title: Case T-454/15: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Werner (Dynamic Life) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Dynamic Life — Earlier national word mark DYNAMIN — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2016 — Laboratorios Ern v EUIPO — Werner (Dynamic Life)
   (Case T-454/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Dynamic Life - Earlier national word mark DYNAMIN - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 222/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Ern, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Pérez Serres, R. Guerras Mazón, S. Correa Rodríguez and T. González Martínez, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Rajh, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Matthias Werner (Neufahrn, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 May 2015 (Case R 441/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Ern and Mr Werner.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Laboratorios Ern, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case T-47/17: Action brought on 26 January 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing a green ring on a leg)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/18

         Action brought on 26 January 2017 — Yotrio Group v EUIPO (Affixing a green ring on a leg)
   (Case T-47/17)
   (2017/C 095/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Yotrio Group Co. Ltd (Linhai City, China) (represented by: L. Ullmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: Other EU trade mark (Affixing a green ring on a leg) — Application for registration No 14 396 568

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 November 2016 in Case R 285/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 6 June 1996 in Case C-101/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Dealing in transferable securities)

text:
 20 . 7 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 210/ 1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                        of 6 June 1996
in Case C-101 /94: Commission of the European                          (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
              Communities v. Italian Republic ( ] )
              (Dealing in transférable securities)
                         ( 96/C 210/01 )
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                   ( Fifth Chamber )
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 6 June 1996
                                                                      in Case C-127/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-101 /94 : Commission of the European                        the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division ): The
Communities ( Agents : Antonino Abate and Ben Smulders,               Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
assisted by Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo ) v . Italian Republic        parte: H. 5c R. Ecroyd Holdings Ltd and John Rupert
(Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza , assisted by Ivo Maria                                            Ecroyd ( 1 )
Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato ) — application for a                  (Milk production quota scheme — Allocation of special
declaration that, by restricting the activity of dealing in           reference quantities — Powers and/or duties ofthe Member
transferable securities ( apart from by banks ) to companies                                          States)
or firms whose registered office is in Italy, the Italian                                        ( 96/C 210/02 )
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52
and 59 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P.                              (Language of the case: English)
Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J.
G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and M.                  In Case C-127/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June            of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queens
1 996 , in which it:                                                  Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                      pending before that court between The Queen and the
                                                                      Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , ex parte: H. &
                                                                      R. Ecroyd Holdings Ltd and John Rupert Ecroyd — on the
1 , declares that, by restricting the activity of dealing in          interpretation of Article 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) of Council Regulation
     transferable securities (apart from by banks) to                 ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules
     companies or firms whose registered office is in Italy, the      for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5 ( c ) of
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under      Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
     Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty;                             sector ( OJ No L 90 , 1984 , p . 13 ), as amended by Council


title: Action brought on 20 September 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom (Case C-300/95)

text:
No C 286/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28 . 10 . 95
who is domiciled in Ireland against a respondent who is                Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
domiciled in Belgium that the applicant has previously                 the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
obtained in order for maintenance against the                          Hausen , Legal Adviser, with an address for service in
respondent ?                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                        time lmits all the measures necessary in order to
of the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive
                             of Germany                                      78/659/EEC (') of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh
                        ( Case C-297/95 )                                    waters needing protection or improvement in order to
                           ( 95/C 286/ 12 )                                  support fish life and Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                             Directive 79/923/EEC ( 2 ) of 30 October 1979 on the
                                                                             quality required of shellfish waters, the Federal Republic
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          EC Treaty;
Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur                      2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in                        costs .
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            C-297/95 (■'); the time limits expired on 20 July 1980 and
     time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply          5 November 1981 respectively . As regards in particular the
     with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991                obligation to set values under Article 3 of each Directive, the
     concerning urban waste water treatment ( 1 ), the Federal         need for binding national rules arises from the fact that that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations          measure is intended to improve the quality of edible fish and
     under the EC Treaty;                                              shellfish products and thereby indirectly to contribute to the
                                                                       protection of the health of humans .
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .                                                           (') OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p. 47 .
                                                                       (') See page 6 of this Official Journal .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is apparent from the mandatory nature of directives, as
laid down by the third paragraph of Article 1 89 and the first
paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, that a Member State
to which a directive is addressed is obliged to transpose the
provisions of the directive into national law in such a way
that they take full practical effect from the expiry of the time       Action brought on 20 September 1995 by the Commission
limit for transposition . That time limit expired on 30 June                  of the European Communities against the United
 1993 , but the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                                             Kingdom
adopt all the necessary national measures .                                                      ( Case C-300/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/ 14 )
 (') OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       20 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
                                                                        the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service
 Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                  in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 of the European Communities against the Federal Republic               Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                              of Germany
                         ( Case C-298/95 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 95/C 286/13 )
                                                                        1 . declare that in failing to take all the measures necessary
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        to implement Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          1985 concerning the approximation of the laws,
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 10 . 95          1 EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 286/7
     regulations and administrative provisions of the                  upon each Member State to which it is addressed, Member
     Member States with regard to liability for defective              States are required to observe the time limits laid down in
     products ('), and in particular Article 7 ( e ) thereof, the      directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
     United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under         30 June 1993 without the Italian Republic having brought
     the Directive and under the EC Treaty;                            into force the necessary provisions in order to comply with
                                                                       the Directive referred to in the Commission 's application .
2 . order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .
                                                                       (') OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 7 ( e ) of the Directive seeks to resolve the question as
to who must bear the risk of developments in the state of
scientific and technical knowledge in relation to the
possibility of discovering the defect. The test in Article 7 ( e )
is objective whereas that in Section 4 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Part I of the
Consumer Protection Act 1987, by which the United                      Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission
Kingdom sought to implement the Directive, is subjective .                   of the European Communities against the Italian
The United Kingdom has thereby converted the strict                                                   Republic
liability imposed by Article 1 of the Directive into mere                                         Case C-303/95 )
liability for negligence .                                                                        ( 95/C 286/ 16 )
(') OJ No L 210 , 7 . 8 . 1985 , p . 29 .
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria
                                                                       Condou Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                       Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,
Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission                  Kirchberg.
      of the European Communities against the Italian
                              Republic
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                         ( Case C-302/95 )
                           ( 95/C 286/15 )                             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, notify
                                                                            the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                   necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /1 57/EEC
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         of 18 March 1991 (') on batteries and accumulators
25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European                         containing certain dangerous substances, the Italian
Communities, represented by Laura Pignataro and                             Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
Dominique Maidani of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,                   Directive and the EC Treaty;
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                  2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, notify        directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved ,
     the laws , regulations or administrative provisions               upon each Member State to which it is addressed , Member
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 91 /271/EEC            States are required to observe the time limits laid down in
     of 21 May 1991 ( 5 ) concerning urban waste water                 directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
     treatment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfill its          18 September 1992 without the Italian Republic having
     obligations under that Directive and the EC Treaty;               brought into force the necessary provisions in order to
                                                                       comply with the Directive referred to in the Commission's
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                      application .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
 Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
 directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,


title: Case C-108/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's Gravenhage, Netherlands) — Bovemij Verzekeringen NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau (Trade Marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 3(3) — Distinctive character — Acquisition through use — Taking into account all or a substantial part of the Benelux territory — Taking into account the linguistic regions of Benelux — Word mark EUROPOLIS)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's Gravenhage, Netherlands) — Bovemij Verzekeringen NV v Benelux-Merkenbureau
   (Case C-108/05) (1)

   (Trade Marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 3(3) - Distinctive character - Acquisition through use - Taking into account all or a substantial part of the Benelux territory - Taking into account the linguistic regions of Benelux - Word mark EUROPOLIS)
   (2006/C 294/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te 's Gravenhage, Netherlands
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bovemij Verzekeringen NV

      Defendant: Benelux-Merkenbureau
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage — Interpretation of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC, of 21 December 1988, approximating the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1988 L 40, p. 1) — Assessment of the distinctive character of a mark — Use of the mark — Reputation of the mark throughout the Benelux territory or in a considerable part of it (e.g. the Netherlands) — Linguistic regions taken into account
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(3) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that the registration of a trade mark can be allowed on the basis of that provision only if it is proven that that trade mark has acquired distinctive character through use throughout the territory of the Member State or, in the case of Benelux, throughout the part of the territory of Benelux in which there exists a ground for refusal.

               2.

               As regards a mark consisting of one or more words of an official language of a Member State or of Benelux, if the ground for refusal exists only in one of the linguistic areas of the Member State or, in the case of Benelux, in one of its linguistic areas, it must be established that the mark has acquired distinctive character through use throughout that linguistic area. In the linguistic area thus defined, it must be assessed whether the relevant class of persons, or at least a significant proportion thereof, identifies the product or service in question as originating from a particular undertaking because of the trade mark.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-394/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  11 April 2006  — Angeletti v Commission of the European Communities (Community officials — Social security — Occupational illness — Exposure to asbestos — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the illness — Obligation to render a decision within a reasonable time — Non-pecuniary damage)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 April 2006 — Angeletti v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-394/03) (1)

   (Community officials - Social security - Occupational illness - Exposure to asbestos - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the illness - Obligation to render a decision within a reasonable time - Non-pecuniary damage)
   (2006/C 143/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Flavia Angeletti (Nice (France)) (represented initially by K. Devolvé and J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyers, and subsequently by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 7 October 2003 refusing to recognise the occupational origin of the applicant's medical complaint following her alleged exposure to asbestos, application for annulment of the opinion of the medical committee pertaining thereto, application for annulment of the decision of the Commission charging to the applicant part of the fees and expenses charged by members of that committee and applications for compensation to have the Commission pay for medical fees and expenses.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the Commission to pay EUR 12 000 in compensation to the applicant;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, half of the costs incurred by the applicant, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.


title: Removal from the register of C-40/95

text:
12 . 7. 97                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/25
was allocated, by Regulation ( EC ) No 390/97, 38 886                              Removal from the register of C-40/95 (')
tonnes, which is 1 139 tonnes less than the quantity                                                 ( 97/C 212/46 )
provided for by the Act of Accession.
                                                                         By order of 3 February 1997 the President of the Court of
( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC ) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
      fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the     removal from the register of Case C-40/95 ( reference for a
      total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under      preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal,
      which they may be fished ( OJ No L 66, 6. 3 . 1997, p. 1 ).        London ): Conoco Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and
( 2 ) OJNoL 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p . 1 .                                   Excise .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
                                                                             OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Decisions adopted by the Court of First Instance at its                       the President of the Court of First Instance designates
                 plenary conference on 5 June 1997                            the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
                             ( 97/C 212/47)                                   the case, will be in the reverse order of precedence of
                                                                              those Judges based, in accordance with Article 6 of the
                                                                              Rules of Procedure, on their seniority in office, save
 1 . Composition of the First Chamber, Extended                               where the Judge thus designated is the Judge
        Composition, of the Second Chamber and of the                         Rapporteur. In the latter case, the Judge immediately
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition —                                senior to him is to be designated .
        Assignment of Judges to Chambers
        In the light of the decision of the Governments of the
        Member States of 29 May 1997 appointing Karl Joerg
        Pirrung a Member of the Court of First Instance
        following the death of Judge Heinrich Kirschner, the
        Court of First Instance decided at its plenary
        conference on 5 June 1997, in accordance with                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        Article 10 of its Rules of Procedure, to modify the                                        (Fourth Chamber)
        composition of its Chambers, as decided on                                                  of 15 May 1997
        12 September 1996 ( OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 , p. 10 ).
                                                                          in Case T-273/94: N v. Commission of the European
        For the period from 11 June 1997 to 30 September                                            Communities ( ] )
        1997, Judge Pirrung is assigned to the First Chamber,             (Officials — Duty to act in good faith — Official
        Extended Composition, the Second Chamber and the                  suspected of conduct inconsistent with the dignity of his
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition .                            office — Official's cooperation in good faith with the
                                                                          investigation — Lacking — Disciplinary proceedings —
        In cases where another Judge has been designated by                                       Removal from post)
        the President of the Court of First Instance, pursuant
        to Article 32 ( 3 ) of the Rules of Procedure, to                                              ( 97/C 212/48 )
        complete those Chambers in place of Judge Kirschner
         and the written procedure has been completed and a                               (Language of the case: French)
         hearing in the oral procedure has been held or fixed
         before 11 June 1996 , those Chambers shall continue              In Case T-273/94: N, a former official of the Commission
         to sit with that composition for the purposes of the              of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
         oral procedure, deliberation and judgment.                        represented by Xavier Magnee, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
   2 . Plenary session                                                     Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue Fort Rheinsheim v. Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia,
         At is plenary conference on 5 June 1997, the Court of             Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck ) —
         First Instance decided, in accordance with the second             application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
         subparagraph of Article 32 ( 1 ) of its Rules of                  4 October 1993 removing the applicant from his post, and
         Procedure, that where, following the designation of an            a claim for damages — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
         Advocate-General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules              Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
         of Procedure , there is an even number of Judges of the           and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
          Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the          Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 May 1997, the operative
          rota established in advance, in accordance with which            part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-47/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA soc. coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/31
The applicant requests compensation in respect of the loss                The Commission responded to that request with two consecu-
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission having                   tive refusals grounded on the requirements of ‘commercial
committed a fault for the purposes of Article 288 of the EC               secrecy’ and the ‘authorship rule’.
Treaty in awarding the contract to Frezza Belgium SA which
caused loss to the applicant, who was the only person to
have submitted a tender which complied with the product                   In the circumstances, the applicant takes the view that the
specification.                                                            Commission’s refusal on two separate occasions and for two
                                                                          contradictory reasons is unjustified and prevents an operator,
                                                                          whose economic activity is closely dependent on the market
                                                                          in bananas being regulated and in which the Commission has
                                                                          above all powers of oversight, from checking whether such
                                                                          regulation is being properly managed.
                                                                          In support of its arguments, the applicant claims infringement
                                                                          of the Code of Conduct adopted by the Commission by
Action brought on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA soc.                          94/90/ECSC, EC, EURATOM and Declaration No 17 appended
coop. a.r.l. against Commission of the European Com-                      to the Final Act of the Maastricht Treaty, as well as abuse of
                            munities                                      powers.
                         (Case T-47/01)
                        (2001/C 150/61)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                               Tralli against European Central Bank
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 March 2001 by CO-FRUTTA                                                    (Case T-56/01)
soc. coop. a.r.l., represented by Wilma Viscardini, Mariano
Paolin and Simonetta Donà, avvocati.
                                                                                (2001/C 150/62)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     annul the decision of the Commission — contained in
      the letter of 31 July 2000 of the Director General for
      Agriculture and letter of 5 December 2000 of the                    An action against the European Central Bank was brought
      Secretary General — whereby access was refused to the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      documents referred to in the request submitted by Co-               on 13 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau,
      Frutta on 27 June 2000 and again on 1 September 2000;               Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                          Silvia Mittländer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          1.    find that, in failing to respond in writing to the applicant
                                                                                in respect of his complaint, in accordance with a letter of
The applicant requested access to documents in the Com-                         5 February 2001, the defendant’s President infringed the
mission’s possession relating to the common organisation of                     last paragraph of Article 8.1.5 of the European Central
the market in bananas. That request was prompted by the fact                    Bank Staff Rules;
that it had come to the notice of the applicant that enormous
quantities of bananas had been imported into the Community                2.    in the event that some of the forms of order sought in
market under forged import licences or licences which had                       Case T-373/00 are refused:
been issued on the basis of false or erroneous reference
quantities. It therefore asked the Commission a copy of or, at
least, permission to consult on the premises, the lists of the                  —     annul the notice of dismissal issued by the defendant
operators registered in the Community or of the quantities                            of 29 November 2000;
they had respectively imported during the reference period
and therefore of the provisional reference quantity allocated to                —     find that the employment relationship between the
each of them, as well as the licences used and related                                parties continues to subsist unchanged beyond
documents.                                                                            31 December 2000;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 24 September 1996 in Case T-57/91: National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - National undertaking owning coal reserves and enjoying a statutory monopoly on the granting of extraction licences - Consideration on the part of the licensee represented by payment of a royalty or supply of the coal to the licensor - Rate of royalties levied - Price of coal supplied - Whether compatible with the ECSC Treaty)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 318/9
3.    orders the Commission to bear its own costs.                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 24 September 1996
(') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                       in Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio v. Commission of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 333 , 1993 , p . 67 .
                                                                                European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                       (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — General
                                                                       provisions forgiving effect to the StaffRegulations — Time
                                                                                limit for submitting a request)
                                                                                96/C 318/ 19 )
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 24 September 1996                                             (Language of the case: French)
in    Case   T-57/91 :    National   Association     of Licensed
Opencast Operators v. Commission of the European
                         Communities ( 1 )                             In Case T-185/95 : Giovanni Sergio, an official of the
 (ECSC Treaty — Competition — National undertaking                     Commission of the European Communities, represented by
 owning coal reserves and enjoying a statutory monopoly on             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
 the granting of extraction licences — Consideration on the            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21
part of the licensee represented by payment of a royalty or            rue Nassau, v. Commission of the European Communities
supply of the coal to the licensor — Rate ofroyalties levied           ( Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
— Price of coal supplied — Whether compatible with the                 application for annulment of the decision of the
                           ECSC Treaty)                                Commission rejecting the request for transfer of the
                                                                       applicant's pension rights — the Court of First Instance
                           ( 96/C 318/ 18 )
                                                                       ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët, President, and
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
                (Language of the case: English)                        given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it:
In Case T-57/91 : The National Association of Licensed
 Opencast Operators, having its registered office in                    1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks
Newcastle upon Tyne ( United Kingdom ), represented by                      the issue of directions to the Commission;
Nicholas Green, Barrister, and David James Malcolm
Wilson, Solicitor, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 rue                   2 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;
Aldringen, against the Commission of the European
 Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall, Stephen Kon and                3 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 Leonard Hawkes ), supported by the British Coal
 Corporation, having its registered office in London,
 represented by David Vaughan QC and David Lloyd Jones,                (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Barrister, together with Peter J. Sigler and Rebekah M.
 Gershuny, Solicitors, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 rue Zithe —
 application for the annulment in part of Commission
 decision SG(91 ) D/9467 of 23 May 1991 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint concerning the market in coal for
 electricity generation — the Court of First Instance ( Third
 Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of: C. P.
 Briët, President, K. Lenaerts, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh and A.          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                              of 26 September 1996
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in             in Case T-192/94: Henry Maurissen v. Court of Auditors of
 which it :                                                                            the European Communities (*)
                                                                        (Action for annulment — Staff report — Admissibility —
 1 . declares inadmissible the second, seventh and ninth                 Statement of reasons — Review by the Court — Limits)
       heads of claim;                                                                           ( 96/C 318 /20
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the applicant 's claims;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 3 . Orders the applicant to pay all the costs of the
       proceedings, including those of the intervener British
       Coal.                                                            In Case T-192/94 : Henry Maurissen, a former official at the
                                                                        Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                        Schuttrange ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noel
 (') OJ No C 243 , 18 . 9 . 1991 .                                      Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue
                                                                        Glesener, v. Court of Auditors of the European


title: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Belgium) — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v Belgian State — SPF Finances (Affaire C-483/08) (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Sixth VAT Directive — Article 10(1) and (2) — Recovery of tax improperly deducted — Starting point of the limitation period)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/18

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Belgium) — Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne v Belgian State — SPF Finances
   (Affaire C-483/08) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Sixth VAT Directive - Article 10(1) and (2) - Recovery of tax improperly deducted - Starting point of the limitation period)
   2009/C 282/34
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Mons

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne

      Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances

      Re

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Mons — Interpretation of Article 10 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OL 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘chargeable event’ and ‘chargeability of tax’ — Starting point of the limitation period for an action for recovery of VAT — The date on which the invoice is tendered or the date on which the VAT return is lodged in which the taxable person claims a right to deduct?

      Operative part

   Article 10 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation and administrative practice which fixes the starting point of the limitation period for an action for recovery of improperly deducted value added tax as the day on which the taxable person lodged the VAT return in which he claimed for the first time a right to deduct.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009


title: Case C-349/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directives 92/12/EEC and 2008/118/EC — Scope — Mineral oils and energy products — Lubricating oils intended for use other than as motor or heating fuel — Exclusion — Excise duty levied on the consumption of energy products, imposed by a Member State in accordance with the rules of the harmonised tax system — Notion of ‘formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers’  — Article 110 TFEU — Deadline for payment shorter in certain cases for intracommunity purchases than for products acquired on the national market)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/4

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Minister Finansów v Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-349/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directives 92/12/EEC and 2008/118/EC - Scope - Mineral oils and energy products - Lubricating oils intended for use other than as motor or heating fuel - Exclusion - Excise duty levied on the consumption of energy products, imposed by a Member State in accordance with the rules of the harmonised tax system - Notion of ‘formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers’ - Article 110 TFEU - Deadline for payment shorter in certain cases for intracommunity purchases than for products acquired on the national market))
   (2015/C 118/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: Oil Trading Poland sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and Article 1(3) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12 must be interpreted as not precluding products not falling within the scope of those directives, such as lubricating oils intended for use other than as motor or heating fuel, being subject to a tax governed by rules identical to those of the harmonised tax system covered by those directives, since the fact of making those products subject to that tax does not entail any formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers in the context of trade between Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-424/16: Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Gifi Diffusion v EUIPO — Crocs (Footwear)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/41

         Action brought on 5 August 2016 — Gifi Diffusion v EUIPO — Crocs (Footwear)
   (Case T-424/16)
   (2016/C 392/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gifi Diffusion (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, France) (represented by: C. de Chassey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Crocs, Inc. (Longmont, Colorado, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Footwear’ — Community design No 733 282-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2015 in Case R 37/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               invalidate the Community design No 000733282-0001;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the Applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 62 and 63 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-50/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Aosta (Italy) lodged on 30 January 2013 — Rocco Papalia v Comune di Aosta
   (Case C-50/13)
   2013/C 147/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Aosta

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rocco Papalia

      Defendant: Comune di Aosta

      Question referred

   Must Directive 1999/70/EC (1) (Article 1, along with Clause 5 of the annexed framework agreement, as well as any other provision in any way connected or linked) be interpreted as permitting a situation in which a worker who has been recruited by a public body on a fixed-term contract, without the requirements laid down by the above Community rules being satisfied, is entitled to compensation in respect of damage only if he proves that such damage actually exists, and thus only if he provides positive, including presumptive, evidence, but at any rate specific evidence, that he has had to forgo other, better, employment opportunities?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case C-128/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 8 March 2012 — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others v BPN — Banco Português de Negócios, SA

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 8 March 2012 — Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte and Others v BPN — Banco Português de Negócios, SA
   (Case C-128/12)
   2012/C 151/35
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sindicato dos Bancários do Norte, Sindicato dos Bancários do Centro, Sindicato dos Bancários do Sul e Ilhas, Luís Miguel Rodrigues Teixeira de Melo

      Defendant: BPN — Banco Português de Negócios, SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the principle of equal treatment, from which the prohibition of discrimination derives, be interpreted as being applicable to public sector employees?

               2.

               Is the salary cut made by the State, by means of the Lei do Orçamento de Estado para 2011, applicable only to persons employed in the public sector or by a public undertaking, contrary to the principle of prohibition of discrimination in that it discriminates on the basis of the public nature of the employment relationship?

               3.

               Must the right to working conditions that respect dignity, laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful to make salary cuts without the employee’s consent, if the contract of employment is not first altered to that effect?

               4.

               Must the right to working conditions that respect dignity, laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that employees have the right to fair remuneration which ensures that they and their families can enjoy a satisfactory standard of living?

               5.

               As a salary cut is not the only possible measure and is not necessary and fundamental to the efforts to consolidate public finances in a serious economic and financial crisis in the country, is it contrary to the right laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to put at risk the standard of living and the financial commitments of employees and their families by means of such a reduction?

               6.

               Is such a salary cut by the Portuguese State contrary to the right to working conditions that respect dignity in that it was unforeseeable and unexpected by the employees?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: Case C-141/03: Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
21.6.2003              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 146/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and principal arguments
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions to implement           The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
      Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000               on 31 July 2001.
      amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
      Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
      visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative           (1 ) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
      action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the       (2 ) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.
      Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      directive;
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 31 March 2003 by the Commission of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on                                        (Case C-142/03)
5 December 2001.
                                                                                (2003/C 146/42)
( 1) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.
                                                                       An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March
                                                                       2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Niels Bertil
                                                                       Rasmusen, members of its Legal Service, with an address for
Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission                      service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Sweden
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-141/03)
                                                                       —     declare that the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Article 91
                                                                             of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December
                         (2003/C 146/41)                                     1993 on the Community trade mark (1) by having
                                                                             failed to communicate to the Commission the list of
                                                                             Community trade mark courts;
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The Member States are under an obligation to designate,
                                                                       within three years following entry into force of the regulation,
—     Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other              ‘Community trade mark courts’ and to communicate to the
      provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive           Commission their names and their territorial jurisdiction. That
      2000/52/EC ( 1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/           information should have been communicated by 15 March
      723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations           1997 at the latest.
      between Member States and public undertakings or, in
      any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       (1 ) OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1.
      under the directive, and
—     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-206/98)

text:
13.3.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/31
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs           Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.
authorities of a rebate application lodged on 20 December
1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
originating in and emanating from Poland.                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs
The dispute concerns, in essence, a disagreement
                                                                   authorities of a rebate application lodged on 23 October
concerning the customs nomenclature applicable to the
                                                                   1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
products in question and the question whether those
                                                                   originating in and emanating from Poland.
products should be allocated to the tariff quota for
Poland.
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                   Case T-205/98 Clauni v Commission.
The applicants state that the national authorities did not
arrange for any proper analysis of the goods by an
independent authority with a view to verifying the
administrative authorities' assertion that the mushrooms
were deep-cooked. On the contrary, the only serious and
independent analysis carried out in the present case
concluded that the products were not deep-cooked.
                                                                   Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola
                                                                                against European Investment Bank
The applicants also maintain that the Commission, as the                                 (Case T-208/98)
general guardian of the Treaty, possesses its own                                         (1999/C 71/59)
competence in customs matters, so that any failure on the
part of customs authorities of the Member States to
observe the principles of Community law or to forward a                           (Language of the case: Italian)
rebate application must result in the Communities
incurring non-contractual liability in the application of
Community customs law.                                             An action against the European Investment Bank was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola,
Lastly, for the purposes of providing all such further             an official of the European Investment Bank, represented
clarification of their position as may be necessary, the           by Luigi Isola of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
applicants refer to an expert's report annexed to the              in Luxembourg at 16 Rue du Kiem, 8030 Strassen.
application.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the promotions communicated on 6 August
                                                                       1998 in so far as they do not contain the applicant's
                                                                       name;
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
Others against the Commission of the European
                        Communities
                                                                   Ð annul the decision contained in the report of the
                      (Case T-206/98)                                  Appeals Committee attached to the letter sent by Mr
                                                                       Pietila dated 23 September 1998; and
                       (1999/C 71/58)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay compensation for physical,
               (Language of the case: French)                          non-material and material damage in the terms set out
                                                                       above.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La           The material facts are as set forth in Case T-7/98 De
Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented            Nicola v EIB (1). The applicant would add however that he
by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot             has had to leave his employment with the defendant as a
(France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         result of the strong pressure which he claims to have been
Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              subjected to by his immediate superiors.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-182/99 P: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams)

text:
C 275/2                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
1.    Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      1999 in Case T-137/94 ARBED v Commission;
                                                                             2.    Orders Eurofer ASBL to pay the costs.
2.    Annuls Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February
      1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
      ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted practices              (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
      engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as it
      concerns ARBED SA;
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the costs of both the proceedings before the Court of First
      Instance and the present appeal proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 2 October 2003
                                                                             in Case C-182/99 P: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                            producers of beams)
                        of 2 October 2003                                                             (2003/C 275/04)
in Case C-179/99 P: Eurofer ASBL v Commission of the                                            (Language of the case: German)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                                         in the European Court Reports)
                        producers of beams)
                         (2003/C 275/03)                                     In Case C-182/99 P, Salzgitter AG, formerly Preussag Stahl
                                                                             AG, established in Salzgitter (Germany), (represented by
                   (Language of the case: German)                            H. Satzky and C. Frick): Appeal against the judgment of the
                                                                             Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                                                                             Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       T-148/94 Preussag v Commission [1999] ECR II-613, seeking
                   in the European Court Reports)                            to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund), the
                                                                             Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
                                                                             the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rappor-
In Case C-179/99 P, Eurofer ASBL, established in Luxembourg                  teur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
(Luxembourg), (represented by N. Koch): Appeal against the                   M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                      given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it:
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94 Eurofer v Commission
[1999] ECR II-263, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,                        2.    Orders Salzgitter AG to pay the costs.
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                 (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:


title: Case T-389/02: Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Sergio Sandini against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
22.2.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 44/41
wood procurement undertaking and a logistics undertaking in               Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Sergio Sandini
Arneburg bei Stendal in the Land Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany,                 against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
and also against the provision of an 80 % surety for a loan of
EUR 464,550 million.
                                                                                (Case T-389/02)
The applicants claim that the Commission did not fully adhere
to the guidelines and general regulations. It failed to examine                                    (2003/C 44/77)
the sectoral effects of the plans on wood as a resource
and adopted too wide a procurement radius. That wide
procurement radius leads in their submission to higher costs                                 (Language of the case: French)
and thus the unprofitability of the undertaking, whereas, if a
smaller procurement radius were used, forest resources would
not be sufficient to supply all wood-processing undertakings
in the region.
                                                                          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
The Commission failed to take account of the fact that the aid            of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by
beneficiary’s own share was less than the necessary 25 %.                 Sergio Sandini, residing in Ehlange (Luxembourg), represented
                                                                          by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
The Commission calculated the number of indirectly created
jobs at too high a figure, so that, instead of the factor of 1,5, a       The applicant claims that the Court should:
factor of 1,25 should have been used. The maximum permiss-
ible intensity of aid was therefore only 26,25 %.
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
                                                                                24 September 2002 and concerning Complaint 2/02-
                                                                                R(e) lodged by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against
In addition, the aid proportion of a State guarantee for a loan                 the decision of 25 October 2001;
was calculated too low, so that, on a correct calculation, there
was an aid intensity of 33,31 %, which even exceeded the
maximum aid intensity approved by the Commission of                       —     order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation
31,5 %.                                                                         for the damage that he has suffered and will in future
                                                                                suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary
                                                                                reservations, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                                10 % per annum from 7 October 1999 until the date of
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                                payment;
down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC ( 1) was
infringed, since no formal investigation procedure was opened,
although the Commission had cause for concern. The appli-                 —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
cants were thereby hindered in the exercise of their procedural
rights and limited in their right to a hearing.
Since the regional aid guidelines and the provisions of the               Pleas in law and main arguments
multisectoral regional aid framework were not complied with,
none of the exceptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC
Treaty can apply.
                                                                          The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
                                                                          that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage
                                                                          suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has
The Commission further infringed Article 2, Article 3(1)(i),              already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-
Article 6, and the third indent of Article 174(1) of the EC               ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Treaty, as it failed to take account of the environmental impact          Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.
when making its decisions. In the applicants’ submission, the
plans being supported would lead to overfelling in order to
meet requirements.
                                                                          The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to
                                                                          those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of
( 1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.                                                  9.11.2002, p. 26).


title: Case T-455/16 P: Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — Fernández González v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Temporary staff — Recruitment — Employment of temporary staff in permanent posts — Plea of illegality — Error of law)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — Fernández González v Commission
   (Case T-455/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Temporary staff - Recruitment - Employment of temporary staff in permanent posts - Plea of illegality - Error of law))
   (2017/C 144/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Elia Fernández González (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld and É. Boigelot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Bersheid, Agents, and, initially, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, and subsequently A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 June 2016, Fernández González v Commission (F-121/15, EU:F:2016:128), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 June 2016, Fernández González v Commission (F-121/15, EU:F:2016:128);

               2.

               Refers the case to a Chamber of the General Court other than that which has ruled on the present appeal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 27 February 2002 in Case C-140/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 98/18/EC — Transport by sea — Safety rules and standards for passenger ships)

text:
C 109/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third                    in Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
life assurance Directive) (OJ 1992 L 360, p. 1) the Court (Sixth            16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated
Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second                 biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,                     L 243, p. 31), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues               obligations under those provisions, the Court (Fourth Chamb-
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,             er), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamber,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            D.A.O. Edward and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                     P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                            judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:
Article 31(3) of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November
                                                                            1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up and communicate to the
1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities, by 16 September
provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
                                                                                1999 at the latest, the summaries of inventories provided for
79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive)
                                                                                in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September
precludes national legislation which provides that a life-assurance
                                                                                1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polych-
proposal, or in the absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must
                                                                                lorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and the plans and outlines
inform the policy-holder that cancellation, reduction or surrender of
                                                                                provided for in Article 11 of the same directive, the Italian
an existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing to
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those
another life-assurance policy is generally detrimental to the policy-
                                                                                provisions.
holder.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                27 February 2002
                          27 February 2002
                                                                            in Case C-140/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
in Case C-46/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                            Directive 98/18/EC — Transport by sea — Safety rules and
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                                        standards for passenger ships)
Waste management — Directive 96/59/EC — Disposal of
  polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/23)
                           (2002/C 109/22)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-140/01, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: B. Mongin) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):
                                                                            Application for a declaration that, by failing to notify the
In Case C-46/01, Commission of the European Communities                     Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
(agents: H. Støvlbaek and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic                    visions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC
(agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a              of 17 March 1998 on safety rules and standards for passenger
declaration that, by failing to draw up and communicate to                  ships (OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1), or to adopt the measures necessary
the Commission by 16 September 1999 the appropriate                         to comply therewith, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
plans, outlines and summaries of inventories provided for                   fulfil its obligations under that directive and under the EC
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/15
Treaty, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric               1.   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                        indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council
V. Skouris, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,                       Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in                         as meaning that charges collected in respect of the recordal in a
which it:                                                                       national commercial register of an increase in the capital of a
                                                                                capital company or of any other transaction falling within the
                                                                                scope of that directive constitute a tax within the meaning of
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
                                                                                that directive.
      comply with Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998
      on safety rules and standards for passenger ships, the Kingdom
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
                                                                           2.   The charges payable in respect of recordal in a national
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                           commercial register of an increase in the capital of a capital
                                                                                company or of any other transaction covered by Directive
                                                                                69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, are, inasmuch as
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.                                                       they constitute a tax within the meaning of the directive,
                                                                                prohibited in principle by Article 10(c) of that directive.
                                                                           3.   Charges levied in respect of the recordal in a national commercial
                                                                                register of an increase in the capital of a capital company or of
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                         any other transaction covered by Directive 69/335, as amended
                                                                                by Directive 85/303, the amount of which increases directly
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                       and without restriction in proportion to the paid-up capital of
                                                                                the company are not duties paid by way of fees or dues.
                         of 24 January 2002
in Case C-45/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           4.   Charges paid by way of fees or dues, within the meaning of
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Sonae Turismo,
                                                                                Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
              SGPS, SA, against Fazenda Pública (1)
                                                                                85/303, include only those fees paid the amount of which is
                                                                                calculated on the basis of the cost of the service provided.
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive
69/335/EEC — Mandatory recordal in a commercial register
of the act relating to amendments to company statutes —
                 Duties paid by way of fees or dues)
                                                                           5.   In order to calculate the amount of such charges, a Member
                                                                                State is entitled to take into account not only the costs in
                           (2002/C 109/24)                                      materials and salary terms which are directly linked to the
                                                                                registration operations in consideration of which they are paid,
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                            but also the portion of the relevant general administrative costs
                                                                                which are attributable to those operations. It is permissible for
                                                                                a Member State to levy a charge only in respect of major
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          registration operations and for it to pass on to them the cost of
                    in the European Court Reports)                              minor operations carried out free of charge.
In Case C-45/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) for a                  6.   The cost of registration in the commercial registration may be
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       assessed at a flat rate and must be established by reasonable
court between Sonae Turismo, SGPS, SA, and Fazenda Pública,                    means taking into account, in particular, the number and the
Ministério Público, intervener — on the interpretation of                      type of agents, the time employed by those agents and the
Articles 4, 10 and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of                  various materials necessary to the completion of that operation.
17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital                However, a Member State is entitled to fix in advance, on the
(OJ English Special Edition, 1969(II) p. 412), as amended by                    basis of the average foreseeable registration costs, standard
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985                           charges for the completion of the formalities for registering
L 156, p. 23) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                        capital companies. There is nothing to prevent the amount of
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Fourth                   those charges being established for an indeterminate period
Chamber, and A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                       provided that the Member State satisfies itself, at regular
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made                  intervals, for instance every year, that they continue not to
an order on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:                             exceed its registration costs.


title: Case C-353/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 22 June 2016 — MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 22 June 2016 — MP v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-353/16)
   (2016/C 326/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MP

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Question referred

   Does article 2(e), read with article 15(b), of EU Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) cover a real risk of serious harm to the physical or psychological health of the applicant if returned to the country of origin, resulting from previous torture or inhuman or degrading treatment for which the country of origin was responsible?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted

      OJ L 304, p. 12


title: Case T-749/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d'Escompte v ECB

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/39

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Nausicaa Anadyomène and Banque d'Escompte v ECB
   (Case T-749/15)
   (2016/C 068/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Nausicaa Anadyomène (Paris, France) and Banque d'Escompte (Paris) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible and well founded;

         In consequence:

               —

               Hold the defendant liable, within the meaning of Article 340 TFEU, for the errors committed in its monetary policy concerning the Greek debt instruments;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the loss suffered, assessed at EUR 10 901 448,38for Nausicaa, subject to increase, and EUR 239 058,84for the Banque d’Escompte;

               —

               In any event, order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging sufficiently serious infringements committed by the ECB. The plea is divided into three parts:

                           —

                           First part, alleging infringement of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations;

                           —

                           Second part, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination and of Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’);

                           —

                           Third part, alleging infringement of the principle of sound administration, of Article 41 of the Charter and of the duty of care.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a loss suffered by the applicants and a causal link between the unlawful conduct of the ECB and that loss.