title: Case C-245/06 P: Appeal brought on  1 June 2006  by Saiwa s.p.a. against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on  5 April 2006  in Case T-344/03 Saiwa s.p.a. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) and Barilla Alimentare s.p.a.

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/26

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2006 by Saiwa s.p.a. against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 Saiwa s.p.a. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) and Barilla Alimentare s.p.a.
   (Case C-245/06 P)
   (2006/C 178/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Saiwa s.p.a. (represented by: G. Sena, P. Tarchini, J.-P. Karsenty, M. Karsenty-Ricard, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla Alimentare
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgement under appeal.

               —

               Grant the form of order sought at first instance, and therefore annul, for infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 18 July 2003 in Case R 480/2002-4 and the rejection of the application for registration of Barilla Alimentare s.p.a. No 289.405.

               —

               Order the OHIM and Barilla Alimentare s.p.a. to pay the costs of all of the proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant puts forward a single ground for annulment based on infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The applicant claims that the expression ‘ORO’ (of which the trade mark which is the subject of the dispute consists, or which in any case forms part thereof) has inherent distinctive character; that with reference to the international mark (which is also the subject of the present dispute) part of the relevant public is unaware of the meaning of the word ‘ORO’ and that this is common knowledge and does not have to be proved by the parties; that having regard to the principle of interdependence, given the identity of the goods covered and signs in question, it is sufficient that the earlier sign has only weak distinctiveness.
   The applicant submits moreover that the distinctive character of the word ‘ORO’ is reinforced and/or acquired through use, with regard to both the trade mark ‘ORO’ and the trade mark ‘ORO SAIWA’.
   The applicant finally submits that the trade marks ‘ORO’ and ‘ORO SAIWA’ on the one hand, and ‘Selezione ORO BARILLA’ on the other hand, are likely to be confused and that in any case there is a likelihood of association between them.

      (1)  OJ L 22, p. 50.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/64

         Action brought on 13 February 2004 by Sonja Hosman-Chevalier against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-72/04)
   (2004/C 94/160)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 February 2004 by Sonja Hosman-Chevalier, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Ellen Wouters, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the Commission's decision void;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant disputes the decision of the Commission to refuse to pay her the expatriation allowance under Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations on the ground that her professional activities in Brussels could not be considered to be work done for another Member State.
   In support of her application, the applicant submits that the Commission has committed an error in its assessment of the facts and of her position in fact. According to the applicant, her habitual residence and the centre of her interests were in Austria.
   The applicant submits further that the Commission made an error of law in taking the view that the applicant worked in the interest and service of the Verbindungstelle der Bundesländer and of the office of the Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund and did not carry out work for a Member State. The applicant submits that that view reveals a misunderstanding of the structure of the Austrian State.
   Finally, she submits that there was a breach of the principle of equal treatment in that other officials in the same position received the expatriation allowance.


title: Case C-614/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 December 2012 — József Dutka v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 December 2012 — József Dutka v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal
   (Case C-614/12)
   2013/C 114/34
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: József Dutka

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must it be considered that Union law is being implemented within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter where domestic law provides for automatic termination of legal employment relationships or for their termination by decision?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is it appropriate to interpret Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as laying down a prohibition of unjustified dismissal or as doing so to the extent to which it requires that the reasons for dismissal appear clearly from the document bringing the legal relationship to an end and that the worker should be able to verify their truthfulness and relevance?

               3.

               If that is the case, is national legislation which grants the Member State an opportunity to dismiss (lay off) the worker without giving reasons solely in legal relationships in which the State acts as employer through its State administrative organs contrary to the obligation to account for dismissals which results from Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?


title: Case C-440/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 — Legal basis — Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support for the Government of Iran)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 March 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-440/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Restrictive measures against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal basis - Criterion relating to the material, logistical or financial support for the Government of Iran))
   (2016/C 156/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: National Iranian Oil Company (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu, D. Gauci and L. Gussetti, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders National Iranian Oil Company to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24.11.2014.


title: Case T-207/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Athanassios Rammos against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.8.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/53
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority                 sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified                calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-                  eration for the destination of Athens;
      sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
      passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier points                     or, in the alternative,
      (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      type seat’ ticket;                                                   —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                                to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
—     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the                       (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      decisions annulment of which is sought;                                    during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
—     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid                       passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier points
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             type seat’ ticket;
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                —     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
      Commission of the European Communities to pay those                        decisions annulment of which is sought;
      costs.
                                                                           —     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
                                                                                following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                                                                which is sought, together with legal interest;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities to pay those
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
                                                                                costs.
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicants in support of their application are similar to those            Pleas in law and main arguments
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
 1
( ) OJ C 247, 12.10.2002, p. 17.                                           sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
(2) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 40.                                            travel expenses to Greece.
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                           applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Panayotis Adamo-                         (2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
poulos and Others against the Commission of the
                      European Communities
                          (Case T-206/03)
                         (2003/C 184/111)
                                                                           Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Athanassios Rammos
                    (Language of the case: French)                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-207/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 184/112)
European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Panayotis Adamo-
poulos, residing in Brussels, and 118 other officials, represented
by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for                                    (Language of the case: French)
service in Luxembourg.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                           nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Athanassios
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified              Rammos, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period               G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service
      during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-            in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/54               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-
                                                                           Skarpatzi, residing in Waterloo (Belgium), and 11 other offi-
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           cials, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified              an address for service in Luxembourg.
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicant was an official of the
      Commission of the European Communities), the proce-                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
      dure for calculating the annual expense of travelling to
      Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into
      consideration for the destination of Athens;                         —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                                changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      or, in the alternative,                                                    (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority                 during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified                sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
      during which the applicant was an official of the                          respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
      Commission of the European Communities), the cost of                       eration for the Greek islands, when travel must be
      the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier                    through Athens or Piraeus;
      posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an
      ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                                or, in the alternative,
—     annul all the applicant's pay slips implementing the
      decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     reimburse to the applicant all the amounts not paid                        to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                      passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts
      Commission of the European Communities to pay those                        (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      costs.                                                                     type seat’ ticket;
                                                                           —     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                                decisions annulment of which is sought;
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in this case seeks the annulment of the Commis-              —     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual                        following implementation of the decisions annulment of
travel expenses to Greece.                                                       which is sought, together with legal interest;
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant in support of his application are similar to those of            —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                            Commission of the European Communities to pay those
                                                                                costs.
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-                         The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
Skarpatzi and Others against the Commission of the                         sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
                      European Communities                                 travel expenses to Greece.
                           (Case T-208/03)
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                          (2003/C 184/113)                                 applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-271/09: Action brought on 14 July 2009 — Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg v OHIM — British-American Tobacco Polska (Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/37

         Action brought on 14 July 2009 — Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg v OHIM — British-American Tobacco Polska (Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg)
   (Case T-271/09)
   2009/C 220/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg (Dortmund, Germany) (represented by: U. Fitzner and U. Fitzner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: British-American Tobacco Polska S.A. (Augustów, Poland)

      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 — OHIM) of 13 May 2009 (Appeal case R 771/2008-4);

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division of 14 March 2008; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Romuald Prinz Sobieski zu Schwarzenberg’ for goods in Classes 33 and 34 (application No 4 583 761)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: British-American Tobacco Polska S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Polish word mark ‘JAN III SOBIESKI’ for goods in Classes 34 (No 110 327) and the Polish word and figurative mark ‘JAN III SOBIESKI’ for goods in Classes 3, 30, 32 and 33 (No 160 417). The opposition concerns registration in Classes 33 and 34

      Decision of the Opposition Division: acceptance of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 (2) and of Article 60 in conjunction with Article 81 of Regulation No 207/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 33)


               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/2

         Assignment of the Judges to the Chambers
   (2007/C 69/03)
   At its meeting of 16 January 2007, the Court decided to assign Mr Arabadjiev to the Third and Seventh Chambers.
   The composition of the Third and Seventh Chambers is accordingly as follows:
   Third Chamber
   Mr Rosas, President of the Chamber,
   Mr Klučka, Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lõhmus, Mr Ó Caoimh, Ms Lindh and Mr Arabadjiev, Judges
   Seventh Chamber
   Mr Klučka, President of the Chamber,
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Mr Lõhmus, Mr Ó Caoimh, Ms Lindh and Mr Arabadjiev, Judges
   At that meeting, the Court decided to assign Ms Toader to the Second and Sixth Chambers.
   The composition of the Second and Sixth Chambers is accordingly as follows:
   Second Chamber
   Mr Timmermans, President of the Chamber,
   Mr Kūris, Sir Konrad Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Bay Larsen, Mr Bonichot and Ms Toader, Judges
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Kūris, President of the Chamber,
   Sir Konrad Schiemann, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Bay Larsen, Mr Bonichot and Ms Toader, Judges


title: Case T-223/07 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Thierry v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2004 promotion procedure — Dismissal of an application for a witness to be examined — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2008 — Thierry v Commission
   (Case T-223/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2004 promotion procedure - Dismissal of an application for a witness to be examined - Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
   (2009/C 55/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Michel Thierry (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 April 2007 in Case F-82/05 Thierry v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and requesting that that order be set aside.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Michel Thierry is ordered to pay his own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission in the context of the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 October 2002 in Case C-79/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Milano): Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Activity of preparing and printing pay slips)

text:
7.12.2002                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 305/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 October 2002
                         of 17 October 2002
                                                                              in Case C-208/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-79/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                      the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha):
the Corte d’appello di Milano): Payroll Data Services                         Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras Medina v Consejería
        (Italy) Srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA ( 1)                        de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de la Junta de Comuni-
                                                                                dades de Castilla-La Mancha ( 1)
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —                     (Agriculture — Common organisation of markets — Wine
           Activity of preparing and printing pay slips)
                                                                              sector — Regulation (EC) No 1294/96 — Harvest, pro-
                                                                              duction and stock declarations — Failure of a holding to
                                                                              comply with the time-limits for making declarations —
                            (2002/C 305/06)                                       Death of the director of the holding — Force majeure)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)                                                    (2002/C 305/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-79/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                              In Case C-208/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
in the non-contentious proceedings (giurisdizione volontaria)
                                                                              EC by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha
brought before that court by Payroll Data Services (Italy) Srl,
                                                                              (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA, on the interpretation of
                                                                              before that court between Isabel Parras Medina, Adelina Parras
Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                              Medina and Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente de
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                              la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha on the
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,
                                                                              interpretation of Article 12 of Commission Regulation (EC)
and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                              No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                              application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
judgment on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                              harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-
                                                                              sector products (OJ 1996 L 166, p. 14), the Court (First
                                                                              Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Cham-
Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes               ber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
legislation of a Member State which requires undertakings with less           Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
than 250 employees which wish to entrust the preparation and                  on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
printing of their pay slips to data-processing centres to have recourse
only to those established staffed exclusively by persons registered with
certain professional associations in that Member State if, under that         On a proper construction of Article 12 of Commission Regulation
legislation, undertakings with more than 250 employees may entrust            (EC) No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 laying down detailed rules for the
such activities to data-processing centres on the sole condition that         application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 as regards
they are assisted by one or more such persons.                                harvest, production and stock declarations relating to wine-sector
                                                                              products:
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.                                                    —     the concept of ‘force majeure’ referred to therein is not limited to
                                                                                absolute impossibility but must be understood in the sense of
                                                                                abnormal and unforeseeable circumstances, outside the oper-
                                                                                ator’s control, the consequences of which, in spite of the exercise
                                                                                of all due care, could not have been avoided;


title: Case C-378/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — Belgium) — Clear Channel Belgium S.A. v City of Liège

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 May 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — Belgium) — Clear Channel Belgium S.A. v City of Liège
   (Case C-378/06) (1)

   (2007/C 170/33)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-253/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Ramazan Dündar and Others v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Ramazan Dündar and Others v Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
   (Case C-253/17)
   (2017/C 300/16)
   Language of the case: Germany

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ramazan Dündar, Carolin Wenzel, Antonia Genovese, Jan-Maximilian Mügge

      Defendant: Air Berlin plc & Co. Luftverkehrs KG
   By order of 20 June 2017, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union removed the case from the Court’s Register.


title: Case F-18/16: Action brought on 31 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/49

         Action brought on 31 March 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-18/16)
   (2016/C 251/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Sciaudone and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application seeking (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision not to regard the applicant as exercising special responsibilities resulting in his assignment to the type of post ‘Head of unit or equivalent’ or ‘Adviser or equivalent’ pursuant to Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and (ii) a finding that Commission Communication SEC (2013) 691 of 18 December 2013, which amends the rules governing the composition of the cabinets of the Members of the Commission and spokespersons, is unlawful.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision rejecting his request to be regarded as exercising special responsibilities resulting in his assignment to the type of post ‘Adviser or equivalent’ pursuant to Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               incidentally, given the failure to implement Article 30(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations fully and in a non-discriminatory manner, annul the communication of 2013 (and the communication of 2014 in so far as it reproduces the communication of 2013);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-53/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Aid granted by Member States — Derogations from the prohibition of aid — Aid capable of being regarded as compatible with the internal market — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 — Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Linked enterprises — Enterprises exercising their activities on the same market and forming part of a global group of enterprises owned by the members of one single family — Concept of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/14

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt. v Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium
   (Case C-53/17) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Aid granted by Member States - Derogations from the prohibition of aid - Aid capable of being regarded as compatible with the internal market - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Linked enterprises - Enterprises exercising their activities on the same market and forming part of a global group of enterprises owned by the members of one single family - Concept of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’))
   (2017/C 249/21)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bericap Záródástechnikai Cikkeket Gyártó Bt.

      Defendant: Nemzetgazdasági Minisztérium

      Operative part of the order

   Article 3(3) of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that enterprises may be regarded as ‘linked’, within the meaning of that provision, where it is clear from the analysis of both the legal and economic relations existing between them that they constitute, through a natural person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, a single economic unit, even though they do not formally feature any of the relationships referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Natural persons who work together in order to influence the commercial decisions of the enterprises concerned, with the result that those enterprises cannot be regarded as being economically independent of one another, are to be regarded as acting jointly for the purposes of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Whether such a condition is satisfied will depend on the circumstances of the individual case and is not necessarily conditional on the existence of contractual relations between those persons or even on a finding that they intended to circumvent the definition of micro, small or medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Annex I to Regulation No 800/2008.

      (1)  OJ C 144, 8.5.2017.


title: Case T-217/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2009 — Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 — Milk quota scheme — Increase in national milk quotas — Applicants not individually concerned — Inadmissible)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 April 2009 — Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter and Others v Council
   (Case T-217/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 - Milk quota scheme - Increase in national milk quotas - Applicants not individually concerned - Inadmissible)
   2009/C 141/86
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter eV (Bonn, Germany); Romuald Schaber (Petersthal, Germany); Stefan Mann (Eberdorfergrund, Germany); and Walter Peters (Körchow, Germany) (represented by: W. Renner and O. Schniewind, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Moore and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)
   Intervener in support of the applicants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and M. Vollkommer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 248/2008 of 17 March 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the national quotas for milk (OJ 2008 L 76, p. 6).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The Bundesverband Deutscher Milchviehhalter eV, Romuald Schaber, Stefan Mann and Walter Peters are ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council.

               3.

               The Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209 of 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-68/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s. (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Agreement concluded between a number of banks — Competitor allegedly operating unlawfully on the market concerned — Effect — None)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/19

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia)) — v Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky v Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s.
   (Case C-68/12) (1)

   (Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Agreement concluded between a number of banks - Competitor allegedly operating unlawfully on the market concerned - Effect - None)
   2013/C 114/27
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky

      Respondent: Slovenská sporiteľňa a.s.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Interpretation of Article 101(1) and (3) TFEU — Cartel — Agreement concluded between several banks with a view to cancelling agreements, and refraining from concluding new agreements, concerning current accounts with a competing undertaking established in another Member State — Effect on the classification as an unlawful agreement of the fact, not raised at the time when the agreement was entered into, that the competing undertaking was operating unlawfully on the market in question

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 101 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an undertaking that is adversely affected by an agreement whose object is the restriction of competition was allegedly operating illegally on the relevant market at the time when the agreement was concluded is of no relevance to the question whether the agreement constitutes an infringement of that provision.

               2.

               Article 101(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to find that an agreement is restrictive of competition, it is not necessary to demonstrate personal conduct on the part of a representative authorised under the undertaking’s constitution or the personal assent, in the form of a mandate, of that representative to the conduct of an employee of the undertaking who has participated in an anti-competitive meeting.

               3.

               Article 101(3) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it can apply to an agreement prohibited under Article 101(1) TFEU only when the undertaking which is relying on Article 101(3) TFEU has proved that the four cumulative conditions laid down therein are met.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012


title: Case C-438/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Taus Magamadov

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 July 2017 — Federal Republic of Germany v Taus Magamadov
   (Case C-438/17)
   (2017/C 347/10)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Respondent: Taus Magamadov

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU (1) preclude the application of national legislation which, in transposition of the power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU, which is more extensive than that conferred in the directive that preceded it, provides that an application for international protection is inadmissible if the applicant has been granted subsidiary protection in another Member State, in so far as the national legislation, in the absence of any national transitional provisions, is applicable even to applications lodged before 20 July 2015? Is that in any event the case if, in accordance with Article 49 of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013, the asylum application still falls entirely within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003?

               2.

               In particular, does the transitional provision contained in the first paragraph of Article 52 of Directive 2013/32/EU allow the Member States, in particular, to transpose the extended power conferred in Article 33(2)(a) of Directive 2013/32/EU retroactively, with the result that even applications that were lodged before the entry into force of Directive 2013/32/EU and before that extended power was transposed into national law, but that were not yet the subject of a final decision at the time of transposition, are inadmissible?

      (1)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).


5.5.2001              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 134/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-458/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-106/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/25)                                                    (2001/C 134/27)
By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of         By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of, the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-458/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-106/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                          European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-446/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 134/26)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-342/00 (1)
By order of 15 February 2001 the President of the Court of                                (2001/C 134/28)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-446/99: Commission of the              By order of 6 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                   the register of Case C-342/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case F-86/14: Action brought on 1st September 2014 — ZZ and others v European Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/33

         Action brought on 1st September 2014 — ZZ and others v European Commission
   (Case F-86/14)
   2014/C 388/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and others (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions reducing the total number of days of annual leave and declaration of inapplicability of Article 6 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations as modified by Article 1, point 70 of Regulation no 1023/2013, applicable from 1st January 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions addressed to the applicants through Sysper2 with regard to their new basic annual leave entitlement;

               —

               declare inapplicable Article 1, point 70 lit. (a) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No. 1023/20131 changing Article 6 of Annex X of the Staff Regulations (‘Special and exceptional provisions applicable to officials serving in a third country’) and the Commission’s decision C(2013) 9051 final of 16 December 2013, as far they reduce the entitlement in number of annual leave days of the applicants;

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 23 May 2014 (R/123/14) rejecting the complaints of the applicants, as far as referring to annual leave;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-344/10: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2012 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission (State aid — Absence of a decision to close the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC — Action for failure to act — Locus standi — Admissibility)

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/13

         Order of the General Court of 4 May 2012 — UPS Europe and United Parcel Service Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-344/10) (1)

   (State aid - Absence of a decision to close the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC - Action for failure to act - Locus standi - Admissibility)
   2012/C 184/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium); and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutsche Post AG (represented by: J. Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for failure to act, seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to take a decision, within a reasonable period, in the procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC, initiated on 12 September 2007, concerning the State aid granted by the German authorities to Deutsche Post AG (aid C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               UPS Europe NV/SA and United Parcel Service Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Deutsche Post AG shall bear its own costs

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-151/03 P: Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Karl L. Meyer against the judgment of 13 February 2003 of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-333/01 K. Meyer v Commission

text:
C 112/22                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Chantal Hectors                         —    The Court of First Instance infringed the general obli-
against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003 by the                       gation to state the grounds on which decisions are based.
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chan-                            The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
             tal Hectors and European Parliament                               considers that the decision of the authority empowered
                                                                               to conclude contracts of employment not to appoint the
                                                                               applicant provides an adequate statement of reasons by
                          (Case C-150/03 P)                                    stating that the relevant internal rules according to which
                                                                               the chairman of the political group concerned had to
                                                                               choose one of the first three candidates on the list of
                           (2003/C 112/38)                                     suitable candidates drawn up by the selection board.
                                                                          —    The Court of First Instance infringed Article 12 of the
                                                                               Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2003                    European Communities.
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     The judgment of the Court of First Instance is wrong in
European Communities in Case T-181/01 between Chantal                          not finding that there was a manifest error of assessment
Hectors and European Parliament was brought before the                         in that it was not established that an assessment of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 April 2003                   candidates’ qualifications had taken place.
by Chantal Hectors, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    —    The Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of
                                                                               equal treatment.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
                                                                               considers that the applicant has not established a pre-
                                                                               sumption of direct or indirect discrimination on the basis
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                               that the applicant was 6 months pregnant at the time of
      the European Communities of 23 January 2003 in Case
                                                                               the recruitment procedure.
      T-181/01 and
—     accordingly, uphold the applicant’s claims at first instance
      and, thus,
      —     annul the decision taken, on a date unknown, by
            the authority empowered to conclude contracts of              Appeal brought on 2 April 2003 by Karl L. Meyer against
            employment appointing Mr A. B. to the post of                 the judgment of 13 February 2003 of the Third Chamber
            administrator in the PPE-DE Group of the European             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
            Parliament and the decision, of unknown date,                        ties in Case T-333/01 K. Meyer v Commission
            rejecting the applicant’s candidature for that post
            and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision
                                                                                (Case C-151/03 P)
            rejecting the applicant’s complaint, taken on 28 May
            2001;
                                                                                (2003/C 112/39)
      —     order the defendant to pay damages assessed at
            EUR 60 554,7, subject to increment;
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment of 13 February 2003 of the
      —     order the defendant to pay the entire costs incurred          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
            at first instance and on appeal.                              Communities in Case T-333/01 K. Meyer v Commission.
                                                                          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities on 2 April 2003 (lodged by fax on 23 March
                                                                          2003) by Karl L. Meyer, represented by Jean-Dominique des
                                                                          Arcis.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The Court of First Instance disregarded the principle               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      ‘patere quam ipse legem fecisti’ and the principle of
      legality.                                                           —    set aside paragraphs 38, 39 and 40 of the judgment of
                                                                               the Court of First Instance;
      The judgment of the Court of First Instance wrongly
      considers that the authority empowered to conclude                  —    amend and correct accordingly paragraphs 41 to 47 of
      contracts of employment has unfettered discretion to                     the judgment;
      organise interviews with the candidates when neither the
      internal rules on the recruitment of members of the                 —    order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first
      temporary staff nor the vacancy notice provide for them.                 instance and on appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/23
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-26/02 (1)
—     Irregularity of the proceedings                                                           (2003/C 112/40)
      The Court of First Instances misinterpreted the case as
      presented by the applicant, making no mention in its             By order of 26 February 2003 the President of the Court of
      judgment of the evidence led by it and reflected in the          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Report for the Hearing. Furthermore, the judgment is also        from the register of Case C-26/02: Kingdom of Spain v Council
      misleading as to the course of the hearing before the            of the European Communities.
      Court of First Instance.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
—     Breach of Community law
      The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that
      Article 125 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June
      1986 on the association of the overseas countries and
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-254/02 ( 1)
      territories with the European Economic Community does
      not include agricultural projects among those capable of
                                                                                (2003/C 112/41)
      being financed by Community funding. The Court of First
      Instance ignored the evidence put forward in that respect
      by the applicant.
                                                                       By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Court of
      Moreover, the Court of First Instance infringed the              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Charter of Fundamental Rights and the rights of the              from the register of Case C-254/02 (Reference for a preliminary
      defence by misinterpreting the complaints put forward            ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal
      by the applicant.                                                Centre): Fast Forward Resources plc v Commissioners of
                                                                       Customs and Excise.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case T-321/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark STREET — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (STREET)
   (Case T-321/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark STREET - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 March 2014 (Case R 2025/2015-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STREET as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Volkswagen AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case F-55/06: Action brought on  2 May 2006  — de Albuquerque v Commission

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/28

         Action brought on 2 May 2006 — de Albuquerque v Commission
   (Case F-55/06)
   (2006/C 154/65)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Augusto de Albuquerque (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 23 September 2005 of the Director-General of DG INFSO to transfer the applicant in the interest of the service as head of unit INFSO.G.2 ‘Micro and nanosystems’;

               —

               annul the appointing authority's express decision of 2 February 2006 giving a negative response to the applicant's complain R/764/05;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission transferred in the interest of the service to the post of head of unit INFSO.G.2 ‘Micro and nanosystems’, claims that that transfer is contrary to the interest of the service. He relies on a breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment of the concept of ‘interest of the service’, a misuse of powers and a breach of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Case T-28/11: Action brought on 23 January 2011 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/30

         Action brought on 23 January 2011 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission
   (Case T-28/11)
   2011/C 72/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, the Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision No C(2010) 7694 final on 9 November 2010 in whole or in part, and in subsidiary order,

               —

               reduce the fine imposed.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Application pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the ‘TFEU’) (ex Article 230 EC) for the review and annulment of Commission Decision No C(2010) 7694 final on 9 November 2010, relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU (ex Article 81 EC), Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39.258 — Airfreight) addressed to KLM N.V.; and, in subsidiary order, for the reduction of the fine imposed pursuant to Article 261 TFEU (ex article 229 EC).
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision fails to state reasons within the meaning of article 296 TFEU and article 41 (2) (C) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this regard the applicant submits the following arguments:

                           —

                           fundamental inconsistency between the operative part of the decision and the statement of reasons;

                           —

                           inconsistencies between the operative part of the decision and the statement of reasons preclude an effective review of the decision by the Court;

                           —

                           inconsistencies and lack of clarity within the statement of reasons concerning (i) the scope of the infringement and the addressees of the decision, (ii) the non-commissioning of surcharges, and (iii) the introduction of the fuel surcharge preclude an effective review of the decision by the Court;

                           —

                           inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the statement of reasons in relation to the application of the 2006 Fining Guidelines and the imposition of fines preclude an effective review of the decision by the Court.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision was taken in violation of the right to due process within the meaning of article 41, 47, 48, 49, and 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In this regard the applicant submits the following arguments:

                           —

                           the Commission failed to respect the right to be heard, the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence under article 41 (2) (a), 47 and 48 of the Charter by omitting to hear the addressees on the various changes to the scope of the case and the number of addressees;

                           —

                           violation of the principle of the legality and proportionality of fines under article 49 Charter by including KLM Cargo’s full turnover in the value of sales under the 2006 Fining Guidelines, and the right to be heard in that regard;

                           —

                           violation of the principle of the legality and proportionality of fines under article 49 Charter and the principle of non bis in idem of article 50 Charter by including sales outside the EEA in the value of sales under the 2006 Fining Guidelines and by using an indiscriminate criterion to cap that value of sales, and the right to be heard in that regard.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the fine has been set in breach of article 101 TFEU, article 23 of Regulation 1/2003 (1) and the 2006 Fining Guidelines since:

                           —

                           the 2006 Fining Guidelines do not allow to include sales which are not directly or indirectly related to the infringement in the value of sales;

                           —

                           the 2006 Fining Guidelines do not allow the fine to be based on sales outside the EEA.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the determination of fines under the 2006 Fining Guidelines is manifestly erroneous and in violation of the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment. In this regard the applicant submits the following arguments:

                           —

                           it is manifestly erroneous and a violation of the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment to hold that the sales related directly or indirectly to the infringement are KLM Cargo’s full sales;

                           —

                           it is manifestly erroneous and in violation of the principles of legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment to hold that the sales related directly or indirectly to the infringement should include KLM Cargo’s sales outside the EEA;

                           —

                           it is manifestly erroneous and in violation of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment to determine the gravity of the infringement without reference to the nature of surcharges and to determine both the value of sales and the gravity of the infringement with reference to the global scope of the infringement;

                           —

                           it is manifestly erroneous and in violation of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment to determine the additional amount of the fine (‘entry fee’) irrespective of the duration of the infringement;

                           —

                           it is manifestly erroneous and in violation of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment to set the reduction of the fine on account of governmental intervention at 15 %.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1


?.. 9    95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 229/ 17
Appeal brought on 12 July 1995 by the Commission of the                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-74/93 and
European Communities against the judgment delivered on                                                C-75/93 ( ] )
2 May 1995 by the Court of First Instance of the European                                            95/C 229/37 )
Communities (Third Chamber extended composition) in
Joined Cases T-163/94 between NTN Corporation and the
Council of the European Union and T-165/94 between                     By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd and the Council of the European                     of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                Union                                  ordered the removal from the register of Joined Cases
                                                                       C-74/93 and C-75/93 : Commission of the European
                        ( Case C-245/95 P)                             Communities v. Council of the European Union, supported
                             95/C 229/35                               by Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, European
                                                                       Parliament, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 1995 by              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Federal Republic
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                of Germany.
(Third Chamber extended composition ) in Joined Cases
T-l 63/94 between NTN Corporation and the Council of the               ( ] ) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
European Union and T-165/94 between Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd
and the Council of the European Union, was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eric White and Nicholas
Khan, acting as agents, with an address for service in                         Removal from the register of Case C-442/93 (*)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                                 95/C 229/38 )
Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                       By order of 10 May 1995 the President of the Court of
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance,               from the register of Case C-442/93 ( reference for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal
— refer the case back to the Court of First Instance,                  de la Audiencia Nacional ( Madrid, Spain )): Criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Rafael Martin Calvo Martinicorena .
— order the Applicants to pay the costs.
                                                                       (M OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in law in
that it :
  ( i ) held that a regulation modifying existing anti-dumping                 Removal from the register of Case C-208/94 (*)
        duties following a review initiated pursuant to
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/39 )
        Articles 14 and 15 of the Basic Regulation must
        establish injury within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) of
        the Basic Regulation;                                          By order of 19 May 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 or, in the alternative, it further erred in law in that it:            from the register of Case C-208/94 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
 ( ii ) held that the infringement of Article 7 ( 9 ) ( a ) of the
        Basic Regulation necessarily entailed the annulment of          f 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
        the contested Regulation .
         Removal from the register of Case C-367/92 H                          Removal from the register of Case C-2 70/94 (*)
                            ( 95/C 229/36 )                                                         ( 95/C 229/40 )
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 By order of 18 May 1995 the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-367/92 : French Republic v.                from the register of Case C-270/94 : Commission of the
 Commission of the European Communities.                                European Communities v. Italian Republic .
  H OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .                                        (») OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .


title: Case T-134/09: Action brought on 30 March 2009 — B Antonio Basile 1952 and I Marchi Italiani v OHIM

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/48

         Action brought on 30 March 2009 — B Antonio Basile 1952 and I Marchi Italiani v OHIM
   (Case T-134/09)
   2009/C 141/100
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: B Antonio Basile 1952 (Giugliano, Italy) and I Marchi Italiani (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Militerni, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Osra SA (Rovereta, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 09.01.2009, notified to the applicants in the present case on 30.01.2009 in proceedings R 1436/2007-2, between Antonio Basile, operating as a sole proprietorship ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’ and Osra S.A., which upheld the decision of the Cancellation Division, which allowed the application for revocation and declaration of invalidity of the mark ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’, following the action brought by Osra S.A.;

               —

               Declare the registration of the mark ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’ to be valid and effective as from the date of filing of the application and/or registration of that mark;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the wording ‘B Antonio Basile 1952’ (Community trade mark application No 1 462 555), for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicants.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Osra S.A.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Word mark ‘BASILE’ (Italian registration No 287 030 and international registration No R 413 396 B) for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the trade mark in question to be partially invalid in relation to goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The grounds put forward in the present action are the same as those in Case T-133/09.


title: Case C-66/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Parma — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari — by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case of criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi

text:
27.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Therefore, is an undertaking whose registered office is in a
                                                                            Member State at whose request a protected designation of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                 origin has been registered in accordance with Article 17 of
C-42/00 (2); the period prescribed for adoption laid down in                Regulation No 2081/92 (24 July 1993), which has used a
Article 5 of the Directive expired on 31 December 1998.                     designation that is open to confusion with the one
                                                                            registered uninterruptedly over the five years prior to the
                                                                            entry into force of Regulation No 2081/92 entitled to use
(1) OJ 1997 L 184, 12.7.1997, p. 33.                                        the same designation to distinguish products which are
(2) See page 18 of this OJ.                                                 intended to be sold only outside the Member State of
                                                                            registration and only in the territory of a Member State
                                                                            which has not opposed the use of that designation in the
                                                                            said territory?
                                                                        — If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, may the
                                                                            undertaking whose registered office is in the Member State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                      of registration of the protected designation of origin (PDO)
Parma — Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari                     legitimately describe his products by using the designation
— by order of that court of 21 February 2000 in the case                    which is open to confusion with the one registered until
          of criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi                        the expiry of the fifth year following the date of registration
                                                                            of the protected designation (12 June 1996), in other
                                                                            words until 12 June 2001?
                          (Case C-66/00)
                                                                        — As from the day following the date indicated in Question
                         (2000/C 149/31)                                    6 above (12 June 2001), must the use of any designation
                                                                            open to confusion with the one registered in all the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member States by any operator who is not expressly
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di Parma                  authorised to use the registered designation within the
— Ufficio del Giudice per le Indagini Preliminari (District                 meaning of Regulation No 2081/92 be regarded as pro-
Court, Parma, Office of the Judge responsible for preliminary               hibited?
investigations) of 21 February 2000, which was received at the
Court Registry on 28 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling            (1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.92, p. 1.
in criminal proceedings against Dante Bigi, on the following            (2) OJ L 83 of 25.3.97, p. 3.
questions:                                                              (3) OJ L 148 of 21.6.96, p. 1.
— Must Article 13(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2081/92 (1) (as
     amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 535/97) (2) be
     interpreted as meaning that no official measure of a
     legislative or administrative nature need be adopted by the
     Member State concerned in order to allow the use on its
     territory of designations which may be confused with               Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Commission
     those registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)                      of the European Communities against Ireland
     No 2081/92?
                                                                                (Case C-67/00)
— Therefore, in order to allow use of the designations referred
     to above in the territory of the Member State concerned, is                                 (2000/C 149/32)
     it sufficient that there is no opposition by that Member
     State to such use?                                                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities on 29 February 2000 by
— Does the lack of any opposition by the Member State in                the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     whose territory the designation which is open to confusion         by Mr Michael Shotter, a member of its Legal Service, acting as
     with one registered under Article 17 of Regulation (EC)            agent, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
     No 2081/92 is used render lawful the use of that desig-            Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
     nation by an undertaking whose registered office is in the         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
     territory of the Member State in which the designation was
     registered, if that undertaking uses the designation which         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     is open to confusion only for products intended to be sold
     outside the country of registration and only within the            — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     territory of the Member State which is not opposed to use              or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     of the said designation?                                               Commission Directive 98/28/EC (1) of 29 April 1998
                                                                            granting a derogation from certain provisions of Directive
— Does the period of five years referred to in Article 13(2) of             93/43/EEC (2)) on the hygiene of foodstuffs as regards the
     Regulation No 2081/92 for use of a name in relation to a               transport by sea of bulk raw sugar or, in any event, by
     product whose designation was registered on 12 June                    failing to inform the Commission of those measures,
     1996 (see Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 (3), cited above)                 Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     expire on 12 June 2001?                                                Directive; and,


title: Case T-512/14: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Green Source Poland v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 — Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project — Undertaking responsible for project implementation — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2017 — Green Source Poland v Commission
   (Case T-512/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - ERDF - Article 41(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 - Refusal to grant a financial contribution to a major project - Undertaking responsible for project implementation - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 195/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Merola and L. Armati, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by M. Clausen and B.-R. Killmann, and subsequently by B.-R. Killmann and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 2289 final of 7 April 2014 refusing to make a financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the major project ‘Purchase and implementation of innovative manufacturing technology of biocomponents to produce biofuels’ forming part of the operational programme ‘Innovative Economy’ for structural interventions under the ‘Convergence’ objective in Poland.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Green Source Poland sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-584/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — POA v Commission (Action for annulment — Application for registration of a protected designation of origin (‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’) — Decision to publish in the Official Journal, C series, an application for registration of a protected designation of origin pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Preparatory measure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/46

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — POA v Commission
   (Case T-584/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Application for registration of a protected designation of origin (‘Halloumi’ or ‘Hellim’) - Decision to publish in the Official Journal, C series, an application for registration of a protected designation of origin pursuant to Article 50(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Preparatory measure - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 402/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA) (Latsia, Cyprus) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Lewis and J. Guillem Carrau, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the Commission’s decision to publish in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ 2015 C 246, p. 9) application for registration No CY/PDO/0005/01243, introduced by the Republic of Cyprus, inasmuch as it found that that application met the conditions laid down by Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1), as referred to in Article 50(1) of that regulation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Pagkyprios organismos ageladotrofon Dimosia Ltd (POA) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission, including the costs relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.


title: Case T-316/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — HIM v European Commission

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/25

         Action brought on 23 July 2010 — HIM v European Commission
   (Case T-316/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Health Information Management (HIM) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Zeegers, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present application admissible and well-founded and, consequently,

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 11 821,35, together with default interest at the statutory rate applicable in Belgium from 16 June 2010;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses inclusive, the amount of which is provisionally fixed at EUR 5 000.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, based on an arbitration clause, the applicant requests the General Court, in essence, to declare that, for the purposes of calculation of the applicant’s general costs to be met by the Commission (in respect of contracts concluded under the eTen programme specifically), that is to say, that part of the general costs capable of being connected to the services of the staff working on the project, not including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff, since those sub-contractors do not incur any general costs to be borne by the applicant. Consequently, the costs of sub-contracts should not be included in the total amount of personnel costs by which the total amount of general costs is divided to arrive at the denominator to be used to determine the percentage of eligible general costs.
   In support of its action, the applicant submits that, since sub-contractors’ costs do not form part of the eligible personnel costs, the fact of including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff when calculating the amount of the total personnel costs to be used to determine the percentage of eligible general costs gives rise to an inconsistency.
   In addition, the fact of including sub-contractors in the applicant’s staff causes damage to the applicant, since that method results in an increase in the amount of the denominator and, in consequence, gives a proportional decrease in the percentage of eligible general costs.


title: Case F-58/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — FW v Commission

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/102

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 17 December 2015 — FW v Commission
   (Case F-58/15) (1)

   (2016/C 048/120)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 213, 29/6/2015, p. 47.


title: Case T-391/10: Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/48

         Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Nedri Spanstaal v Commission
   (Case T-391/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/76
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Nedri Spanstaal BV (Venlo, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Slotboom and B. Haan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul Article 1(9) of the Commission’s decision with regard to the period of time in respect of which Hit Groep was found liable, and Article 2(9) of the decision with regard to the fine imposed on Nedri;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment in part of the Commission’s decision of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel.
   In support of its action, the applicant has submitted three pleas in law.
   First, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by finding Hit Groep jointly and severally liable only for the period from 1 January 1998 to 17 January 2002. In the applicant’s view, the Commission should have found Hit Groep liable for the period from 1 May 1987 to 17 January 2002 since Hit Groep had control of the applicant throughout the whole of that period.
   Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, of the Guidelines on setting fines, (2) of the principle of proportionality and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by applying the legal maximum of the amount of the fine, that is 10 % of turnover in the preceding business year, to the applicant’s turnover in 2009. The legal maximum should have been applied to the applicant’s turnover in 2002.
   Third, the applicant alleges infringement of point 23 of the Leniency Notice (3) and of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicant, the Commission committed errors of law and of fact by granting the applicant only a 25 % reduction of the fine, instead of 30 %.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

      (3)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).