title: Case T-837/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Sweden v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/37

         Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Sweden v Commission
   (Case T-837/16)
   (2017/C 038/50)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and F. Bergius, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2016) 5644 of 7 September 2016 granting an authorisation for some uses of lead sulfochromate yellow and of lead chromate molybdate sulphate red under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (the contested decision), and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has exceeded its implementing powers under Article 291(2) TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006.

                           —

                           The Commission has exceeded its implementing powers by disregarding Articles 55 and 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 and granting the authorisation applied for without the conditions laid down in the regulation for such a grant being satisfied and contrary to the aim of the regulation.

                           —

                           The Commission has disregarded Article 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 by granting authorisation without carrying out its own assessment of the conditions for that grant in accordance with that article and without sufficiently investigating whether the conditions for granting the authorisation under that article are satisfied.

                           —

                           The Commission has also disregarded Article 55 of Regulation No 1907/2006 by granting the authorisation contrary to the aim of the authorisation system, inter alia, to ensure a well-functioning internal market and gradually replace substances of very high concern with suitable alternative substances or techniques, where that is economically and technically feasible.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission has made a manifestly incorrect assessment and an incorrect application of the law.

                           —

                           The same facts as those stated with regard to the first plea in law are also relied on in respect of this plea in law. The Commission's disregard of Articles 55 and 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006, as described above, thus also means that, in the contested decision, the Commission has made a clearly incorrect assessment and incorrect application of the law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to have regard to the precautionary principle and the obligation to state reasons.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to have regard to the precautionary principle by granting authorisation without carrying out its own assessment of the conditions therefor under Article 60(4) of Regulation No 1907/2006 and without sufficiently investigating whether the conditions for grant of authorisation under that article are satisfied.

                           —

                           In any event, the Commission has failed to have regard to its obligation to state reasons which flows from Article 296 TFEU, Article 130 of Regulation No 1907/2006 and the principle of sound administration, since it is not possible to discern from the contested decision how the Commission assessed whether the conditions for the grant of authorisation in accordance with Article 60(4) of the regulation are satisfied.


title: Case F-38/15: Action brought on 6 March 2015 — FJ v Parliament

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/26

         Action brought on 6 March 2015 — FJ v Parliament
   (Case F-38/15)
   (2015/C 178/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request to cover certain non-medical costs incurred for the applicant’s son.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the appointing authority’s decision of 18 June 2014 not to cover certain non-medical expenses which are not reimbursed by the JSIS, resulting from the disability of the applicant’s son, is unlawful;

               —

               in the alternative, order the appointment of an expert in accordance with Article 75 of the Rules of Procedure in order to determine the rate of incapacity resulting from the disability;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-187/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola (SFIR) SpA v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola (SFIR) SpA v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
   (Case C-187/12)
   2012/C 194/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola (SFIR) SpA

      Respondents: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali AGEA — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura

      Questions referred

   Must the full dismantling of the production facilities for sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup, pursuant to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006, (1) the detailed rules for the implementation of which are set out in Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the facilities to be dismantled are those necessary for production, as specifically laid down in the abovementioned Article 3 of the Council regulation, in accordance with which the Commission regulation must itself be interpreted, failing which the latter regulation will be invalid? Consequently, pursuant to the abovementioned Article 3 of Council Regulation No 320/2006 and Article 4 of Commission Regulation No 968/2006, do the facilities to be dismantled include only those intended for the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup, and the other facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 968/2006, including packaging facilities, that have been left unused and must be dismantled and removed for environmental reasons? Consequently, may those facilities not linked to the production of sugar, isoglucose and inulin syrup, and not left unused but used for other activities such as, in this case, packaging, and not subject to the obligation of removal for environmental reasons be kept, because they are not subject to the dismantling obligation under the above Community regulations?

      (1)  OJ L 58, p. 42.

      (2)  OJ L 176, p. 32.


title: Case T-34/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/32

         Action brought on 26 January 2016 — Republic of Lithuania v Commission

   (Case T-34/16)
   (2016/C 118/37)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė and T. Orlickas, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 7716) in so far as that decision provides for a financial correction of EUR 1 113 589,65 to be applied to Lithuania;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008, applied in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:

                           —

                           failed to take into account the fact that the specific and precise damage caused to the European Union was established by reason of the first and fourth infringements found by the Commission; therefore, in regard to those infringements, the Commission ought to have established only a one-off financial correction and ought no longer to have taken account of those infringements in conjunction with other infringements when seeking to establish whether there was a significant risk of financial loss to the Fund;

                           —

                           unjustifiably broke down directly related infringements and thereby artificially created an allegedly significant risk of loss to the Fund;

                           —

                           incorrectly determined and incorrectly took into account, whilst assessing the other infringements found by it, the extent of the discrepancy, the nature of the infringements and the financial damage caused to the European Union;

                           —

                           improperly applied an excessive 5 % financial correction for 2011 because, taking into account the nature of the infringements found by the Commission and other circumstances, the resultant risk of loss to the Fund was not significant;

                           —

                           improperly applied a 5 % financial correction for 2012 because application thereof is provided for only in cases where there is a significant resultant risk of loss to the Fund, even though the checks carried out by the Republic of Lithuania and the information provided established that the number, extent and nature of the discrepancies established for 2012 and the resultant risk to the Fund are significantly lower in comparison with the discrepancies established in 2011; consequently, only a small financial risk to the Fund could have arisen.

               2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1122/2009 of 30 November 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for in that regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector, inasmuch as the Commission did not take the view that on-the-spot checks of ovine and bovine animals could take place at different times, with the result that that particular infringement is not as significant as the Commission indicates.

               3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, inasmuch as, in deciding to apply a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission:

                           —

                           failed to provide proper reasons for and substantiate its finding of infringements or the nature of such infringements and the resultant risk to the Fund;

                           —

                           did not provide reasons why the discrepancies established in 2011 and 2012 for the purpose of applying the 5 % financial correction were assessed jointly even though their number and nature differed significantly in each year, and, in any event, did not provide any convincing reasons why a uniform flat-rate correction of 5 % has to be imposed for the discrepancies established in 2012 and for those established in 2011.


title: Case T-148/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/26

         Action brought on 14 March 2013 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission
   (Case T-148/13)
   2013/C 123/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul notice of open competition EPSO/AST/125/12 — Assistants (AST 3), and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the Kingdom of Spain seeks the annulment of the notice of open competition referred to above for infringement of Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 342 TFEU, Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59), Articles 1d and 27 of the Staff Regulations and the case-law in Case C-566/10 P Italy v Commission.
   In support of the action, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the notice of competition in respect of which annulment is sought:

               —

               discriminates against candidates whose first language is not English, French or German;

               —

               does not justify objectively and in a concrete manner the limitation of the number of languages in the light of the positions to which the notice relates; the mere general statement relating to ‘the interests of the service’ is not sufficient in that regard;

               —

               it is not in line with the objective of selecting candidates with the highest standard of ability, efficiency and integrity;

               —

               infringes the principle of proportionality, in that it does not ensure a balance between the efficiency of the service and the principle of guaranteeing multilingualism in the European Union.


title: Case T-219/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission (Application for interim measures — Public service contracts — Call for tenders concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a railway modernisation project — Exclusion of the applicant from participating in that tendering procedure — Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action had been brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission
   (Case T-219/12 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a railway modernisation project - Exclusion of the applicant from participating in that tendering procedure - Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action had been brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 399/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application seeking, in essence, interim measures ordering suspension of the tendering procedure in the context of the contract notice published on 27 March 2012 concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a railway modernisation project and excluding the applicant from participating in the tendering procedure.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear the costs.


title: Case C-404/04 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Schott AG (formerly Schott Glas) (Appeal — State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Contractual promise of payment — Disappearance of an essential condition of the contract — New pleas and arguments — Substitution of reasons — Application for the hearing of witnesses — Test of a private creditor — Grounds of the judgment of the Court of First Instance — Determination of the amount of aid — Article 87(3)(c) EC — Right to be heard — Breach, in respect of the Member State concerned, of the rights of the defence)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January 2007 — Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Schott AG (formerly Schott Glas)
   (Case C-404/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Article 87(1) EC - Contractual promise of payment - Disappearance of an essential condition of the contract - New pleas and arguments - Substitution of reasons - Application for the hearing of witnesses - Test of a private creditor - Grounds of the judgment of the Court of First Instance - Determination of the amount of aid - Article 87(3)(c) EC - Right to be heard - Breach, in respect of the Member State concerned, of the rights of the defence)
   (2007/C 42/03)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (represented by: C. Arhold and N. Wimmer, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and V. Kreuschitz, Agents), Schott AG (formerly Schott Glas) (represented by: U. Soltész, Rechtsanwalt)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-198/01 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission dismissing the action for annulment of Commission Decision 2002/185/EC of 12 June 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH (Germany) (OJ 2002 L 62, p 30)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the total costs of the Commission of the European Communities related to the interlocutory proceedings and to these proceedings.

               3.

               Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the costs incurred by Schott AG in the interlocutory proceedings.

               4.

               Orders Schott AG to bear its own costs related to these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-499/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 19 October 2010 — Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij v F.O.D. Financiën

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) lodged on 19 October 2010 — Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij v F.O.D. Financiën
   (Case C-499/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij

      Defendant: F.O.D. Financiën

      Question referred

   Does the former Article 21(3) of the Sixth Directive (77/388), (1) now incorporated in Article 205 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in conjunction with Articles 202 and 157(1)(b) of the same Directive, authorise the Member States to provide that a warehouse-keeper other than a customs warehouse-keeper is jointly and severally liable, unconditionally, for the tax which is owing on a supply of goods made for valuable consideration by the owner of the goods who is liable for the tax on those goods, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him (Article 51a(3) of the Wetboek van de belasting over toegevoegde waarde (WBTW).

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1


title: Case F-29/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Y v Commission (Contract staff — Dismissal for obviously inadequate work — Conduct in the service inadequate)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Y v Commission
   (Case F-29/08) (1)

   (Contract staff - Dismissal for obviously inadequate work - Conduct in the service inadequate)
   2009/C 297/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Y (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 24 May 2007 to dismiss the applicant as a member of the contract staff on account of the applicant’s allegedly inadequate conduct in the service and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Y to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, of 09.05.2008 p. 35.


title: Case C-672/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 29 December 2016 — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) (Portugal) lodged on 29 December 2016 — Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira
   (Case C-672/16)
   (2017/C 086/17)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Imofloresmira — Investimentos Imobiliários S.A.

      Defendant: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

      Questions referred

               (1)

               When a property, despite being unoccupied for the period of two or more years, is being marketed, that is it is available on the market to be let or for the provision of ‘office centre’ services, and it is established that the owner intends to let the property subject to VAT and has made the necessary efforts to give effect to that intention, is the characterisation as a ‘failure actually to use the property for the purposes of the business’ and/or ‘failure actually to use the property in taxed transactions’ — for the purposes of Article 26(1) of the VAT Code and Article 10(1)(b) of the Regime for the Waiver of the VAT exemption in Transactions relating to Immovable Property, introduced by Decree-Law No 21 of 29 January 2007, in their earlier versions — and therefore adopting the view that the deduction initially made must be adjusted, since it is above the amount to which the taxable person was entitled, compatible with Articles 167, 168, 184, 185 and 187 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006?

               (2)

               If the answer is in the affirmative, may that adjustment, having regard to the correct interpretation of Articles 137, 167, 168, 184, 185 and 187 of … Directive 2006/112/EC …, be imposed only once for the entirety of the period yet to expire — as laid down in the Portuguese legislation, in Article 10(1)(b) and (c) of the Regime for the Waiver of the VAT exemption in Transactions relating to Immovable Property, introduced by Decree-Law No 21 of 29 January 2007, in its earlier version — where the property has been unoccupied for more than two years, but still marketed to be let (with the possibility of waiver) and/or for the provision of services (taxable), with the aim of assigning the property in subsequent years to taxed activities which confer the right to deduct?

               (3)

               Is Article 2(2)(c) of the Regime for the Waiver of the VAT exemption in Transactions relating to Immovable Property introduced by Decree-Law No 21 of 29 January 2007, in conjunction with Article 10(1)(b) of that regime, compatible with Articles 137, 167, 168 and 184 of … Directive 2006/112/EC …, in making it impossible for a taxable person for VAT to waive the VAT exemption when entering into new leases after a single adjustment to VAT has been made and in undermining the subsequent deduction regime during the adjustment period?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.)


title: Case T-197/05: Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/31

         Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-197/05)
   (2005/C 193/52)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 May 2005 by Asa Sundholm, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin Membiela, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Commission establishing the applicant's Career Development Report for 2003;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her claim, the applicant points out, firstly, the existence of manifest inconsistencies between the points and the comments of the reporting officer, which constitute a breach of the obligation to give reasons.
   The applicant further submits that there is a manifest error of assessment to the extent that she is criticised for having asked her hierarchical superiors for details of the way in which she should complete her work, without their having shown that those instructions had been previously laid down in such a way that they did not require clarification.
   Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of her defence rights, submitting that the appeal assessor based his decision on new factors without affording her the opportunity of stating her point of view.


title: Case F-29/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — BA v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/147/09 — Creation of a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators having Romanian citizenship — In-depth knowledge of the official language of Romania — Hungarian language minority in Romania — Not admitted to the oral test — Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination — Scope)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 December 2012 — BA v Commission
   (Case F-29/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/147/09 - Creation of a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators having Romanian citizenship - In-depth knowledge of the official language of Romania - Hungarian language minority in Romania - Not admitted to the oral test - Principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination - Scope)
   2013/C 46/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BA (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented: initially by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers and subsequently by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Eggers and P. Pecho, acting as Agents, and subsequently by B. Eggers, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Civil service — Action for annulment of the selection board’s decision in competition EPSO/AD/147/09-RO not to admit the applicant to the oral test in that competition.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BA to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 173, 11.6.2011, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-117/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 3/26                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   5.1.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 10 October 2001                                                      of 19 September 2001
in Case T-111/00: British American Tobacco International                   in Case T-117/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office
(Investments) Ltd v Commission of the European Com-                        for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                              munities (1)                                                     and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
(Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
                                                                           machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Commission documents — Minutes of the Committee on
                                                                           Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
Excise Duties — Partial access — Exception — Identities of
                                                                                (EC) No 40/94)
national delegations — Protection of an institution’s interest
            in the confidentiality of its proceedings)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/44)
                            (2002/C 3/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-117/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in
                                                                           Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by
In Case T-111/00: British American Tobacco International                   C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address
(Investments) Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),                 for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation
represented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, against Commission of the             in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis) —                    (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)
application for annulment of the Commission’s decision                     — application brought against the decision of the First Board
partially refusing an application for access to certain minutes            of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
of the Committee on Excise Duties — the Court of First                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2000 (Case
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,            R-509/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on
M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has               13 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second
given a judgment on 10 October 2001, in which it:                          Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki
                                                                           and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in
                                                                           which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision partially to reject an appli-
      cation for access to certain minutes of the Committee on Excise
      Duties.
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                  (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case C-109/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgerichts (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgerichts (Germany) lodged on 23 March 2009 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v Gertraud Kumpan
   (Case C-109/09)
   2009/C 141/44
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Defendant: Gertraud Kumpan

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 1, Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and/or the general principles of Community law to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, which entered into force on 1 January 2001, under which fixed term employment contracts may be agreed without further conditions with workers simply because the latter have reached the age of 58?

               2.

               Is Clause 5(1) of the ETUC-UNICE-CEEP Framework Agreement, which was implemented by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (2) to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes a provision of national law which, without further conditions, allows the conclusion over an indefinite period of an unlimited number of successive fixed term employment contracts without objective grounds, simply because the worker has reached the age of 58 by the time the fixed term employment relationship begins and there is no close objective connection with a previous employment relationship of indefinite duration with the same employer?

               3.

               If Questions 1 and/or 2 are answered in the affirmative:
               Must the national courts disapply the provision of national law?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


12 . 8 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/37
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-107/93 and                         Removal from the register of Case T-l 97/93 (*)
                                others (M                                                           ( 95 /C 208/ 80 )
                           ( 95/C 208/77 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,            Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the              European Communities ordered the removal from the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                        register of Case T-l 97/93 : Friedrich Bethke v. Council of the
register of Joined Cases T-107/93 : Christian Hansen,                    European Union and Commission of the European
T-109/93 : Liesa Thomsen, T-136/93 : Herbert Sonnenberg,                 Communities .
T-153/93 : F. Steensen-Feddersen, T-178/93 : H.-P . Fock,
T-180/93 : E. Ebsen, T-182/93 : R.-D . Tetens, T-192/93 : M.             (') OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Hansen, T-193/93 : H. Ketelsen, T-194/93 : Ch . Jessen,
T-212/93 : H. Thomsen, T-219/93 : H. Johannsen,
T-226/93 : J. Nielsen, T-227/93 : T. Petersen, T-228/93 : J. H.
Sell, T-229/93 : K. Friedrichsen, T-230/93 : K. Ingwersen,
T-232/93 : J. Johannsen, T-236/93 : P. Carstensen,
T-239/93 : P. A. Petersen and T-240/93 : U. Dethlefsen v.                Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-198/93 ,
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                                 T-199/93 , T-200/93 and T-204/93 (')
European Communities .
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/81 )
(M OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 ; OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 ; OJ No C 109 ,
     29 . 4 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Joined Cases T-198/93 , T-199/93 , T-200/93 and
       Removal from the register of Case T-122/93 ( )                    T-204/93 : Detlef Maack and Others v. Commission of the
                            ( 95/C 208/78 )                              European Communities .
                  (Language of the case: German)                         m OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case T-122/93 : Franz-Joseph Kliemann v.
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                             Removal from the register of Case T-17/94 (')
European Communities .                                                                               ( 95/C 208/ 82 )
 (') OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .                                                           (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         By order of 22 June 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
 Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and                  T-17/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                              T-145/93 (')                                Communities .
                             ( 95 /C 208/79 )
                                                                          (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                  (Language of the case: German)
 By order of 29 June 1 995 the President of the First Chamber,
 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
 European Communities ordered the removal from the                             Removal from the register of Case T-228/94 (')
 register of Joined Cases T-144/93 and T-145/93 : Ernst Theis
 and Karl Leonhauser v. Council of the European Union and                                             ( 95/C 208/83 )
 Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
 (') OJ No C 50 , 26 . 2 . 1991 and OJ No C 146 , 5 . 6 . 1991 .
                                                                          By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                          Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/38           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               12 . 8 . 95
European Communities ordered the removal from the                     T-240/94 : Imre Czigany v. Commission of the European
register of Case T-228/94 : Anton Rusp v. Council of the              Communities .
European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .                                                         (M OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
(») OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-95/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 95/C 208/85 )
     Removal from the register of Case T-240/94 ( )                                 (Language of the case: French)
                          ( 95/C 208/ 84 )
                                                                      By order of 20 June 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
             (Language of the case: German)                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-95/95 : Didier Gambier v. Commission of the European
By order of 19 June 1995 the President of the Third                   Communities .
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case             (M OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case C-342/13: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Katalin Sebestyén v Zsolt Csaba Kővári, OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt, Raiffeisen Bank Zrt (Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Contract for a mortgage loan concluded with a bank — Clause providing for the exclusive competence of a single arbitration tribunal — Information on the arbitration procedure provided by the bank at the conclusion of the contract — Unfair terms — Criteria for assessment)

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/8

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Katalin Sebestyén v Zsolt Csaba Kővári, OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt, Raiffeisen Bank Zrt
   (Case C-342/13) (1)

   ((Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Contract for a mortgage loan concluded with a bank - Clause providing for the exclusive competence of a single arbitration tribunal - Information on the arbitration procedure provided by the bank at the conclusion of the contract - Unfair terms - Criteria for assessment))
   2014/C 184/11
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Katalin Sebestyén

      Defendants: Zsolt Csaba Kővári, OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt, Raiffeisen Bank Zrt

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Szombathelyi Törvényszék — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ L 95, p. 29) — Individual having concluded with a bank a contract for a mortgage loan with a clause providing for the exclusive jurisdiction of a body of arbitrators — National legislation providing no right of appeal against arbitration decisions — Explanations concerning the arbitration procedure supplied by the bank at the time the contract was concluded

      Operative part of the order

   Article 3(1) and (3) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, and point 1(q) of the Annex to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court concerned to determine whether a clause contained in a mortgage loan contract concluded between a bank and a consumer — vesting exclusive jurisdiction in a permanent arbitration tribunal, against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, to hear all disputes arising out of that contract — must, having regard to all of the circumstances surrounding the conclusion of that contract, be regarded as unfair under those provisions. In the context of its assessment, the national court must, in particular:

               —

               verify whether the clause at issue has the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy; and

               —

               take account of the fact that the communication to the consumer, before the conclusion of the contract at issue, of general information on the differences between the arbitration procedure and ordinary legal proceedings cannot alone rule out the unfairness of that clause.
               If the clause is held to be unfair, it is for that court to draw the appropriate conclusions under national law in order to ensure that the consumer is not bound by that clause.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16. 11. 2013.


title: Removal from the register of C-205/90

text:
No C 166/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31 . 5 . 97
Article 23 ( 2 ) ( relating to fire protection equipment) —                       Removal from the register of C-205/90 ( ] )
technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 ( 5 )                                        ( 97/C 166/24 )
of Directive 83/ 189/EEC .
                                                                       By order of 20 February 1997 the President of the Court
(') OJ No L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 .                                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                       removal from the register of Case C-205/90 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel
                                                                       te Kortrijk ): Les Assurances du Credit Namur SA v.
                                                                       1 . PVBA 'Bowy' and 2 . G. Decoopman .
                                                                       ( 1 ) OJ No C 212, 25 . 8 . 1990 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunal, London, by direction of that court of 7 April
1997, in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry
      against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                          Case C-149/97 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 126/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 166/23 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/25
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
European Communities by direction of the VAT and                       of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Duties Tribunal of 7 April 1997, which was received at                 removal from the register of Case C-126/96 ( reference for
the Court Registry on 17 April 1997, for a preliminary                 a preliminary ruling from Her Majesty's Court of Session
ruling in the case of The Institute of the Motor Industry              in Scotland, Edinburgh ): Marie Brizard and Roger
against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the                International SA v. William Grant & Sons ( International )
                                                                       Ltd and William Grant & Sons Ltd .
following question :
                                                                       (!) OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
'In the light of the findings of fact in paragraph 3—19 and
21 of the Decision of the Tribunal and in circumstances of
the sort found in paragraph 21 (which is summarized
below ), are the services supplied by such an association,
being a non-profit-making organization, exempt from VAT
as falling within the scope of Article 13A.1 ( 1 ) of the                         Removal from the register of C-133/96 ( ')
Sixth Directive ( J ) by virtue of the following words:                                            ( 97/C 166/26 )
                                                                       By order of 25 February 1997 the President of the Court
"(...) organizations with aims of a (...) trade-union (...)            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
nature (...)"?                                                         removal from the register of Case C-133/96 ( reference for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Anco
                                                                       na ): Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato v. Foods Import
Paragraph 21 , in summary, states that the association is a            Sri dei Flli Monti .
voluntary association of individuals comprising of
employees in the retail motor industry. The primary                    (') OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
purposes of the association are the improvement of the
standards of its members at work, the improvement of
career structures within the         different   sectors    of the
industry and the consequent enhancement of the public
perception of the industry and the people working within
it. The association seeks to achieve these ends by                                Removal from the register of C-186/95 (')
responding to the requirements of the industry for skills at                                       ( 97/C 166/27 )
all levels, by validating courses ( run by other institutions )
that teach those skills, by making awards on completion
of those courses and by grading its members, by                        By order of 27 February 1997 the President of the Court
disseminating information designed to keep its members                 of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
up to date with developments in the industry and in their              removal from the register of Case C-186/95 (reference
skills and by keeping a job placement register.'                       for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                       di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ):
 O Directive 77/388/EEC of the Council of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                       criminal proceedings against Luciano Iommi, Giovanni
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          Carnovale, Franco De Bonis, Giorgio Iommi and Antonio
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :                Iommi .
    uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                        (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .


title: Case T-337/10: Action brought on 17 August 2010 — Seatech International and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/46

      Action brought on 17 August 2010 — Seatech International and Others v Council and Commission
      (Case T-337/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/88)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Seatech International, Inc. (Cartagena, Columbia), Tuna Atlantic, Ltda (Cartagena) and Comextun, Ltda (Cartagena) (represented by: F. Foucault, lawyer)

         Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Commission

         Forms of order sought

                  —

                  annulment of Commission Regulation No 468/2010 of 28 May 2010 in so far as it designates the vessel Marta Lucia R as a vessel engaged in IUU fishing;

                  —

                  annulment of Council Regulation No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 and, consequently, of Commission Regulation No 468/2010, in so far as it implements a procedure for designating vessels engaged in IUU fishing on the ground that it does not respect the principle of audi alteram partem and gives rise to discrimination;

                  —

                  a declaration that the vessel Marta Lucia R is not engaged in IUU fishing activities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By the present action, the applicants, owner and operator of the fishing vessel Marta Lucia R, as well as purchaser of caught fish, seek the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 of 28 May 2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (1) (‘the EU IUU list’), designating the vessel Marta Lucia R as a vessel engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. The applicants also seek annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 (2) establishing the procedure for drawing up that EU IUU list.
      The applicants submit that the vessel Marta Lucia R was included on the European Union IUU list merely because it had been included on a list of vessels considered to be engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing established by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (‘the IATTC IUU list’).
      The applicants put forward a number of pleas in law in support of their action, including:

                  —

                  infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and of the rights of the defence, in that the vessel Marta Lucia R was included in the IATTC IUU list without procedural requirements being observed to ensure that the party concerned was heard;

                  —

                  infringement of the principle of non.-discrimination, as the vessel Marta Lucia R was included automatically in the EU IUU list following its inclusion in the IATTC IUU list, whereas other vessels active in the territory of the Member States were included in the EU IUU list only after a procedure had been held in which all parties were heard;

                  —

                  the decisions taken by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission are vitiated by illegality because that commission exceeded its powers, as it was entrusted with a mandate only of information and investigation on species preservation, and was not granted authority to take binding decisions; and

                  —

                  there are no facts supporting a finding that the fishing done by the vessel Marta Lucia R is illegal, unreported and unregulated as those terms are understood in the Community.

         (1)  OJ 2010 L 131, p. 22.

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999 (OJ 2008 L 286, p. 1).


title: Case T-321/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  19 September 2005  — Air Bourbon v Commission (State aid — Decision to raise no objections — Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Publication of a summary notice — Not admissible)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/23

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2005 — Air Bourbon v Commission
   (Case T-321/04) (1)

   (State aid - Decision to raise no objections - Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing an action - Publication of a summary notice - Not admissible)
   (2005/C 330/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Air Bourbon SAS (Sainte-Marie, island of Réunion, France) (represented by: S. Vaisse, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito and J. Buendía Sierra, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of the Commission Decision (C(2003) 4708 final) of 16 December 2003 to raise no objections against aid N 427/2003 granted by the French authorities to Air Austral
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on Air Austral's application for leave to intervene;

               3.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 June 2004 in Case T-185/02: Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Opposition — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word trade mark PICARO — Earlier word trade mark PICASSO)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/37

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 June 2004
   in Case T-185/02: Claude Ruiz-Picasso and Others v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Opposition - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word trade mark PICARO - Earlier word trade mark PICASSO)
   (2004/C 228/83)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-185/02: Claude Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Paris (France), Paloma Ruiz-Picasso, residing in London (United Kingdom), Maya Widmaier-Picasso, residing in Paris, Marina Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Geneva (Switzerland), Bernard Ruiz-Picasso, residing in Paris, represented by C. Gielen, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and U. Pfleghar), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court, being DaimlerChrysler AG, established in Stuttgart (Germany), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg — Appeal against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2002 (Case R 0247/2001-3) relating to opposition proceedings between the Picasso estate and DaimlerChrysler AG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the applicants to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-512/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/66/EC — Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2010 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-512/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/66/EC - Batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 246/21
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Dimitriou and A. Margeli, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ 2006 L 266, p.1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case T-306/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Luxem v Commission (Officials — Recruitment — Refusal to appoint a successful candidate in a competition who does not fulfil the conditions of admission to the competition)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Luxem v Commission
   (Case T-306/04) (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Refusal to appoint a successful candidate in a competition who does not fulfil the conditions of admission to the competition)
   (2005/C 281/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Monika Luxem (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 July 2003 refusing to appoint the applicant as an official
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders each party to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 1998 in Case C-76/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Walter Tögel v. Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse (Public service contracts - Direct effect of a directive not transposed into national law - Classification of services for the transport of patients)

text:
C 340/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.11.98
(EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on                for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209 of
freedom of movement for workers within the Community                 24.7.1992, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
(OJ L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2) Ð the Court (Fifth                    of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F.
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and
Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                     K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;
D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,                   H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                      given a judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            ruled:
24 September 1998, in which it:
                                                                     1. Neither Article 1(1) and (2), Article 2(1) nor any other
                                                                         provision of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
1. declares that, by excluding frontier workers residing in              21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws,
     Belgium from qualifying for supplementary retirement                regulations and administrative provisions relating to
     pension points after being placed in early retirement,              the application of review procedures to the award of
     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            public supply and public works contracts, may be
     under Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of               interpreted as meaning that, if Council Directive 92/
     Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of                       50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination
     15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for                          of procedures for the award of public service contracts
     workers within the Community;                                       has not been transposed by the end of the period laid
                                                                         down for that purpose, the review bodies in the
                                                                         Member States with jurisdiction to review procedures,
2. orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                          for the award of public supply contracts and public
                                                                         works contracts, established under Article 2(8) of
                                                                         Directive 89/665/EEC, may also hear appeals
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.                                                concerning procedures for the award of public service
                                                                         contracts. However, in order to observe the
                                                                         requirement that domestic law must be interpreted in
                                                                         conformity with Directive 92/50/EEC and the
                                                                         requirement that the rights of individuals must be
                                                                         protected effectively, the national court must
                                                                         determine whether the relevant provisions of its
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      domestic law allow recognition of a right for
                                                                         individuals to bring an appeal in relation to awards of
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                         public service contracts. In circumstances such as
                    of 24 September 1998                                 those arising in the present case, the national court
                                                                         must determine in particular whether such a right of
in Case C-76/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 appeal may be exercised before the same bodies as
the Bundesvergabeamt): Walter Tögel v. Niederöster-                      those established to hear appeals concerning the award
             reichische Gebietskrankenkasse (1)                          of public supply contracts and public works contracts.
(Public service contracts Ð Direct effect of a directive not
transposed into national law Ð Classification of services            2. Services consisting in the transport of injured and sick
                 for the transport of patients)                          persons with a nurse in attendance come within both
                                                                         Annex I A, Category No 2, and Annex I B, Category
                         (98/C 340/07)                                   No 25, to Directive 92/50/EEC, so that a contract for
                                                                         those services is covered by Article 10 of Directive 92/
                                                                         50/EEC.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     3. The provisions of Titles I and II of Directive 92/50/
                                                                         EEC may be relied on directly by individuals before
                                                                         national courts. As regards the provisions of Titles III
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           to VI, these may also be relied on by an individual
         published in the European Court Reports)                        before a national court if it is clear from an individual
                                                                         examination of their wording that they are
                                                                         unconditional and sufficiently clear and precise.
In Case C-76/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal                  4. Community law does not require an awarding
Procurement Office) (Austria), for a preliminary ruling in               authority in a Member State to intervene, at the
the proceedings pending before that court between Walter                 request of an individual, in existing legal situations
Tögel and Niederösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse Ð                    concluded for an indefinite period or for several years
on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of                 where those situations came into being before expiry
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,                        of the period for transposition of Directive 92/50/
regulations and administrative provisions relating to the                EEC.
application of review procedures to the award of public
supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395 of                       (1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
30.12.1989, p. 33), and of Council Directive 92/50/EEC
of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures


title: Case C-161/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(2) — Category (10) of Annex III — Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the provision, construction, renovation and alteration of housing, as part of a social policy — Category (10a) of Annex III — Reduced rate of VAT applicable to renovation and repairing of private dwellings, excluding materials which account for a significant part of the value of the service supplied — National legislation applying a reduced rate of VAT to supplies of services of installing ‘energy-saving materials’ and supplies of such materials)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-161/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Category (10) of Annex III - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the provision, construction, renovation and alteration of housing, as part of a social policy - Category (10a) of Annex III - Reduced rate of VAT applicable to renovation and repairing of private dwellings, excluding materials which account for a significant part of the value of the service supplied - National legislation applying a reduced rate of VAT to supplies of services of installing ‘energy-saving materials’ and supplies of such materials))
   (2015/C 236/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie and M Holt, acting as Agents, and K. Lasok QC)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to supplies of services of installing ‘energy-saving materials’ and to supplies of such materials by a person who installs those materials in residential accommodation:

                           —

                           to the extent that those supplies cannot be considered as ‘the provision, construction, renovation and alteration of housing, as part of a social policy’ for the purposes of Category 10 of Annex III to Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/47/EC of 5 May 2009;

                           —

                           to the extent that those supplies fall outside the purview of ‘renovation and repairing of private dwellings’ for the purposes of Category 10a of Annex III to that directive, and

                           —

                           to the extent that even where those supplies fall within the purview of renovation and repairing of private dwellings for the purposes of Category (10a) of Annex III to that directive, those supplies include materials which account for a significant part of the value of the services supplied,

                     the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 98 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2009/47, read together with Annex III to that directive;

               2)

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-496/11: Action brought on 15 September 2011 — United Kingdom v ECB

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/29

         Action brought on 15 September 2011 — United Kingdom v ECB
   (Case T-496/11)
   2011/C 340/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: K. Beal, barrister, and S. Ossowski, Treasury Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   Annulment of the Eurosystem Oversight Policy Framework of the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) dated 5 July 2011 (1), in so far as it sets out a location policy to be applied to central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’) established in Member States which do not form part of the Eurosystem.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the ECB lacked competence to publish the contested act, either at all or alternatively without recourse to the promulgation of a legislative instrument such as a Regulation, adopted either by the Council or alternatively by the European Central Bank (‘ECB’) itself.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested act either de jure or de facto will impose a residence requirement on central counterparty clearing systems (‘CCPs’) that wish to undertake clearing or settlement operations in the Euro currency whose daily trades exceed a certain volume. The contested act infringes all or any of Articles 48, 56 and/or 63 TFEU, in that:

                                       (a)

                                       CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States, such as the United Kingdom, will be obliged to relocate their centres of administration and control to Member States which are members of the Eurosystem. They will also be obliged to re-incorporate as legal persons recognised in the domestic law of another Member State;

                                       (b)

                                       in the event that such CCPs do not relocate as required, they will be precluded from access to the financial markets in the Eurosystem Member States, either on the same terms as CCPs established in those territories, or at all;

                                       (c)

                                       such non-resident CCPs will not be entitled to facilities offered by the ECB or the National Central Banks (‘NCBs’) of the Eurosystem, either on the same terms, or at all;

                                       (d)

                                       as a result, the ability of such CCPs to offer clearing or settlement services in the Euro currency to customers in the Union will be restricted or even prohibited in its entirety.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the contested act infringes Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 106 TFEU and Article 13 TEU, since:

                                       (a)

                                       it effectively requires all clearing operations proceeding in the Euro currency exceeding a certain level to be conducted by CCPs established in a Euro area Member State;

                                       (b)

                                       it effectively directs Euro area NCBs not to supply Euro currency reserves to CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States if they exceed the thresholds set in the decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that the requirement for CCPs established in non-Euro area Member States to adopt a different corporate personality and domicile amounts to direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality. It also offends the general EU principle of equality, since CCPs established in different Member States are subject to disparate treatment without any objective justification for the same.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging

                           —

                           that without assuming the burden of establishing that a public interest justification for such restrictions is not available (the onus being on the ECB to advance its case for a derogation if it so chooses), the United Kingdom contends that any public policy justification advanced by the ECB would not satisfy the requirement of proportionality, since less restrictive means of ensuring control over financial institutions resident within the Union but outside the Euro area are available.

      (1)  Made publicly available through publication on the ECB’s website on 5 July 2011.


title: Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Bid-rigging — Market sharing — Price fixing)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs and Others v Commission
   (Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Bid-rigging - Market sharing - Price fixing)
   2011/C 269/98
   Language of the case: Dutch and German

      Parties

      Applicants: ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by V. Turner and D. Mes and, subsequently, by O.W. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers) (Case T-144/07); ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH (Neuhausen auf den Fildern, Germany) (represented, initially, by U. Itzen and K. Blau-Hansen, subsequently, by U. Itzen, K. Blau-Hansen and S. Thomas, and, finally, by K. Blau-Hansen and S. Thomas, lawyers) (Case T-147/07); ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented, initially, by U. Itzen and K. Blau-Hansen, subsequently, by U. Itzen, K. Blau-Hansen and S. Thomas, and, finally, by K. Blau-Hansen and S. Thomas, lawyers) (Case T-147/07); ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Beckmann, S. Dethof and U. Itzen, lawyers) (Case T-148/07); ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: T. Klose and J. Ziebarth, lawyers) (Case T-149/07); ThyssenKrupp AG (Duisberg, Germany) (represented, initially, by M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, lawyers, and, subsequently, by M. Klusmann) (Case T-150/07); ThyssenKrupp Liften BV (Krimpen aan den Ijssel, Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and A. Stoffer, lawyers) (Case T-154/07)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Cases T-144/07 and T-154/07, by A. Bouquet and R. Sauer, Agents, and by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers; in Cases T-147/07 and T-148/07, initially, by R. Sauer and O. Weber and, subsequently, by R. Sauer and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents; and, in Cases T-149/07 and T-150/07, by R. Sauer and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators) or, in the alternative, reduction of the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-144/07, T-147/07, T-148/07, T-149/07, T-150/07 and T-154/07 for the purposes of this judgment;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2, paragraph 1, fourth indent, paragraph 2, fourth indent, paragraph 3, fourth indent, and paragraph 4, fourth indent, of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators);

               3.

               In Cases T-144/07, T-149/07 and T-150/07, sets the amount of the fine imposed on ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, ThyssenKrupp Elevator AG and ThyssenKrupp AG in Article 2(1), fourth indent, of Decision C(2007) 512 for the infringement in Belgium at EUR 45 738 000;

               4.

               In Cases T-147/07, T-149/07 and T-150/07, sets the amount of the fine imposed on ThyssenKrupp Aufzüge GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Fahrtreppen GmbH, ThyssenKrupp Elevator and ThyssenKrupp in Article 2(2), fourth indent, of Decision C(2007) 512 for the infringement in Germany at EUR 249 480 000;

               5.

               In Cases T-148/07, T-149/07 and T-150/07, sets the amount of the fine imposed on ThyssenKrupp Ascenseurs Luxembourg Sàrl, ThyssenKrupp Elevator and ThyssenKrupp in Article 2(3), fourth indent, of Decision C(2007) 512 for the infringement in Luxembourg at EUR 8 910 000;

               6.

               In Cases T-150/07 and T-154/07, sets the amount of the fine imposed on ThyssenKrupp Liften BV and ThyssenKrupp in Article 2(4), fourth indent, of Decision C(2007) 512 for the infringement in the Netherlands at EUR 15 651 900;

               7.

               Dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               8.

               In each case, orders the applicants to bear three-quarters of their own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by the European Commission. The Commission is ordered to bear one-quarter of its own costs and to pay one-quarter of the applicants’ costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  31 January 2006  in Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 64/221/EEC — National of a third country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State — Right of entry and residence — Restriction imposed on grounds of public policy — Schengen Information System — Alert issued for the purposes of refusing entry)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 31 January 2006
   in Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 64/221/EEC - National of a third country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State - Right of entry and residence - Restriction imposed on grounds of public policy - Schengen Information System - Alert issued for the purposes of refusing entry)
   (2006/C 86/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents) v Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 November 2003 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing entry into the territory of the States party to the Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 14 June 1985 at Schengen, to Mr Farid, and by refusing to issue a visa for the purpose of entry into that territory to Mr Farid and Mr Bouchair, nationals of a third country who are the spouses of Member State nationals, on the sole ground that they were persons for whom alerts were entered in the Schengen Information System for the purposes of refusing them entry, without first verifying whether the presence of those persons constituted a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21, 24.01.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 July 1999 in Case T-168/97: Daniel Varas Carrión v the Council of the European Union (Officials - Open competition - Non-admission to the tests - Knowledge of languages)

text:
2.10.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/13
                                                            COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 19 July 1999
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
in Case T-168/97: Daniel Varas Carrión v Council of the
                         European Union (1)
                                                                             in Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the
                tests — Knowledge of languages)
                                                                             (Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) —
                                                                             Right to be heard — Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now
                           (1999/C 281/24)                                   Article 86(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 52 of
                                                                             the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
                                                                             — Exclusive right to broadcast television advertising in
                                                                                Flanders)
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-168/97: Daniel Varas Carrión, residing in Barcelona                                       (1999/C 281/25)
(Spain), represented by Marianne Droinet, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Albert Moro, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Council of the European
Union (Agents: Thérèse Blanchet and Ana Ramı́rez Fueyo) —
application for annulment of the decision of the selection                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
board in competition CONS/C/374 dated 18 March 1997 not
to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition, of the
initial decision of that selection board dated 19 December
1996 and of the tests held on 26 April 1997 — the Court of                   In Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij, established
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,                    at Vilvoorde (Belgium), represented by Francis Herbert and
President, and C.W. Bellamy and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,                 Dirk Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 July 1999, in which it:                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56-58 Rue
                                                                             Charles Martel, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: Wouter Wils) — application for annulment of Com-
1. Orders that there is no need to give a decision on the application        mission Decision 97/606/EC of 26 June 1997 pursuant to
     for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition     Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty on the exclusive right to
     CONS/C/374 dated 19 December 1996;                                      broadcast television advertising in Flanders (OJ 1997 L 244,
                                                                             p. 18) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended
                                                                             Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
2. Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition                 C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges;
     CONS/C/374 dated 18 March 1997 refusing to admit the                    A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     applicant to the tests in that competition;                             on 8 July 1999, in which it:
3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim;                                     1. Dismisses the application;
4. Orders the Council to pay the costs.                                      2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.