title: Action brought on 30 August 1996 by M. Boessen against the Economic and Social Committee (Case T-133/96)

text:
  26 . 10 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/ 19
  Action brought on 22 August 1996 by RWE Energie                       The dispute concerns the question whether the Commission
  Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European             can refuse to deal with an application submitted to it for
                             Communities                                negative clearance, alternatively for exemption under
                            Case T-131 /96 )                            Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, where a national
                                                                        competition authority has initiated its own parallel
                            ( 96/C 318 /35 )
                                                                        procedure and an appeal against its decision is pending
                                                                        before the national courts .
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        The applicant considers that the defendant has acted
                                                                        unlawfully in refusing to deal with its application for
  An action against the Commission of the European
. Communities was brought before the Court of First                     negative clearance . According to Article 9 ( 1 ) of Regulation
                                                                        No 17, the Commission has sole power to declare Article 85
  Instance of the European Communities on 22 August 1996
                                                                        ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty inapplicable pursuant to Article 85 (3 ) .
  by RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft, Essen ( Federal
                                                                        Consequently, it enjoys an 'exemption monopoly'. It is
  Republic of Germany ), represented by Dr Gerhard
  Wiedemann and Dr Jens Fleischhauer, Rechtsanwalte ,
                                                                        generally thought to follow from that monopoly that the
                                                                        Commission is obliged to examine and determine
  Diisseldorf, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
  the Chambers of Luc Frieden, of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 62
                                                                        applications for exemption . There is thus no scope for any
  avenue Guillaume .                                                    decentralized application of Article 85 . Furthermore, the
                                                                        power of the Bundeskartellamt to apply Article 85 ( 1 ) of the
                                                                        EC Treaty does not relieve the Commission of its task of
  The applicant claims that the Court should :                          examining, with reference to Article 85 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ), the
                                                                        electric power concession agreement which was properly
  — declare that, by refusing to deal with the applicant's              notified to it .
        application of 26 October 1995 for negative clearance
        pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation No 17,              The applicant further states that it is incumbent on the
        alternatively for exemption pursuant to Article 85 ( 3 ) of     Commission to develop, and then apply, its own
        the EC Treaty, in relation to the electric power                competition policy . The assignment of that task to a
        concession agreement concluded between the applicant            national cartel authority is not consistent with the system of
        and the City of Nordhorn on 20 and 21 April 1 995 ( Case        attribution of competence provided for by EC competition
        IV/E-3/35.800 ), the defendant has infringed the EC             law .
        Treaty,
                                                                        Moreover, the defendant's inaction creates the risk that,
        alternatively :                                                 following the conclusion of the national proceedings, the
                                                                        Bundeskartellamt may impose administrative penalties on
        in so far as the defendant's communication of 18 June           the applicant pursuant to German competition law . If the
        1996 , which was served on the applicant's                      Bundeskartellamt's prohibition order were to be judicially
        representatives on 25 June 1996 , falls to be assessed as a     upheld , the applicant would be legally prevented from
        decision, annul that decision , thereby obliging the            performing the power concession agreement notified by it,
        defendant to process and determine the applicant's              notwithstanding the possible eligibility of that contract for
        application of 26 October 1995 ,                                exemption . Thus , pending adoption of the Commission 's
                                                                        formal decision, the applicant would be subject to an
  — order the defendant to pay the costs .                              administrative prohibition precluding performance of the
                                                                        contract, for which no provision is made under the EC
                                                                        competition rules relating to notified agreements .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
  The applicant formally notified the Commission of an
  exclusive contract concluded by it with the City of
  Nordhorn ( concerning the use of rights of way for the
  provision of electric power ). The German Bundeskartellamt
  ( Federal Cartel Office ) subsequently prohibited the                 Action brought on 30 August 1996 by M. Boessen against
                                                                                the Economic and Social Committee
  implementation of certain provisions of that contract
  pursuant to Article 85 ( 1 ) in conjunction with paragraph 47                                 ( Case T-133/96 )
  of the GWB ( Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschrankungen —                                           ( 96/C 318/36 )
  law against restrictions on competition ). That decision was
  prefaced by communication from the defendant informing
  the Bundeskartellamt that, ' for the time being', it did not                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
  intend 'to initiate a procedure under Article 9 ( 2 ) of Council
  Regulation No 17, with the legal consequences flowing                 An action against the Economic and Social Committee was
  from Article 9 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 17'. In the                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
  Commission 's view, 'the system of decentralized application          Communities on 30 August 1996 by M. Boessen, residing at
  of the EC competition rules ' enabled it to 'refrain ' from           Lanaken ( Belgium ), represented by C. M. E. M. Paulussen,
  dealing with an application for exemption under Article 85            of the Maastricht ( Netherlands ) Bar, with an address for
  ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty for as long as the 'pending national           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
  procedure has not arrived at a definitive result'.                    rue Goethe .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/20            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 10 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the two decisions of the Secretary-General of the              — annul the Commission's decision of 7 August 1995 ,
    Economic and Social Committee by implication                           fixing the applicant's travelling time at two days, and
    rejecting the applicant's two complaints of 4 February                 also any subsequent similar decision,
    1996 , in particular on the grounds: 1 . that the Economic
    and    Social  Committee       should    have   awarded    the
    applicant the education allowances for his children, Y. ,          — in so far as is necessary, annul the decision adopted by
    M. and L. , for the 1995/ 1996 scholastic year, amounting              the Commission on 17 April 1996 expressly rejecting the
    to a total of Bfrs 1 9 080 , as applied for in the application         applicant's complaint,
    made in that regard dated 31 August 1995 and, further,
    2 . that the Economic and Social Committee should have
                                                                       — declare the Commission's internal directive adopted on
    altered the date from which the allowance was to be paid               21 December 1994 and published in the Administrative
    in respect of M. from 1 September 1995 to 1 August                     Notices on 4 January 1995 illegal and, in consequence,
    1995 ,                                                                 order it to be withdrawn,
— order the Economic and Social Committee to pay the
    costs, including the costs which the applicant has had to          — allow the applicant travelling time of eight and a half
    incur in connection with these proceedings, in particular              days for 1995 and also for subsequent years or at least
    the costs of providing an address for service, travelling              travelling time calculated on the basis of Administrative
    and accommodation expenses, and legal fees.                            Circular No 26a of 6 November 1991 ,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
                                                                           proceedings .
The applicant, a former official receiving an invalidity
pension from the European Communities, applied to the                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
Economic and Social Committee, first, for the grant of the
variable ( not flat-rate ) education allowance to cover the
travel expenses in respect of his three children and, second,         The applicant, who is the Head of the Commission's
for an increase in the flat-rate education allowance for one           Delegation in the Republic of Chad challenges the decision
of his children .                                                     to limit to two days the travelling time added to his annual
                                                                       leave, taken pursuant to the internal directive adopted by
The first application was by implication rejected, as was the         the Commission on 21 December 1994 . Until then, the
complaint submitted in that regard; the second application            applicant had for several years been entitled to eight and a
was granted, but with effect from a date later than that              half days travelling time, in accordance with Administrative
                                                                       Circular No 26a of 6 November 1991 .
requested by the applicant. The complaint submitted in that
regard was by implication rejected .
                                                                      In support of his application, the applicant pleads, first,
The applicant has now brought an action before the Court              infringement of Administrative Circular No 26a, claiming
for the annulment of those two implied decisions refusing             that it is nowhere stated in the internal directive of
his requests .                                                        21 December 1994 that it annuls or amends the circular in
                                                                      question and that there is no statement of reasons for the
                                                                      directive which might explain why the circular no longer
                                                                      meets requirements and why a sudden major change in
                                                                      travelling time was necessary. He concludes therefrom that
                                                                      the 1991 circular is still applicable and that the contested
                                                                      decision plainly fails to comply with that provision .
Action brought on 2 September 1996 by Hendrick Smets
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  The applicant also pleads breach of the principle of
                        ( Case T-134/96 )                             protection of legitimate expectations, claiming that the
                                                                      defendant     has   caused   him   to   entertain  reasonable
                          ( 96/C 318/37 )
                                                                      expectations as to the length of travelling time in so far as it
                                                                      laid down certain criteria in that regard in provisions
                (Language of the case: French)                        adopted in the form of a circular and applied them for
                                                                      several years . In the applicant's opinion, the fact that the
                                                                      travelling time which he could claim had been reduced
An action against the Commission of the European                      without any reasons at all being given constitutes disregard
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     of established rights and infringement of the principle of the
Instance of the European Communities on 2 September                   protection of legitimate expectations .
1996 by Hendrick Smets, residing at N'djamena ( Chad ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire         Furthermore, he considers that to treat officials serving in a
Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener.                                           third country in the same way as officials serving within the


title: Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Proderec - Formação e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-72/97)

text:
No C 166/16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
divorced husband of the second applicant never paid                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
maintenance to the first applicant and he died without
means in 1996 .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By a letter of 22 June 1995 , the appointing authority
refused, by reference to Article 17 of Annex VIII to the            The contested decisions relate to the          final   decisions
Staff Regulations, to pay a widow 's pension to the second          approving the final payment claim relating to the
applicant, since the marriage to her second husband had             applications Nos 88131 1P1 and 880249P3 for financial
lasted less than a year and none of the exceptions in the           assistance from the European Social Fund submitted by
second paragraph of Article 17 applied. By a letter of              the applicant. By means of those decisions, the
20 March 1996, payment of an orphan 's pension to the               Commission decided to reduce the amount approved by
first applicant was finally also refused, because the               way of decision No C(88 ) 0831 /29.04.88 relating to the
conditions in Article 80 of the Staff Regulations were not          grant to the now applicant of assistance to finance
satisfied .                                                         vocational training operations in Portugal .
In the application, the claim of the first applicant to an          The application is based on the following allegations:
orphan 's pension is founded, first, on the first paragraph
of Article 80 of the Staff Regulations, the argument
essentially being that the term ' orphans' pension' is used         — the      decisions  of  the    Commission      are   unlawful
in that paragraph simply because, on the death of an                    inasmuch as they are contrary to Community law, in
official, sums of money are paid to a child actually                    particular Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October
maintained by that official . It is not orphans but                     1983 on the tasks of the ESF, Council Regulation
dependent children who thereby receive an orphan's                      ( EEC ) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on the
pension .                                                               implementation of that decision and Commission
                                                                        Decision 83/673/EEC on the management of the ESF,
Secondly, the second, third and fourth paragraphs of
Article 80 of the Staff Regulations show that it is not             — the decisions are unfair because they run counter to
necessary for the child to have lost both parents.                      the rights and interests of the applicant which are
                                                                        already judicially protected by and derive from the
Nor can the Commission rely on Article 21 of Annex VIII                 initial Commission decision approving the applications
to the Staff Regulations, since the first paragraph thereof             and from the certificates issued by the Departamento
refers to an 'orphan'. If the legislature understood thereby            para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu (Dafse )
only children who had lost both parents, Article 21 would               immediately thereafter in accordance therewith,
be self-contradictory.
                                                                    — the two decisions are contradictory in so far as,
                                                                        despite the applicant's having implemented the
                                                                        operations, a matter which was not called in question
                                                                        at the time or now, they order the repayment of
                                                                        amounts received more than seven years previously
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Proderec — Forma                    which     have   been   disbursed     in  the    course     of
gao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE,                         implementing the two operations and as a result of
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   them,
                       ( Case T-72/97)
                         ( 971C 166/35 )                            — they are, moreover, contradictory with other decisions
                                                                        taken previously and they completely change
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                         presumptions of fact and of law on which the
                                                                         operations were approved and implemented,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   — the decisions are fundamentally unfair inasmuch as
Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997                    they breach the principles of equal treatment, sound
by Proderec — Forma^ao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                     administration and impartiality,
Humanos, ACE, whose registered office is at Av. 25 de
Abril, n? 7-B, S/loja , Almada, represented by Manuel
Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service           — finally, the decisions are unfounded in so far as they
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luisa Maria Miranda                     are contrary to the certificates issued by Dafse in 1990
Sousa Pires, 4A Rue Jearv Jaures, Luxembourg L-1836 .                    and that only such certification is valid inasmuch as it
                                                                         was effected within the 13-month time-limit, are in
                                                                         accordance with the conditions laid down in the
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         Community regulation and may not be unilaterally
                                                                         revoked,
— annul the Commission's decision of 9 December on
     file 880249P3 , and the Commission's decision of
     9 December on file         881311P1 , notified to the           — the two decisions alter, modify and undermine the
     applicant on 28 January 1997,                                       criteria underlying the initial decision of approval by
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         No C 166/ 17
     basing themselves on a subsequent certificate issued            be regarded as a 'like product' to injection-moulded
     by Dafse which requires the application of criteria             footwear. There are significant differences, notably in
     of accounting procedure and sound financial                     manufacturing materials, production processes, technical
     administration    which    were     not   made     known        and physical characteristics, price, packaging and
     beforehand, at the relevant time or afterwards,                 marketing. The Commission's decision to impose an
                                                                     antidumping duty 94,1 % on vulcanized footwear is
                                                                     therefore unlawful .
— the decisions breach the applicant's rights of defence .
                                                                     The applicants also plead infringement of Article 190 of
                                                                     the Treaty. They submit that the inadequate reasoning
                                                                     contained in Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97 prevents the
Action brought on 28 March 1997 by British Shoe                      Court of First Instance from discharging its duty to review
                                                                     the question whether the defendant has determined the
Corporation and others against the Commission of the
                   European Communities
                                                                     correct level of antidumping duty. The first objection to
                                                                     the Commission's approach is its failure to take into
                       ( Case T-73/97 )                              account the difference between vulcanized and injection
                         97/C 166/36                                 moulded footwear. Furthermore, the arithmetical basis
                                                                     underlying the level of provisional duty is neither sound
                (Language of the case: English)                      nor adequately reasoned .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    They further submit that the Commission has committed a
Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997                manifest error of appraisal in its assessment of the
by British Shoe Corporation and others, represented by               ' Community interest'. The contested measure implies that
Alasdair Bell , Solicitor, Society of Scotland, and Mark             the distribution system can and will absorb much of the
Powell, Solicitor, England, with an address for service in           antidumping duty. However, the Commission adduces no
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 rue               evidence for this at all, other than identifying the level of
Goethe, Luxembourg.                                                  gross margin between import and resale as 100% . There
                                                                     is no consideration of the cost structure covered by this
                                                                     margin, the profit level in it, or the capacity of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          distribution system to absorb a significant part of the
                                                                     duty. As retail prices of imported footwear have already
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97                       increased substantially, the Commission's assessment of
     imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on imports             the situation is contradicted by the facts .
     of textile upper footwear originating in the People's
     Republic of China and Indonesia,
                                                                     The applicants next claim that, in breach of Article 3 ( 1 )
— take such other steps as justice may require,                      of Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94, read in conjunction with
                                                                     Article 5 (4 ) thereof, the Commission has, in the present
                                                                     case, ignored the fact that before it may lawfully impose
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant             antidumping duties it must establish material injury in
     companies in the present proceedings.                           relation to a group of EU producers collectively
                                                                      representing 25 % of EU production of the like product.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant companies in the present case are all major            They plead, finally, breach of the principle of
importers and retailers of footwear in the European                  proportionality as regards the level of antidumping duties
Union . They import substantial quantities of footwear                fixed in the contested Regulation. On this point they lay
from China and Indonesia, countries that have been the                particular stress on the fact that it is practically impossible
subject of an antidumping investigation resulted in the               to obtain supplies of vulcanized footwear in the
adoption of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97 ( ] ),             Community.
imposing provisional antidumping duties of 94,1 % and
 36,5 % respectively on textile footwear from China and               ( J ) Regulation ( EC ) No 165/97 of 28 January 1997 imposing a
Indonesia . It is that Regulation which the applicants seek                 provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear which
to have annulled .                                                          textile uppers originating in the People's Republic of China
                                                                            and Indonesia ( OJ No L 29, 31 . 1 . 1997, p. 3 ).
                                                                      ( 2 ) Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94 of 22 December 1994 on
The applicants plead infringements of Article 1 ( 4 ) of                    protection against dumped imports from countries not
 Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94 ( 2 ) in that the Commission is               members of the European Community ( OT No L 349 , 31 . 12 .
 mistaken, both in fact and in law, in its treatment of the                 1994 , p. 1 ).
 issue of 'like product' within the meaning of that
 provision. According to them, vulcanized footwear cannot


title: Case T-448/10: Action brought on 23 September 2010 — Apple v OHMI — Iphone Media (IPH IPHONE)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/36

         Action brought on 23 September 2010 — Apple v OHMI — Iphone Media (IPH IPHONE)
   (Case T-448/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apple, Inc. (Cupertino, USA) (represented by: M. Engelman, barrister and J. Olsen, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Iphone Media, SA (Seville, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 July 2010 in case R 1084/2009-4;

               —

               Uphold the applicant’s opposition;

               —

               In the alternative, then applicant requests that its opposition be upheld in respect of such goods and services for which it is found that a likelihood of confusion exists and/or for such goods and services where it is determined there exists a risk of the Application Mark taking unfair advantage of, or being detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the applicant’s mark;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘IPH IPHONE’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5562822

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 2901007 of the word mark ‘IPHONE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the provisions of these articles to the contested trade mark.


title: Case C-43/16 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-186/12: Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/8

         Appeal brought on 21 January 2016 by Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-186/12: Copernicus-Trademarks v EUIPO
   (Case C-43/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (represented by: C. Röhl, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 14 June 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case F-10/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/29

         Action brought on 23 January 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-10/12)
   2012/C 65/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission decision refusing to grant daily subsistence allowances to the applicant.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 24 May 2011 and the explicit decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2011, and order the Commission to pay the daily subsistence allowance.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-156/06: Action brought on  23 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/32

         Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-156/06)
   (2006/C 131/60)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2002 on the supplementary supervision of credit institutions, insurance undertakings and investment firms in a financial conglomerate (1) and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC, 79/267/EEC, 92/49/EEC, 92/96/EEC, 93/6/EEC and 93/22/EEC, and Directives 98/78/EC and 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council the directive or in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 11 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 35, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-113/01: Veronica Sabbag v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list — Linguistic competence of members of the selection board — Equality of treatment)

text:
7.12.2002                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 305/23
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with
                                                                             an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
                        of 24 September 2002                                 European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                             H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
in Case T-113/01: Veronica Sabbag v Commission of the                        decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
                      European Communities ( 1)                              2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
                                                                             of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the                       R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                     composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and
Linguistic competence of members of the selection board —                    H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                         Equality of treatment)                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in
                                                                             which it:
                            (2002/C 305/49)
                                                                             1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
                      (Language of the case: French)                               letter of 14 July 2000 addressed to the applicant, not to enter
                                                                                the applicant’s name on the reserve list resulting from selection
                                                                                procedure COM/R/A/01/1999;
In Case T-113/01: Veronica Sabbag, residing in Brussels,
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an                    2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and
H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it:
                                                                                of 9 September 2002
1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
       letter of 14 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
       reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/           in Case T-182/00 DEP: Marco Pannella v the European
       1999;                                                                                Parliament (1)
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (Taxation of costs)
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                                            (2002/C 305/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             In Case T-182/00 DEP: Marco Pannella, a Member of the
                                                                             European Parliament, residing in Rome, represented by
                        of 24 September 2002                                 P.A.M. Ferrari, lawyer, v European Parliament (Agents:
                                                                             H. Krück and A. Caiola) — application for a taxation of costs
in Case T-182/01: Sophie Bachotet v Commission of the                        following the order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July
                      European Communities ( 1)                              2001 in Case T-182/00 Pannella v Parliament (not published)
                                                                             — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the                       R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 September
                         Equality of treatment)                              2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2002/C 305/50)                                  The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed in respect of fees by
                                                                             the defendant to the applicant is fixed in the sum of 8 000 euros.
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
In Case T-182/01: Sophie Bachotet, a member of the auxiliary
staff working for the Committee of the Regions, residing in


title: Case C-418/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 12 September 2007 — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 12 September 2007 — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique
   (Case C-418/07)
   (2007/C 283/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Papillon

      Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique
   Questions referred

               1.

               Inasmuch as the tax benefit arising under the ‘tax integration’ scheme affects the liability to tax of the parent company of the group, which can offset the profits and losses of all the companies of the integrated group, and benefit from the tax neutrality of the internal transactions of that group, does the impossibility — resulting from the scheme laid down under Article 223 A et seq. of the code général des impôts — of including within the membership of a tax-integrated group a sub-subsidiary of the parent company, when it is held through a subsidiary which, being established in another Member State of the European Community and not carrying on business in France, is not subject to French corporation tax and thus cannot itself form part of the group, constitute a restriction on freedom of establishment by reason of the tax consequences arising from the choice of the parent company as to whether to hold a sub-subsidiary through a French subsidiary or, instead, through a subsidiary established in another Member State?

               2.

               If the answer is in the affirmative, can such a restriction be justified either by the need to maintain the coherence of the ‘tax integration’ system — in particular the arrangements for the tax neutrality of transactions within the group, having regard to the consequences of a system which consists of treating a subsidiary established in another Member State as belonging to the group solely for the purposes of the condition as to the indirect holding of the sub-subsidiary, while remaining automatically excluded from the application of the group scheme since it is not subject to French tax — or by any other overriding reason of public interest?


title: Case C-203/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2011 — nv All Projects & Developments and Others

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 28 April 2011 — nv All Projects & Developments and Others
   (Case C-203/11)
   2011/C 219/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicants:

               nv All Projects & Developments

               nv Bouw- en Coördinatiekantoor Andries

               nv Belgische Gronden Reserve

               nv Bouwonderneming Ooms

               nv Bouwwerken Taelman

               nv Brummo

               nv Cordeel Zetel Temse

               nv DMI Vastgoed

               nv Dumobil

               nv Durabrik

               nv Eijssen

               nv Elbeko

               nv Entro

               nv Extensa

               nv Flanders Immo JB

               nv Green Corner

               nv Huysman Bouw

               bvba Imano

               nv Immpact Ontwikkeling

               nv Invest Group Dewaele

               nv Invimmo

               nv Kwadraat

               nv Liburni

               nv Lotinvest

               nv Matexi

               nv Novus

               nv Plan & Bouw

               nv 7Senses Real Estate

               nv Sibomat

               nv Tradiplan

               nv Uma Invest

               bvba Versluys Bouwgroep

               nv Villabouw Francis Bostoen

               nv Willemen General Contractor

               nv Wilma Project Development

               nv Woningbureau Paul Huyzentruyt

         Defendants:

               Ministerraad

               Vlaamse regering

               nv Immo Vivo

               nv PSR Brownfield Developers

               College van de Franse Gemeenschapscommissie

               Franse Gemeenschapsregering

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Commission Decision 2005/842/EC (1) of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest, be interpreted as requiring that the measures contained in Articles 3.1.3, 3.1.10, 4.1.20(3)(2), 4.1.21 and 4.1.23 of the Decreet van het Vlaamse Gewest van 27 Maart 2009 betreffende het grond- en pandenbeleid (Decree of the Flemish Region of 27 March 2009 on land and buildings policy) should be notified to the European Commission before the adoption or entry into force of those provisions?

               2.

               Should a scheme which by law imposes a social obligation on private actors whose land subdivision or building projects are of a certain minimum size, amounting to a percentage of a minimum of 10 per cent and a maximum of 20 per cent of that land subdivision or that building project, which can be performed in kind or by the payment of a sum of [EUR] 50 000 for each social plot or dwelling not realised, be appraised against the freedom of establishment, against the freedom to provide services or against the free movement of capital, or should it be classified as a complex scheme which should be appraised against each of those freedoms?

               3.

               Having regard to Article 2(2)(a) and (j) thereof, is Directive 2006/123/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market applicable to a compulsory contribution by private actors to the delivery of social houses and apartments, which is imposed by law as a social obligation linked to every building or land subdivision authorisation sought in respect of a project of a minimum size as determined by law, where the social housing units delivered are bought at predetermined maximum prices by social housing companies to be rented out to a broad category of individuals, or, by substitution, are sold by the social housing company to individuals belonging to the same category?

               4.

               If the third question referred is answered in the affirmative, should the concept of ‘requirement to be evaluated’ in Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted as meaning that it covers an obligation on private actors to contribute, in addition to, or as part of their usual activity, to the construction of social housing, and to transfer the developed units at maximum prices to, or, through substitution, through semi-public authorities, even though those private actors then have no right of initiative in the social housing market?

               5.

               If the third question referred is answered in the affirmative, should the national court apply a penalty, and if so, what penalty, to:

                           (a)

                           the finding that a new requirement, subjected to evaluation in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, was not specifically evaluated in accordance with Article 15(6) of that Directive;

                           (b)

                           the finding that no notification of that new requirement was given in accordance with Article 15(7) of that Directive?

               6.

               If the third question referred is answered in the affirmative, should the concept of ‘forbidden requirement’ in Article 14 of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted as precluding a national scheme, under the assumptions described in that Article, not only if it makes access to a service activity or the exercise of it subject to compliance with a requirement, but also if that scheme merely provides that non-compliance with that requirement will cause the financial compensation for the performance of a service prescribed by law to lapse, and that the financial guarantee supplied in regard to the performance of the service will not be reimbursed?

               7.

               If the third question referred is answered in the affirmative, should the concept of ‘competing operators’ in Article 14(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted as meaning that it is also applicable to a public institution whose mandates can partially interfere with those of the service providers, if it takes the decisions referred to in Article 14(6) of that Directive and it is also obliged, as the final step in a cascade system, to buy the social housing units developed by a service provider in the performance of the social obligation imposed on him?

               8.

                           (a)

                           If the third question referred is answered in the affirmative, should the concept ‘authorisation scheme’ in Article 4(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted to mean that it is applicable to certificates issued by a public institution after the initial building or land subdivision authorisation has already been given, and which are necessary in order to qualify for certain of the compensations for the performance of a social obligation which was linked by law to the original authorisation and which are also necessary in order to claim the reimbursement of the financial guarantee imposed on the service provider in favour of the public institution?

                           (b)

                           If the third question referred is answered in the affirmative, should the concept of ‘authorisation scheme’ in Article 4(6) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market be interpreted to mean that it is applicable to an agreement which a private actor concludes with a public institution pursuant to a legal rule in the context of the substitution of the public institution in respect of the sale of a social housing unit developed by the private actor in the performance, in kind, of a social obligation which is linked by law to a building or land subdivision authorisation, taking account of the fact that the conclusion of that agreement is a condition for the executability of the authorisation?

               9.

               Should Articles 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a scheme whereby, when a building or land subdivision authorisation is granted in respect of a project of a certain minimum size, it is linked by law to a social obligation entailing the delivery of social housing units, amounting to a certain percentage of the project, which should subsequently be sold at capped prices to, or, with substitution, by, a public institution?

               10.

               Should Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a scheme whereby, when a building or land subdivision authorisation is granted in respect of a project of a certain minimum size, it is linked by law to a social obligation entailing the development of social housing units, amounting to a certain percentage of the project, which should subsequently be sold at capped prices to, or, with substitution, by, a public institution?

               11.

               Should the concept of ‘public works contracts’ in Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts be interpreted to mean that it is applicable to a scheme whereby, when a building or land subdivision authorisation is granted in respect of a project of a certain minimum size, it is linked by law to a social obligation entailing the development of social housing units, amounting to a certain percentage of the project, which should subsequently be sold at capped prices to, or, with substitution, by, a public institution?

               12.

               Should Articles 21, 45, 49, 56 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 22 and 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, be interpreted as precluding the scheme introduced by Book 5 of the Decreet van het Vlaamse Gewest van 27 maart 2009 betreffende het grond- en pandenbeleid, entitled ‘Wonen in eigen streek’ (‘Living in one’s own area’), namely the scheme whereby in certain so-called target municipalities the transfer of land and any constructions erected thereon is made subject to the buyer or the tenant being able to demonstrate a sufficient tie with the municipality within the meaning of Article 5.2.1(2) of that decree?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 312, p. 67.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.

      (3)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.

      (4)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/1

         2011/C 63/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 55, 19.2.2011

      Past publications

      OJ C 46, 12.2.2011

      OJ C 38, 5.2.2011

      OJ C 30, 29.1.2011

      OJ C 13, 15.1.2011

      OJ C 346, 18.12.2010

      OJ C 328, 4.12.2010

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-522/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2013 — Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia S.A. v Concello de Ferrol

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2013 — Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia S.A. v Concello de Ferrol
   (Case C-522/13)
   2013/C 367/44
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia S.A.

      Defendant: Concello de Ferrol

      Question referred

   Is the tax exemption enjoyed by NAVANTIA, S.L. in respect of the Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles (Tax on Real Property) compatible with Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and is it compatible with Article 107 TFEU for a Member State (SPAIN) to establish a tax exemption in respect of State-owned land (property registered as 2825201QA5422N0001YG), made available to a private company whose capital is entirely publicly owned (NAVANTIA, S.L.), on which that company provides goods and services that may be traded between Member States?


title: Case C-321/08: Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/38

         Action brought on 15 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-321/08)
   (2008/C 223/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for bringing national law into conformity with Directive 2005/29 expired on 12 June 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case T-309/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  6 April 2006  — Camós Grau v Commission (Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning the management and funding of the Institute for Europeon and Latin American Relations (IRELA) — Potential conflict of interest on the part of an investigator — Removal from the investigating body — Impact on the conduct of the investigation and the content of the report of the investigation — Report terminating the investigation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages — Admissibility)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 April 2006 — Camós Grau v Commission
   (Case T-309/03) (1)

   (Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning the management and funding of the Institute for Europeon and Latin American Relations (IRELA) - Potential conflict of interest on the part of an investigator - Removal from the investigating body - Impact on the conduct of the investigation and the content of the report of the investigation - Report terminating the investigation - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Action for damages - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 131/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Manel Camós Grau (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and C. Ladenburger, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for the annulment of the report of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 17 October 2002 terminating the investigation concerning the Institute for Europeon and Latin American Relations (IRELA) and, secondly, for compensation for non-material damage and damage to the applicant's employment prospects claimed to have arisen by virtue of that report
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay Mr Camós Grau the sum of EUR 10 000.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the claims.

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 1998 in Case C-132/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Antonio Stinco, Ciro Panfilo v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Old-age pension - Calculation of the theoretical amount of a benefit - Inclusion of the amount necessary to attain the statutory minimum pension)

text:
21.11.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 358/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
                                                                     of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                      (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                     schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                   of 24 September 1998                              and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                     Community must be interpreted as requiring the
in Case C-132/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            competent institution, in determining the theoretical
the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Antonio Stinco, Ciro             amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro
Panfilo v. Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale               rata pension is based, to take into account a supplement
                          (INPS) (1)                                 intended to bring the pension to the level of the statutory
                                                                     minimum.
(Old-age pension Ð Calculation of the theoretical amount
of a benefit Ð Inclusion of the amount necessary to attain
              the statutory minimum pension)                         (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                        (98/C 358/01)
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 1 October 1998
In Case C-132/96: reference to the Court under Article 177                 in Case C-27/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma                      Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Magistrate's Court, Rome) (Italy), for a preliminary                (EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1990 financial year
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                                   Ð Export refunds on Barley)
between Antonio Stinco, Ciro Panfilo and Istituto
Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) Ð on the                                           (98/C 358/02)
interpretation of Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (OJ L 230,
22.8.1983, p. 6), as amended in turn by Council
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 1)
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
and by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136,
19.5.1992, p. 7) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F.
Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and             In Case C-27/94: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den Oosterkamp) v.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T.
judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has ruled:                van Rijn) Ð application for the partial annulment of


title: Case C-656/15 P: Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/27

         Appeal brought on 7 December 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission
   (Case C-656/15 P)
   (2016/C 048/32)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: ved B. Stromsky, T. Maxian Rusche and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: TV2/Danmark A/S, Kingdom of Denmark, Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

      Form of order sought

   Set aside the judgment of the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2015 in Case T-674/11 TV2/Danmark A/S v European Commission, in so far as it annuls Commission Decision 2011/839/EU of 20 April 2011 concerning Danish measures (C 2/03) in favour of TV2/Danmark (1) in so far as that decision finds that advertising revenue from 1995 and 1996 constitutes State aid.
   Dismiss the third alternative claim of the applicant at first instance on its merits.
   Order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court erred by misinterpreting the concept of ‘State resources’ in Article 107(1) TFEU, including the concept of ‘control’, and in failing to provide a proper statement of reasons.
   The essential points of the appellant’s arguments put forward in support of its appeal are as follows:

               —

               The General Court erred in paragraphs 210 and 211 by failing to recognise that TV2 Reklame’s resources are State resources because TV2 Reklame is a State-owned company; the General Court applied an overly narrow interpretation of the case-law concerning the concept of State resources from State-owned businesses.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by applying an overly narrow interpretation of the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control over TV2 Reklame’s resources. Similarly, it erred in paragraph 215 by also interpreting too narrowly the concept of ‘control’ in its assessment of the State’s control of the resources in the TV2 Fund.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the judgment in PreussenElektra, C-379/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:160. That misinterpretation plays a central role in the general Court’s reasons for annulling the contested decision.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 340, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-404/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Josef Plum v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Rheinland, Regionaldirektion Köln (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the legislation applicable — Workers posted to another Member State)

text:
10.2.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 45/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, is to be
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     interpreted as not applying to workers of a construction company
                                                                             established in one Member State who are posted to carry out
                       of 9 November 2000                                    construction work in the territory of another Member State in which,
                                                                             apart from purely internal management activities, that undertaking
in Case C-404/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                         performs all its activities. In accordance with Article 13(2)(a) of
from the Bundesgerichtshof): Josef Plum v Allgemeine                         Regulation No 1408/71, those workers are subject to the social
 Ortskrankenkasse Rheinland, Regionaldirektion Köln (1)                      security legislation of the Member State in whose territory they
                                                                             actually work.
(Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the
legislation applicable — Workers posted to another Member                    (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
                               State)
                          (2001/C 45/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-404/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                       of 16 November 2000
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in             in Case C-282/98 P: Enso Española SA v Commission of
the proceedings pending before that court between Josef Plum                                   the European Communities (1)
and Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Rheinland, Regionaldirek-
tion Köln — on the interpretation of Articles 13(2)(a) and                   (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of                    (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons —
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to                             Principle of equal treatment — Costs)
employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended                                                (2001/C 45/02)
and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                                      (Language of the Case: Spanish)
er, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and
F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
which it has ruled:                                                                              in the European Court Reports)
Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of            In Case C-282/98 P, Enso Española SA, established in Cas-
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to                tellbisbal, Spain, represented by A. Creus Carreras, of the
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their           Barcelona Bar, and E. Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar,


title: Case T-248/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — HUP Uslugi Polska v OHIM — (I.T.@MANPOWER) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Communityword mark I.T.@MANPOWER — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Lack of descriptive character — No signs or indications which have become customary — Not a trade mark of such a nature as to deceive the public — Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — HUP Uslugi Polska v OHIM — (I.T.@MANPOWER)
   (Case T-248/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Communityword mark ‘I.T.@MANPOWER’ - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Lack of descriptive character - No signs or indications which have become customary - Not a trade mark of such a nature as to deceive the public - Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 285/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o., formerly HP Temporärpersonalgesellschaft mbH (Czeladz, Poland) (represented by: M. Ciresa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Manpower Inc. (Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States) (represented by: R. Moscona and V. Marsland, Solicitors, and A. Bryson, Barrister)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between MP Temporärpersonal GmbH and Manpower Inc.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HUP Uslugi Polska sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case T-543/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA (Application for interim measures — REACH — Making available on the market and use of biocidal products — Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann and Others v ECHA
   (Case T-543/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - REACH - Making available on the market and use of biocidal products - Inclusion of a company as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95 of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 059/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Lysoform Dr. Hans Rosemann GmbH (Berlin, Germany); Ecolab Deutschland GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany); Schülke & Mayr GmbH (Norderstedt, Germany); and Diversey Europe Operations BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, M. Grunchard, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Advocate)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: C. Buchanan and W. Broere, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of ECHA of 17 June 2015 to include company O. as a supplier of an active substance on the list referred to in Article 95(1) of Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products (OJ 2012 L 167, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-176/00: Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
22.7.2000                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 211/7
1. Do Articles 28 EC and 30 EC preclude national law which              represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
    prohibits the marketing of medicinal product X,                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                        Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
    — for which there existed hitherto in Member State A an             Kirchberg.
         implied licence which has now expired because the
         licence holder has surrendered it,
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
    — which for several years has been brought as a parallel
         import from Member State B to Member State A and               1. declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
         has been placed on the market there with reference to               administrative provisions required to comply with
         the abovementioned implied licence,
                                                                             — Council Directive 96/24/EC (1) of 29 April 1996
    — which the manufacturer and licence holder is replacing                     amending Directive 79/373/EEC on the marketing of
         with a new preparation Y [which it] is placing on                       compound feedingstuffs and
         the market in Member State A on the basis of an
         independent licence, and                                            — Council Directive 96/25/EC (2) of 29 April 1996 on
                                                                                the circulation of feed materials, amending Directives
    — [where preparation Y] differs from preparation X only                      70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 82/471/EEC and 93/74/EEC
         in respect of modified excipients, so that those excipi-                and repealing Directive 77/101/EEC,
         ents lead to improved temperature stability and thus
         make storage in the refrigerator unnecessary?                       the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                             under the Treaty and those directives;
2. Does it affect the judgment if there was available to the
    holder of the licence which has now expired a lawful
                                                                        2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    means of surrendering that licence in such a way that the
    marketability of the medicinal product was preserved for a
    certain (transitional) period?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
    If yes, according to which criteria must the previous
    holder, when taking a decision on his action, take into
    consideration the European free movement of goods?                  In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                        directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
3. Does it affect the judgment if medicinal product Y in the            each Member State to which they are addressed.
    new formulation is placed on the market only in Member
    State A or if it is also found on the market in other Member
    States?                                                             Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
                                                                        to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                        to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
4. Does it affect the judgment if, when the two formulations            or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
    exist side by side simultaneously in Member State A, there          Community.
    is a danger of incorrect storage of medicinal product X?
                                                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
                                                                        The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directives at issue into Greek law.
Action brought on 11 May 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                           (Case C-176/00)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 33.
                           (2000/C 211/12)                              (2) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 35.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 May
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,


title: Case T-272/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Court of Justice (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Rejection of bid — Selection and award criteria — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2008 — Evropaïki Dinamiki v Court of Justice
   (Case T-272/06) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Rejection of bid - Selection and award criteria - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2008/C 272/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens (Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented: initially by M. Schauss and then by D. Guild, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of 20 July 2006 not to accept the tender submitted by the applicant in response to the call for tenders of 5 July 2005 for services to maintain, develop and support computer applications, and to award the contract to the successful tenderer.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Court of Justice to reject the tender submitted by Evropaïki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE, as communicated to the latter by letter of 20 July 2006.

               2.

               Orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case C-545/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/25

         Appeal brought on 27 November 2014 by Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 18 September 2014 in Case T-168/12: Georgias e.a. v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-545/14 P)
   (2015/C 046/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Aguy Clement Georgias, Trinity Engineering (Private) Ltd, Georgiadis Trucking (Private) Ltd (represented by: H. Mercer QC, I. Quirk, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the General Court in whole

               —

               Grant the relief sought by the Appellant in the proceedings before the General Court (save for damages, which are to be assessed by the General Court)

               —

               Alternatively, remit the case to the General Court

               —

               In any event, order the Defendants to pay the Appellants’ costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the Appellants rely on four pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, that the General Court erred in holding that Regulation 314/2004 (1) entitled the Council to add persons to the Annex thereto simply on the ground that they were a member of the Government of Zimbabwe (paras. 57 and 66 of the General Court’s Judgment):

                           —

                           Regulation 314/2004 (‘the Regulation’) is to be interpreted in accordance with Common Position 2004/161/CFSP (2) (‘the Common Position’), which it was intended to implement

                           —

                           The General Court failed to take account of Article 4 of the Common Position which required that the persons named in the Annex were also engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe

               2.

               Second plea in law, that the General Court erred in its misreading of Article 5(1) of the Common Position, which led to it incorrectly applying the Regulation (para. 57 of the Judgment):

                           —

                           Contrary to the General Court’s decision, Article 5(1) of the Common Position did not provide that persons in the Annex to the Common Position and the Regulation were either a Member of Government or a person engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe

                           —

                           What in fact the Common Position, and hence the Regulation, required was that persons in the Annex fell into both those descriptions

               3.

               Third plea in law, that the General Court erred in interpreting the addition of the words ‘as such’ (added on 25 June 2007) to Senator Georgias’ listing in the Annex to the Regulation (and the Common Position) to be a ‘mere clarification’ that the mere status as a member of government was sufficient for inclusion (para. 58 of the Judgment):

                           —

                           The correct construction of the words added to Senator Georgia’s listing, as a matter of law, was an acknowledgment of the need to comply with Article 4 of the Common Position in addition to being a member of Government, since the words which followed ‘as such’ were exactly the requirements of Article 4

                           —

                           The General Court erred in interpreting the addition of those words as a ‘mere clarification’ that the mere status as a member of government was sufficient for inclusion

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, that the General Court erred in holding that, in relation to the plea that there had been a breach of the rights of defence, Senator Georgias had not explained what he would have relied on had he been heard (para. 108 of the Judgment):

                           —

                           It was clearly stated in the Application that Senator Georgias wrote to the Council (the letter was produced) and was then taken off the list

                           —

                           Furthermore, the Application made a long a list of points which would plainly have been made to the Council had Senator Georgias been given an opportunity to make them

                           —

                           In those circumstances, the General Court erred in law in holding that Senator Georgias had not explained what he would have relied on had he been heard

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 of 19 February 2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe

      OJ L 55, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Common Position 2004/161/CFSP of 19 February 2004 renewing restrictive measures against Zimbabwe

      OJ L 50, p. 66.


title: Action brought on 26 October 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-386/98)

text:
C 397/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   19.12.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht              administrative provisions necessary to comply with
St Pölten (Austria) by order of that court of 2 September              Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
1998 in the case of D. (a minor) v. W. on appeal by the                concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
                Österreichischer Bundesschatz                          working time (1), and/or by failing to inform the
                       (Case C-384/98)                                 Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to
                                                                       fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
                        (98/C 397/38)
                                                                   2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Landesgericht
(Regional Court) St Pölten (Austria) of 2 September 1998,          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D. (a minor)
v. W. on appeal by the Österreichischer Bundesschatz on            Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
the followqing questions:                                          directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                   upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                   Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
1. Is Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/
                                                                   down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit
     388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
                                                                   expired on 23 November 1996 without the Italian
     laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                   Republic having brought into force the necessary
     taxes (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                   provisions in order to comply with the directive referred
     exemption from turnover tax laid down by that
                                                                   to in the Commission's application.
     provision extends also to medical services which a
     doctor in his capacity as a court expert provides on
     the instructions of the Court, in particular by               (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
     anthropologico-genetic investigations in the context of
     a paternity dispute?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does that
     provision of the directive preclude application of a
     provision of national law which entitles (inter alia)
     doctors under certain conditions effectively to waive         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad
     the said exemption from turnover tax?                         der Nederlanden by order of that court of 23 October
                                                                   1998 in the case of Coreck Maritime GmbH against (1)
                                                                   Handelsveem B.V., (2) V. Berg and Sons Ltd, (3) Man
(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                     Producten Rotterdam B.V. and (4) The Peoples Insurance
                                                                                Company of China
                                                                                (Case C-387/98)
                                                                                (98/C 397/40)
Action brought on 26 October 1998 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der
                       (Case C-386/98)
                                                                   Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of
                        (98/C 397/39)                              23 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                   29 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   Coreck Maritime GmbH against (1) Handelsveem B.V.,
                                                                   (2) V. Berg and Sons Ltd, (3) Man Producten Rotterdam
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                B.V. and (4) The Peoples Insurance Company of China on
                                                                   the following questions:
26 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper and
Antonio Aresu, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos          1. Must the first sentence of Article 17 of the Brussels
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 Convention (in particular, the words have agreed'),
Kirchberg.                                                             read in conjunction with the case-law of the Court of
                                                                       Justice according to which the purpose of Article 17
                                                                       is to ensure that the parties have actually consented to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            such a clause, which derogates from the ordinary
                                                                       jurisdiction rules laid down in Articles 2, 5 and 6 of
                                                                       the Convention, and that their consent is clearly and
1. declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force              precisely demonstrated' (emphasis added by the Hoge
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations or             Raad), be interpreted as meaning:


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-54/04 (1)

   (2005/C 182/62)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-54/04: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.