration, provided that the female worker is treated in the same way as a male worker who is absent on grounds of illness and provided that the amount of payment made is not so low as to undermine the objective of protecting pregnant workers;

                           —

                           a rule of a sick-leave scheme which provides for absences on grounds of illness to be offset against a maximum total number of days of paid sick-leave to which a worker is entitled over a specified period, whether or not the illness is pregnancy-related, provided that the offsetting of the absences on grounds of a pregnancy-related illness does not have the effect that, during the absence affected by that offsetting after the maternity leave, the female worker receives pay that is lower than the minimum amount to which she was entitled during the illness which arose while she was pregnant.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 05. 07. 2003.


title: Case T-355/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — easyJet Airline v Commission (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Airport services market — Decision rejecting a complaint — Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State — Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds — Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — easyJet Airline v Commission
      (Case T-355/13) (1)

      (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Airport services market - Decision rejecting a complaint - Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Case dealt with by a competition authority of a Member State - Rejection of the complaint on priority grounds - Decision of the competition authority drawing conclusions, in competition law, from an investigation conducted under national legislation applicable to the sector in question - Obligation to state reasons)
      (2015/C 073/32)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: easyJet Airline Co. Ltd (Luton, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Werner and R. Marian, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

         Intervener in support of the defendant: Luchthaven Schiphol NV (Schiphol, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree, G. Hakopian and S. Molin, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 2727 final of 3 May 2013 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against Luchthaven Schiphol NV in relation to alleged anti-competitive conduct in the airport services market (Case COMP/39.869 — easyJet/Schiphol).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The General Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders easyJet Airline Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-653/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 19 December 2016 — Jitka Svobodová v Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě
   (Case C-653/16)
   (2017/C 078/16)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší soud České republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jitka Svobodová

      Defendant: Česká republika — Okresní soud v Náchodě

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Czech legislation under which judges are not entitled to remuneration for on-call duty, even though other employees (in the public and private sectors) are entitled to that remuneration on the basis of the Zákoník práce (Labour Code) or other provisions of law, constitute unequal treatment in the field of pay, prohibited by Council Directive 2000/78/EC? (1)

               2.

               Does the Czech legislation under which all judges (according to the number of years credited) are entitled to the same salary, even though all of them perform a different number of hours of on-call duty, constitute unequal treatment in the field of pay, prohibited by Council Directive 2000/78/EC?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case T-51/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — AECOPS v Commission

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/19

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — AECOPS v Commission
   (Case T-51/11)
   2011/C 139/37
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: AECOPS — Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by J. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with and for the purpose of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision of 27 October 2010 relating to file No 88 0369 P1, reducing to PTE 37 056 405 the amount of the assistance granted by Commission Decision C(88) 831 of 29 April 1988 and. at the same time, requiring reimbursement of the amount of EUR 294 298,41;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay both its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to observe a reasonable time-limit within which to take the decision, as a result of which:

                           —

                           the proceedings are time-barred: the applicant maintains that the contested decision was adopted after the elapse of the period of four years fixed for the limitation of proceedings, as provided for by Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests. Likewise, even if there had been an interruption to the running of the limitation period for the proceedings, twice the limitation period had elapsed without any decision’s having been adopted, in accordance with Article 3(1) of that regulation. The contested decision must be considered unlawful and incapable of being given effect, for the exercise of the corresponding right is time-barred;

                           —

                           breach of the principle of legal certainty: the applicant takes the view that the fact of the Commission’s having let more than 20 years go by between the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision entailed disregard for the principle of legal certainty. That fundamental principle of the legal order of the European Union states that all persons have the right to have the matters concerning them dealt with by the institutions of the Union within a reasonable period;

                           —

                           breach of rights of defence: the applicant claims that its rights of defence have been breached, inasmuch as, seeing that more than 20 years passed between the occurrence of the alleged irregularities and the adoption of the final decision, the applicant was deprived of any chance of submitting its observations in good time, that is to say, at a time when it still held documents that might have enabled it to explain the expenditure considered ineligible by the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons: the applicant argues that the contested decision does not satisfy the obligation to state reasons imposed by Article 296 TFEU. The contested decision does not explain, even summarily, what reasons led to the reduction of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund, nor does the letter of the European Social Fund Management Institute notifying the applicant of the contested decision explain, in an even remotely comprehensible manner, the reasons prompting the reduction of that assistance or which expenditure was, and which was not, eligible. In the applicant’s view, the defect of want of reasoning must lead the Court to annul the contested decision.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Orlando Lopes against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-26/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96           1 fcN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/27
Action brought on 27 February 1996 by 'U' against the                 the Centre, towards which one month is counted for each
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     full year or part of a year of service completed by them, but
                       Training ( Cedefop )                           not in any event for a period of less than six months, or
                         ( Case T-24/96 )                             alternatively to apply for a measure to be taken having the
                                                                      same effect. If, upon the expiry of that period, the grounds
                           ( 96/C 133/59 )                            on which their secondment was allowed have not altered,
                                                                      the secondment can be extended . The Director undertakes
                (Language of the case: German)                        to provide special solutions in the interests of the staff and of
                                                                      the Centre , in compliance with his obligations as an
                                                                      employer .
An action against the European Centre for the Development
                                                                      A general decision of the Director of the Centre of 7 July
of Vocational Training was brought before the Court of
                                                                      1995 , expressly referring to the framework agreement,
First Instance of the European Communities on 27 February
                                                                      provided for the applicant to be assigned for six months to a
1996 by 'U', represented by Dr Frank Montag,
                                                                      Community establishment in Berlin or seconded to a
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels , with an address for service in
                                                                      non-Community establishment there . By individual decision
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Grand-Rue .
                                                                      of 31 July 1995 , the Director of the Centre stipulated that
                                                                      the applicant should continue to perform his functions by
                                                                      working in the Office of the Commission in Berlin . In
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          accordance with that decision, the applicant has been
                                                                      working in the Commission's Berlin Office since
                                                                      1 September 1995 .
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop of
     8 February 1996 ,                                                On 31 January 1996 the applicant applied for his
                                                                      ' secondment' to that Office to be extended . By letter of
— order Cedefop to pay the costs .                                    12 February 1996 the Director of the Centre notified the
                                                                      applicant of his decision of 8 February 1996 assigning the
                                                                      applicant to the Centre in Thessaloniki with effect from
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       1 March 1996 . The letter stated that, if the applicant refused
                                                                      to transfer to Thessaloniki on that date , he would be
                                                                      regarded as having resigned .
The applicant has been employed since 1993 in the service of
the European Centre for the Development of Vocational                 The applicant maintains that, by adopting the contested
Training . He was initially employed for an indefinite period         decision, the defendant first of all refused to extend his
under an employment contract of 12 November 1 993 which               employment in Berlin, and, second, that it moved his place
provided that his place of employment was to be Berlin ,              of employment to Thessaloniki . He contends that both of
where the Centre had its seat at that time .                          those measures are unlawful , since there were insufficient
                                                                      grounds for their adoption , they infringed his rights, and
On 16 May 1994 the Council , acting on a proposal from the            they were incompatible with the principle whereby an
Commission , adopted Regulation ( EC ) No 1131 /94                    administration is bound by its own decisions, together with
amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 337/75 establishing a                  the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                     the general duty of an employer to have regard for the
Training, which provides that the Centre is to have its seat in       welfare and interests of his employees . As regards the alleged
Thessaloniki . The final recital in the preamble to that              alteration of his place of employment, the applicant also
Regulation provides : 'the aspects of the proposal which              complains that, by stipulating an unreasonably short
concern the staff of the Centre should be acted upon at a             deadline , the defendant failed to discharge its duty to have
later stage; . . . this Regulation does not prejudge the              regard for the welfare and interests of its employees , and
position of the Centre's staff'.                                      that that measure was intended to prompt the applicant to
                                                                      tender his resignation, so that it was not based on a proper
                                                                      exercise of discretionary powers .
On 23 January 1995 the Director of the Centre concluded a
framework agreement with the staff representatives
concerning ancillary social measures connected with the
relocation of the seat. That framework agreement provided
inter alia for the implementation of procedures aimed at              Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Orlando Lopes against
granting the members of the staff of the Centre the status of              the Court of Justice of the European Communities
officials of the Communities . The applicant states that, after
the staff of the Centre became subject to the rules applicable                                ( Case T-26/96 )
to officials and other servants of the European                                                 ( 96/C 133/60 )
Communities, he took part in an internal competition and
has since 1 January 1996 been ' stripped' of his status as an                         (Language of tbe case: French)
official . In addition, the framework agreement provided for
measures to be taken in respect of those 'who cannot leave             An action against the Court of Justice of the European
Berlin' ( point 4.3 ). Persons to whom this applies, and who           Communities was brought before the Court of First
furnish the relevant grounds, are entitled to be seconded for          Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 996 by
a period calculated on the basis of their period of service in         Orlando Lopes, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
 ---pagebreak---  No C 133/28          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4 . 5 . 96
 Marc Kleyr, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                  of the right to a fair hearing and the principle of
 for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 17 Rue                   non-retroactivity, and are incompatible with Articles 21 and
 Louvigny.                                                            1 1 of the Staff Regulations .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          As regards the decision not to act on the request submitted
                                                                     pursuant to Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, the applicant
— annul the decision of the Court's complaints committee,            maintains,     first,  that    the   defendant    erred    in    its
     communicated on 31 January 1996, rejecting the                  characterization of the facts giving rise to that request. He
     complaint submitted by the applicant on 3 October               also maintains that the decision does not contain a sufficient
     1 995 ,                                                         statement of the reasons on which it is based, in accordance
— annul the 'opinion' of the Head of the Portuguese                  with Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, and that it is
     Translation Division of 21 January 1994 exhibited as            incompatible with the principle of non-retroactivity . Lastly,
     Annex 2 to the answers given by the administration of           he complains that, by adopting that decision, the defendant
     the Court of Justice to the questions put to the parties by     supported those responsible for the unlawful acts from
     the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-547/93 and        which he has suffered since 1987 .
    T-280/94 Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European
     Communities ,
— annul the document entitled 'Analysis of sample I'
    exhibited as Annex 1 to the answers dated 29 June 1995           Action brought on 6 March 1996 by Boubeker Maayouchi
    given by the administration of the Court of Justice to the          against the Commission of the European Communities
    questions put by the Court of First Instance in Joined                                    ( Case T-27/96 )
     Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94,
                                                                                96/C 133/61 )
— annul the decision not to act on the request submitted on
    7 July 1995 seeking the cessation of the abuse of powers                         (Language of the case: French)
    or authority committed in relation to the applicant
    by the Head of Translation and jurist-revisers in               An action against the Commission of the European
    the Portuguese Translation Division, which was                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
    communicated by memorandum of 21 July 1995 from                  Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1996 by
    the Registrar of the Court,                                      Boubeker Mayyouchi, residing in Rabat ( Morocco ),
— award the applicant damages of not less than Bfr                  represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    20 000 000 by way of compensation for the material               address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
    and non-material damage suffered by him as a result of           Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
    the conduct of the servants of the Court of Justice,
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
                                                                    — declare that the Commission failed to verify that the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           procedure for the election of representatives for staff
                                                                          serving outside the Community was conducted in
The applicant maintains, first, that the decision rejecting the           accordance with the procedural and substantive rules
complaint was adopted in clear breach of the first paragraph              governing such elections,
of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials, since the
nature of the contested acts is such as to call in question his     — declare that the list of voters in the local staff
personal and professional reputation and the defendant                    constituency, drawn up by the Head of the
administration failed to take all necessary measures to                   Commission's Delegation to Morocco, is incomplete,
ascertain whether or not there was any substance to the
serious accusations contested by the applicant.                     — annul the Electoral Committee's decision to reject two of
                                                                          the votes cast by local staff in the regional ballot held at
As regards the assessments contained in the document of                   the Commission's Delegation to Morocco,
21 January 1994 , the applicant observes that those
assessments do not appear in the reports concerning him             — annul the election result adopted by the Electoral
and were not communicated to him, so that he was                          Committee at its meeting of 13 February 1995 in so far
prevented from exercising his right to be heard in due                    as it declared Bassel Kaghadou as the elected regional
course, as required by Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff                    representative for the local staff constituency in
Regulations . He further claims that it is not possible to                geographical area No 7,
ascertain from the statements made in the assessments
whether or not those assessments are well founded, and that         — in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision adopted
this necessarily results in an infringement of Article 25 of the          by the Commission explicitly rejecting the applicant's
Staff Regulations.                                                        complaint,
As regards the second contested document, the applicant             — at the very least, declare that the Commission has
considers that that document does not constitute an                       committed errors in relation to the organization of the
impartial and objective analysis of his work, and he contests             elections and the counting of votes from Morocco and
the validity of the assessments contained in it. He further               order the Commission to pay the applicant 1 franc by
observes that that document contains assessments regarding                way of symbolic compensation for non-material
his conduct which were adopted in disregard of the principle              damage,


title: Case C-15/07: Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — 01081 Telecom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in the presence of: E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — 01081 Telecom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, in the presence of: E-Plus Mobilfunk GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-15/07) (1)

   (2007/C 183/59)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-43/09: Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM — Gelkaps (Ayanda)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/53

         Action brought on 3 February 2009 — Cachuera v OHIM — Gelkaps (Ayanda)
   (Case T-43/09)
   (2009/C 69/115)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: La Cachuera SA (Misiones, Argentina) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Gelkaps GmbH (Pritzwalk, Germany).
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 19 November 2008 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, order the annulment of that decision and order expressly that OHIM pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gelkaps GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AYANDA’ (Application No 3.315.405) for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 28, 29, 30, 32 and 44.
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
   Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative and word marks ‘AMANDA’, for goods in Class 30.
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-616/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Action for infringement of a European patent — Special and exclusive jurisdiction — Article 6(1) — More than one defendant — Article 22(4) — Validity of the patent called into question — Article 31 — Provisional, including protective, measures)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Netherlands) — Solvay SA v Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV
   (Case C-616/10) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Action for infringement of a European patent - Special and exclusive jurisdiction - Article 6(1) - More than one defendant - Article 22(4) - Validity of the patent called into question - Article 31 - Provisional, including protective, measures)
   2012/C 287/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Solvay SA

      Defendants: Honeywell Fluorine Products Europe BV, Honeywell Belgium NV, Honeywell Europe NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank ‘s-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 6(1), Article 22(4) and Article 31 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special and exclusive jurisdiction — More than one defendant — Proceedings for interim relief brought by the proprietor of a European patent seeking an order prohibiting cross-border infringement of a patent

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, must be interpreted as meaning that a situation where two or more companies established in different Member States, in proceedings pending before a court of one of those Member States, are each separately accused of committing an infringement of the same national part of a European patent which is in force in yet another Member State by virtue of their performance of reserved actions with regard to the same product, is capable of leading to ‘irreconcilable judgments’ resulting from separate proceedings as referred to in that provision. It is for the referring court to assess whether such a risk exists, taking into account all the relevant information in the file.

               2.

               Article 22(4) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the application of Article 31 of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-336/04: Action brought on 13 August 2004 by TV Danmark A/S and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/51

         Action brought on 13 August 2004 by TV Danmark A/S and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-336/04)
   (2004/C 262/95)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2004 by TV Danmark A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., Hounslow, United Kingdom represented by Mr D. Vandermeersch, Mr K. Karl and Mr H. Peytz, lawyers with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Decision C 2/03 Commission of 19 May 2004 on State financing of Danish public broadcaster TV2/Danmark by means of licence fee and other measures, in so far as the Commission found that aid granted to TV2/Danmark between 1995 and 2002 in the form of licence fee resources and other measures identified in the decision is compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal fees, costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the contested decision, the Commission held that, between 1995 and 2002, the Danish public broadcaster TV2/DANMARK benefited from State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. The Commission concluded that the aid is compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC, except for an overcompensation amounting to 628.2 million DKK which should be repaid by TV 2 / DANMARK A/S.
   The applicants request the annulment of Article 1 of the decision to the extent that it held that a part of the aid is compatible with the common market. The applicants submit that in adopting that part of the decision, the Commission has infringed Article 86(2), 87 and 88 EC, as well as the Protocol annexed to the EC Treaty on the system of public broadcasting in the Member States.
   The applicants allege that the Commission infringed Articles 87 and 88 EC, when, after having found that the aid was new aid, it nevertheless proceeded to hold that the aid (with the exception of the amount found in overcompensation) was compatible with the common market while it should have established the illegality of the entire aid due to lack of notification.
   Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed Articles 86(2), 87 and 88 EC and the Protocol, when it held that all of TV2's costs relate to public service obligations and could therefore be funded by the State in spite of the lack of a sufficiently precise definition of the public service obligations of TV2. The Commission also infringed the said articles when it approved the State aid on the basis of the test of whether TV2 attempted ‘to maximise revenues’ and put the burden of proof on the applicants. It committed a manifest error of assessment when it disregarded the evidence of TV2 undercutting prices of a stand alone efficient operator.
   The applicants also allege that the Commission infringed Article 86(2) EC and the Protocol when it approved the aid notwithstanding its own finding of doubt as to the pricing behaviour of TV2 and the price level in Denmark. Furthermore, the Commission infringed Article 86(2) EC when it failed to examine whether the net costs of TV2 were proportionate to the public service obligations and when accepting the absence of any, or in the alternative, sufficient Danish public control over TV2's performance of its public service remit.


title: Case C-487/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/3

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 8 July 2015 in Case T-548/12 Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG v OHIM

   (Case C-487/15 P)
   (2016/C 191/04)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Appellant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (represented by: J. Krenzel, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Redrock Construction s.r.o.
   By order of 25 February 2016, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case T-461/09: Action brought on 16 November 2009 — CheapFlights International v OHIM — Cheapflights (Cheapflights)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/58

         Action brought on 16 November 2009 — CheapFlights International v OHIM — Cheapflights (Cheapflights)
   (Case T-461/09)
   2010/C 24/104
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Ballybofey, Ireland) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cheapflights Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 August 2009 in case R 1607/2007-4;

               —

               Dismiss the appeal filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of the defendant of 10 August 2007 in opposition proceedings B 849 150;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it decide to become an intervener in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white “Cheapflights”, for services in classes 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign in colour “CheapFlights”, for services in classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; Irish trade mark application of the word mark “CHEAPFLIGHTS”, for services in classes 35, 39 and 43; Irish trade mark registration of the word mark “CHEAPFLIGHTS”, for services in classes 38, 41, 42 and 44; Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign “CheapFlights.ie”, for service in classes 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43; International trade mark registration of the figurative sign “CheapFlights”, for services in classes 35, 38, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-449/08: Action brought on 2 October 2008 — S.L.V. Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/36

         Action brought on 2 October 2008 — S.L.V. Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)
   (Case T-449/08)
   (2008/C 327/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: S.L.V. Elektronik GmbH (Übach-Palenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Angel Jiménez Muñoz (Gelida, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 18 July 2008 in Case R 759/2007-4 in so far as registration of the trade mark applied for (003316908) is refused in respect of ‘mains-operated lights, lighting apparatus and installations, stage effects lighting apparatus; electric lamps; individual parts for the aforesaid goods’; and order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: S.L.V. Elektronik GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘LINE’ for goods in class 11 — registration No 3 316 908

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Angel Jiménez Muñoz

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative and word marks ‘Line’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37 and 38

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Opposition Division

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal did not proceed on the basis of the trade mark applied for but on the basis of a design that was not identical.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 December 1997 in Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm Quiller and Johann Heusmann v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Regulation (EEC) No 2055/93 - Compensation for producers - Limitation period)

text:
24.1.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 26/5
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 27 November 1997                                                of 9 December 1997
in Case T-290/94: Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the
                 European Communities (1)                          in Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm
                                                                   Quiller and Johann Heusmann v. Commission of the
(Competition Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Ð                                        European Communities (1)
Decision declaring a concentration to be compatible with
the common market Ð Commitments Ð Feminine                         (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk
hygiene products Ð Action for annulment Ð                          Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Regulation
Admissibility Ð Infringement of essential procedural               (EEC) No 2055/93 Ð Compensation for producers Ð
requirements Ð Consultation of third parties Ð                                          Limitation period)
                     Dominant position)
                                                                                (98/C 26/10)
                         (98/C 26/09)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-290/94: Kaysersberg SA, established in
Kaysersberg (France), represented by Dominique Voillemot
and Jacques-Philippe Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an            In Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm Quiller,
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of               of Lienen (Germany), and Johann Heusmann, of Loxstedt
Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe against Commission of                (Germany), represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild
the European Communities (Agents: represented initially            Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
by Francisco GonzaÂlez Díaz and GeÂraud de Bergues,                Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
subsequently by Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier),                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
supported by Procter & Gamble GmbH, established in                 Dupong and Guy Konsbruck, 14 A Rue des Bains, v.
Schwalbach (Germany), represented by Mario Siragusa, of            Council of the European Union (Agents: Arthur
the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scasselati-Sforzolini, of the               Brautigam, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð
Bologna Bar, and Nicholas Levy, barrister, of the Bar of           application for compensation, under Article 178 and the
England and Wales, with an address for service in                  second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for
Luxembourg at the chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 2                 damage suffered by the applicants as a result of their
Place Winston Churchill Ð application for the annulment            being prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council
of Commission Decision 94/893/EC of 21 June 1994                   Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
relating to a proceeding under Council Regulation (EEC)            general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
No 4064/89 declaring a concentration to be compatible              Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
with the common market and the functioning of the EEA              milk products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as
Agreement (IV/M.430 Ð Procter & Gamble/VP                          supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/
Schickedanz (II), (OJ 1994 L 354, p. 32) Ð the Court of            84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11),
First Instance of the European Communities (Second                 amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of C. W.                  20 March 1989 (OJ L 84, 29.3.1989, p. 2) Ð the Court
Bellamy, President, C. P. BrieÈt, A. Kalogeropoulos, A.            of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
Potocki and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio               composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. P. BrieÈt, A.
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, has given a judgment on                  Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos; A.
27 November 1997, in which it:                                     Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                   9 December 1997 in which it:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                   1. orders the defendants to pay compensation for the
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the                damage suffered by the applicants, first, as a result of
    costs incurred by the intervener, P&G.                             the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
                                                                       84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                       application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
(1) OJ C 316, 12.11.1994.
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
                                                                       products sector, as supplemented by Commission
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying
                                                                       down detailed rules for the application of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 26/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.1.98
    additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation         AssimileÂes de Wallonie ASBL (FeÂd. Horeca-Wallonie),
    (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as those Regulations did             established in Namur (Belgium), represented by Gilles
    not make provision for the allocation of a reference            BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, and by Jean Materne
    quantity to holdings subject to an undertaking given            and Alain Bernard, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for
    under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of                    service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Gilles BouneÂou,
    17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for                15 Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the European
    the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for             Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Rozet) Ð application,
    the conversion of dairy herds, where the producers              primarily, for the annulment of the Commission decision,
    had not delivered milk during the reference year                addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium by letter SG(96) D/
    adopted by the Member State concerned, and, second,             8253 of 24 September 1996, not to raise any objection to
    as a result of application of the same Regulation               the implementation by the Wallonia region of a draft
    (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Council Regulation               decree on social tourism Ð the Court of First Instance
    (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989, in so far as the              (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
    second indent of Article 3a(1) excluded the allocation          A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. P. BrieÈt, C. W. Bellamy,
    of a special reference quantity to the transferees              A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
    of a premium granted under Regulation (EEC)                     made an order on 20 November 1997 in which it:
    No 1078/77;
                                                                    1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. declares that the period for which the applicants must
    be compensated for the damage suffered as a result of
    the application of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 is, in            2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
    Case T-195/94, the period from 12 January 1989 to
    28 July 1993 and, in Case T-202/94, the period from
                                                                    (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
    3 September 1987 to 31 January 1993;
3. orders the parties to forward to the Court, within 12
    months from this judgment, details of the amounts to
    be paid, as agreed by the parties;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4. orders the parties, if no agreement is reached, to                          (First Chamber, Extended Composition)
    submit to the Court their views as to the amounts
                                                                                of 24 November 1997
    which should be awarded;
                                                                    in Case T-266/94 (92): Foreningen af Jernskibs- og
                                                                    Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsvñrftsforeningen and
5. reserves the costs.                                                 others v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (State aids Ð Shipbuilding Ð Taxation of costs)
(1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994 and OJ C 218, 6.8.1994.
                                                                                (98/C 26/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-266/94 (92): Foreningen of Jernskibs- og
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsvñrftsforeningen, with
                    of 20 November 1997                             its registered office in Copenhagen, Assens Skibsvñrft A/S,
                                                                    established in Assens (Denmark), Burmeister & Wain
in Case T-85/97: Interprovinciale des FeÂdeÂrations                 Skibsvñrft A/S, established in Copenhagen, Danyard A/S,
d'Hoteliers, Restaurateurs, Cafetiers et Entreprises                established in Frederikshavn (Denmark), Fredericia
AssimileÂes de Wallonie ASBL (FeÂd. Horeca-Wallonie) v.             Skibsvñrft A/S, established in Fredericia (Denmark),
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Odense Staalskibsvñrft A/S, established in Odense
(Procedure Ð Time limits Ð Method of calculation Ð                  (Denmark), Svendborg Vñrft A/S, established in
                        Inadmissibility)                            Svendborg         (Denmark),       érskov       Christensens
                                                                    Staalskibsvñrft A/S, established in Frederikshavn, and
                         (98/C 26/11)                               Aarhus Flydedok A/S, established in rhus (Denmark),
                                                                    represented by Jan-Erik Svensson, advokat of the
                                                                    Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in
               (Language of the case: French)                       Luxembourg at the chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8Ð10
                                                                    Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the Kingdom of
                                                                    Denmark (Agent: Peter Biering) against the Commission of
In Case T-85/97: Interprovinciale des             FeÂdeÂrations     the European Communities (Agents: Anders Christian
d'Hoteliers, Restaurateurs, Cafetiers et           Entreprises      Jessen and Ben Smulders), supported by the Federal


title: Case T-796/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice — Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process — Overriding public interest)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Philip Morris v Commission
   (Case T-796/14) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents drawn up in the context of the preparatory works leading to the adoption of the directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice - Exception relating to the protection of the decision-making process - Overriding public interest))
   (2016/C 392/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Philip Morris Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Nordlander and M. Abenhaïm, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Commission Decision Ares(2014) 3142109 of 24 September 2014, in so far as it refuses to grant the applicant full access to the requested documents, with the exception of the redacted personal data contained therein.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Philip Morris Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 16.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-69/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — State aid in the agricultural sector — Submission of annual reports during 2000 and 2001 — Guidelines for the assessment of State aid)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-69/05: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - State aid in the agricultural sector - Submission of annual reports during 2000 and 2001 - Guidelines for the assessment of State aid)
   (2006/C 60/18)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-69/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Stobiecka-Kuik) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EEC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 11 February 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, G. Arestis (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to communicate, before 1 July 2001 and no later than 30 June 2002, annual reports on all State aid schemes in the agricultural sector existing during 2000 and 2001, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 88(1) EC and Article 21 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC], as implemented by the Commission communication entitled ‘Community Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector’, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 1 February 2000;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 May 1998 in Case C-386/96 P: Société Louis Dreyfus & Cie v. Commission of the European Communities (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States of the former Soviet Union - Loan - Documentary credit - Action for annulment - Admissibility - 'Directly concerned')

text:
4.7.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/9
Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no            4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its
factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1 of                own costs.
Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on
emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform            (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
encephalopathy.
(1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 May 1998
                                                                   in Case C-386/96 P: SocieÂteÂ Louis Dreyfus & Cie v.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                       of 5 May 1998
                                                                   (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the
in Case C-180/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð
Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European                     Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð
Communities, supported by Council of the European                              Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')
                          Union (1)
                                                                                (98/C 209/18)
(Agriculture Ð Animal health Ð Emergency measures
against bovine spongiform encephalopathy Ð Mad cow                                (Language of the case: French)
                           disease')
                        (98/C 209/17)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   In Case C-386/96 P: SocieÂteÂ Louis Dreyfus & Cie, a
                                                                   company incorporated under French law, established in
In Case C-180/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              Paris, represented by Robert Saint-Esteben, of the Paris
Northern Ireland (Agents: Lindsey Nicoll, assisted by              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Nicholas Lyell, Paul Lasok and David Anderson) v.                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue Ð appeal
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Dierk              against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
Booû and James Macdonald Flett), supported by Council              European Communities (Third Chamber) of 24 September
of the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam and                1996 in Case T-485/93 Dreyfus v. Commission [1996]
Moyra Sims) Ð application for annulment of Commission              ECR II-1101, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency                   other party to the proceedings being the Commission of
measures to protect against bovine spongiform                      the European Communities represented by Marie-JoseÂ
encephalopathy (OJ L 78 of 28.3.1996, p. 47) and of                Jonczy, Legal Adviser, and Nicholas Khan Ð the Court,
certain other acts of the Commission Ð the Court,                  composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.               C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen                   and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho            J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                   D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),          L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:
Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                  A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in
5 May 1998, in which it:                                           which it:
1. Declares the action brought by the United Kingdom of            1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    Great Britain and Northern Ireland inadmissible in so               24 September 1996 in Case T-485/93 Dreyfus v.
    far as it seeks annulment of the Commission's                       Commission in so far as it dismisses as inadmissible
    statements of position of 10 April, 13 April and 8 May              the action for annulment brought by Louis Dreyfus &
    1996.                                                               Cie.
2. Dismisses the action brought by the United Kingdom              2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
    of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in so far as it               judgment on the substance.
    seeks annulment of Commission Decision 96/239/EC
    of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect              3. Reserves costs.
    against bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
    Northern Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-516/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — Framework for Community action in the field of water policy — Designation of competent authorities for hydrographic districts)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-516/07) (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for Community action in the field of water policy - Designation of competent authorities for hydrographic districts)
   2009/C 153/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Article 3(2), (7) and (8) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1)

      Operative part

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to designate the competent authorities for the application of the rules of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) and (7) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case F-24/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Abarca Montiel and Others v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/33

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Abarca Montiel and Others v Commission
   (Case F-24/06)
   (2006/C 108/61)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Sabrina Abarca Montiel and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment (AACC) of 21 November 2005 rejecting the complaints made by the applicants on various dates between 26 July 2005 and 17 August 2005, criticising the administrative decisions which fixed the grading and remuneration of each of the applicants and also criticising Article 7 of the decision adopted by the College of Commissioners on 27 April 2005 containing the ‘General implementing provisions for the transitional measures applicable to staff employed by the Office for Infrastructure in Brussels in the day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels’ (GIP) and Annexes I and II to that decision;

               —

               also, in so far as necessary, annulment of the decisions against which the abovementioned complaints were directed;

               —

               an order that the Commission of the European Communities is to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who are currently contract staff working in the day nurseries and kindergartens in Brussels, were already performing the same work under employment contracts subject to Belgian law before they were appointed as contract staff. They dispute their grading and their remuneration fixed by the defendant on their appointment as contract staff.
   In the first plea in law of their application, the applicants submit that by application of the GIP and other provisions relating to the Commission's contract staff, they should have been graded in function group III instead of in function group II, in view of their qualifications and their length of service.
   In the second plea in law, the applicants complain, inter alia, that they have not benefited from the minimum remuneration laid down in Article 6 of the GIP.
   In the third plea in law, the applicants claim infringement of Article 2(2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS), of the Memorandum of Agreement concluded on 22 January 2002 between the Commission and the delegation of the staff of the day nurseries and kindergartens on contracts governed by Belgian law, of the principle of non-discrimination and of the general principles applicable in social security matters. In particular, calculation of the remuneration to be guaranteed to the applicants should not have taken child allowances into account.


title: Case T-117/15: Action brought on 4 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/28

         Action brought on 4 March 2015 — Estonia v Commission
   (Case T-117/15)
   (2015/C 171/33)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: Kristi Kraavi-Käerdi, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision contained in the European Commission’s letter of 22 December 2014 (Ares(2014)4324235) declining to amend European Commission Decision 2006/776/EC on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is contrary to point 2 of Chapter 4 of Annex IV to the Act of Accession (2) in conjunction with Article 58 of the Act of Accession

                           —

                           According to the applicant, it follows from the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450) that Commission Decision 2006/776 was contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession even from the time of its adoption, and the Commission should have amended it. Since, in the contested decision, the Commission declined to amend Decision 2006/776, the contested decision too is contrary to those provisions of the Act of Accession.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of good administration

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the Commission is under an obligation, pursuant to the principle of good administration, to apply legal acts in accordance with the interpretations given by the Court of Justice. Since the Commission did not bring Decision 2006/776 into harmony with EU law, deriving from the judgments of the General Court in Czech Republic v Commission (T-248/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:170) and Lithuania v Commission (T-262/07, ECR, EU:T:2012:171) and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pimix (C-146/11, EU:C:2012:450), it thus infringed the principle of good administration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           According to the applicant, the contested decision and Decision 2006/776 are contrary to the principle of proportionality, since Estonia cannot rely against individuals on Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 (3) and its obligations under those decisions are confined to payment into the EU budget and do not make it possible to attain the objectives of the system of eliminating surplus stocks of sugar.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s DG Agriculture and Rural Development lacked competence to adopt the contested decision

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the decision whether to amend Commission Decision 2006/776 should have been adopted by the college of commissioners. It is a decision of principle whose adoption may not be delegated.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2006/776/EC of 13 November 2006 on the amounts to be charged for the quantities of surplus sugar not eliminated (OJ 2006 L 314, p. 35).

      (2)  Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8).


C 55/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.98
survivor's pensions for workers provides as follows: A                 Removal from the register of Case C-169/97 (1)
worker who was employed as a worker during the period                                      (98/C 55/43)
between 1 January 1938 and 1 January 1945 and in
respect of whom a contribution was paid of an amount              By order of 18 September 1997 the President of the Court
equivalent to the annual amount referred to in                    of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
paragraph 2, is deemed to have paid sufficient                    removal from the register of Case C-169/97: Commission
contributions to establish that he was normally and               of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
principally employed during the entire period comprised
between the date on which the period of employment                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
established came to an end and 1 January 1946.'
Article 32b(6) of the aforesaid Royal Decree of
21 December 1967 provides as follows: The presumption
laid down in the two aforesaid paragraphs is rebuttable
only in respect of periods for which the person concerned               Removal from the register of Case C-193/96 (1)
can claim a pension under another Belgian scheme, with                                     (98/C 55/44)
the exception of the scheme for self-employed workers, or
under the scheme of a foreign country.'                           By order of 25 September 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Is a provision such as Article 32b(6) of the Royal Decree         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
of 21 December 1967 a provision on reduction,                     Case C-193/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
suspension or withdrawal laid down by the legislation of a        the Verwaltungsgericht Köln): Richard Buchen GmbH v.
Member State, as referred to in Article 46b(2) of                 Bezirksregierung Köln.
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, which does not apply to a
benefit calculated in accordance with Article 46(1)(a)(i)?        (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (1)
                         (98/C 55/42)                                                      (98/C 55/45)
By order of 12 September 1997 the President of the Court          By order of 5 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the            of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-322/96 (reference for         removal from the register of Case C-205/97 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                    a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo): ICT Ð InduÂstria e ComeÂrcio TeÃxtil SA v.       Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)): Fazenda
Fazenda PuÂblica.                                                 PuÂblica v. AssociacËaÄo Nacional de Transportes PuÂblicos
                                                                  RodoviaÂrios de Mercadorias (Antram) in the presence of
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                          MinisteÂrio PuÂblico.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.


title: Case C-414/05: Action brought on  23 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/16

         Action brought on 23 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-414/05)
   (2006/C 10/32)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to take the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/94/EC of 8 October 2003 laying down the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice in respect of medicinal products for human use and investigational medicinal products for human use (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
               and

               2.

               declare that, in any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission the legislative, regulatory and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/94/EC of 8 October 2003 laying down the principles and guidelines of good manufacturing practice in respect of medicinal products for human use and investigational medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,

               3.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission points out that the period for transposing that directive expired on 30 April 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 262, 14.10.2003, p. 22


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Gerichtshof, Austria by judgment of that court of 30 June 1998 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH (Case C-254/98)

text:
C 278/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the principles developed
by the case-law cited in its claim apply to professions and
situations which fall within the scope of general system'          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
Directives or sectorial' Directives but in which the               those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed for
conditions needing to be fulfilled under those Directives in        the transposition of the Directive expired on 1 February
order to enjoy recognition have not been complied with.             1997.
Even where a Directive concerning the mutual recognition
of diplomas does not apply, the Member States are obliged
to ensure freedom of movement for migrant workers,                  (1) OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 8.
                                                                    (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
whether they are employed or self-employed. It would be
inconsistent for Directives which are designed to provide
for mutual recognition to have a restrictive effect on
freedom of establishment by denying a Community
national holding a diploma which does not fulfil the
conditions laid down by those Directives the possibility of
relying on the Vlassopoulou case-law when he could
certainly have done so in the absence of such Directives.           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof, Austria by judgment of that court of 30 June
                                                                    1998 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
(1) Judgment of 15 October 1987 in Case 222/86 Heylens [1987]             Wettbewerb against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH
    ECR p. 4097.
(2) Judgment of 7 May 1991 in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou                                    (Case C-254/98)
    [1991] ECR I-2357.                                                                        (98/C 278/43)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by judgment of the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, received at the
                                                                    Court Registry on 13 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the             in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium               against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH on the following
                                                                    question:
                       (Case C-253/98)
                        (98/C 278/42)
                                                                    Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                    precluding legislation under which bakers, butchers and
                                                                    grocers may not offer for sale on rounds from locality to
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                locality or from door to door goods which they are
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             entitled to sell under the terms of their trading licence
on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                   unless they also carry on their trade from fixed business
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal                     premises situated in the administrative district in which
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting           they offer the goods for sale in the abovementioned
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             manner or in a municipality adjacent thereto, and
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,               furthermore may offer for sale on rounds from locality to
Kirchberg.                                                          locality or from door to door only such goods as are also
                                                                    offered for sale at the said fixed business premises?
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           Action brought on 14 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain
     and administrative measures necessary in order to                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     comply with Commission Directive 96/40/EC of                                           (Case C-255/98)
     25 June 1996 establishing a common model for an
     identity card for inspectors carrying out port State                                     (98/C 278/44)
     control (1), alternatively by failing within the
     prescribed time limit to communicate the measures
     necessary to comply therewith, the Kingdom of                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     Article 2 of that Directive and under the EC Treaty,           the European Communities on 14 July 1998 by the


title: Case C-85/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 23 February 1999, in the maintenance proceedings concerning the minors Vincent and Esther Offermanns, represented by their mother, Barbara Schröder-Offermanns

text:
19.6.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 174/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster                          for children (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz 1985) [Law on
Gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 23 February                  advance payments of maintenance 1985], hereinafter
1999, in the maintenance proceedings concerning the                         ‘UVG’ — current version in BGBl. p. 451) discriminated
minors Vincent and Esther Offermanns, represented by                        against contrary to Article 52 of the EC Treaty or
        their mother, Barbara Schröder-Offermanns                           Article 6(1) of the EC Treaty by virtue of the fact that
                                                                            entitlement to such an advance is withheld from them
                                                                            under Paragraph 2(1) of the UVG on the ground that they
                         (Case C-85/99)                                     are German nationals?
                                                                        (1) OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2.
                        (1999/C 174/01)                                 (2) OJ 1984 L 230, p. 6.
                                                                        (3) OJ 1989 L 331, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Supreme Court), Vienna, of 23 February 1999, received at the
Court Registry on 10 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
the maintenance proceedings concerning the minors Vincent
and Esther Offermanns, represented by their mother, Barbara             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzh-
Schröder-Offermanns, on the following questions:                        of by order of that court of 2 February 1999 in the case
                                                                        of Emsland-Stärke GmbH against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-
I.  Are advances on maintenance payments to the minor                                                 Jonas
    children of self-employed persons under the Austrian
    Federal Law on the grant of advances on maintenance                                          (Case C-110/99)
    payable in respect of children (Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz
    1985 [Law on advance payments of maintenance 1985],                                          (1999/C 174/02)
    hereinafter ‘UVG’ — current version in BGBl. p. 451)
    family benefits under Article 4(1)(h) of Council Regulation         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application             European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
    of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-            (Federal Finance Court, Germany) of 2 February 1999, received
    employed persons and to members of their families                   at the Court Registry on 31 March 1999, for a preliminary
    moving within the Community, as amended and updated                 ruling in the case of Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Hauptzollamt
    by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (2) of 2 June 1983 and               Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:
    amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 (3) of
    30 October 1989, and is Article 3 of the regulation                 On a proper interpretation of Article 10(1) in conjunction
    concerning equal treatment therefore applicable in such a           with Article 20(2) to (6) of Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79, does
    case?                                                               an exporter lose his right to payment of an export refund,
                                                                        determined at a single rate for all non-member countries
II. Should Question 1 be answered in the negative:                      without variation according to destination, if the product in
                                                                        respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold
                                                                        to a purchaser established in a non-member country, is,
    Are minor children who, like their parents — who are                immediately after its release into free circulation in that
    self-employed in Austria — are German nationals but                 non-member country, transported back to the Community
    ordinarily resident in Austria and who are applying for the         under the external Community transit procedure and is there
    grant of an advance on maintenance under the Austrian               released into free circulation on payment of import duties,
    Federal Law on the grant of advances on maintenance                 without any infringement being established?


title: Case T-580/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Kindertraum — Earlier national word mark Kinder — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier trade mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2012 — Wohlfahrt v OHIM — Ferrero (Kindertraum)
   (Case T-580/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Kindertraum - Earlier national word mark Kinder - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of the earlier trade mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 194/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Harald Wohlfahrt (Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Germany) (represented initially by N. Scholz Recht, then by G. Huβlein-Stich, latterly by M. Loschelder, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by A. Pohlmann, then D. Walicka, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Ferrero SpA (Alba, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci and L. Ghedina, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 October 2010 (Case R 815/2009-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ferrero SpA and Mr Harald Wohlfahrt.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Harald Wohlfahrt to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011


title: Removal from the register of T-78/95

text:
8 . 3 . 97               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 74/27
Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Bruno Chauvin                     only to newly recruited officials. In the applicant's view,
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  such a restriction on the temporal effects of the revocation
                           ( Case T-16/97)                             of the decision previously in force gives rise to inequalities
                                                                       in the treatment of officials appointed under the old rules .
                             ( 97/C 74/54 )
                                                                       It is precisely with a view to avoiding such discrimination
                   (Language of the case: French)                      that he is seeking the re-examination of his classification
                                                                       in grade . Consequently, the applicant once again asserts
An action against the Commission of European                           that there has been an infringement of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Staff Regulations.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
1997 by Bruno Chauvin, residing in Brussels, represented               Secondly, the applicant alleges that the appointing
by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            authority failed to observe its duty to have regard for the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson               welfare and interests of          officials, in that the defendant
Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .                                             failed to take account of        the applicant's personal interests
                                                                       following delivery of              the aforesaid judgment in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Alexopoulou and the              adoption of the decision of
                                                                       7 February 1996 . He points out in that regard that the
— annul the Commission's decision of 16 June 1996                      Commission has for a number of years taken the view that
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    judgments of the Community judicature establishing
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31           principles of general application in respect of classification
      ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                  in grade are to be applied retroactively.
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   The applicant considers, in any event, that the contested
     adopted by the Commission implicitly rejecting the                decision is vitiated by the absence of any statement of
      applicant's complaint,                                           reasons and by a manifest error of assessment.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                       o [ 19951 ECR-SC 11-683 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a grade A 7 official in Directorate
General VI (Agriculture ) whose appointment and
classification in that grade took place prior to 5 October
1995 , on which date the Court of First Instance                                  Removal from the register of T-78/95 (*)
delivered its judgment in Case T- 17/95 Alexopoulou v.                                              ( 97/C 74/55 )
Commission O , contests the refusal of the appointing
authority to re-examine, in the light of the principle                                 (Language of the case: English)
emanating from that judgment, the conditions in which
that classification was effected .                                     By order of 9 December 1996 the President of the Second
                                                                       Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
In support of his claims, he maintains, first of all, that             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
there has been an infringement of Article 31 (2 ) of the               removal from the register of Case T-78/95 : NMB France
Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the general decision of                 Sari and Others v. Commission of the European
7 February 1996 , by which the Commission sought to                    Communities .
introduce into its administrative practice the grading
criteria arising from the aforesaid judgment, is applicable            ( ] ) OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 .