title: Case T-25/01: Action brought on 31 January 2001 by Francisco Miguel Viana França against Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.4.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 108/25
(3) annul the contractual rules to be contained in the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
      applicants’ employment documentation whereby future
      amendments to the Conditions of Employment or to the
      provisional Staff Rules are to form the subject-matter of          —     annul the implied decision of the appointing authority
      contractual obligations;                                                 refusing to grant special leave for elections and the
                                                                               relevant travelling time from the afternoon of 10 June to
(4) annul the decision of the President of the defendant of                    the morning of 15 June 1999 and from the afternoon of
      27 November 2000 rejecting the applicant’s grievance;                    7 October to the morning of 12 October 1999;
(5) order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By their application, the applicants, who are in an employment
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
relationship of unlimited duration with the European Central
Bank, seek annulment of two rules contained in the defendant’s
provisional Staff Rules (‘SR’), which lay down a time-limit for
commencing the administrative review procedure. Until the
amendment of those rules, there was no time-limit. The
                                                                         I.     Lack of competence
applicants regard the amendment of the provisions of Articles
8.1.0 and 7.2.0 of the SR as an infringement of their
contractual rights.
                                                                         The decision of the appointing authority of 31 March 2000,
In addition, the applicants’ business travel was previously              signed by the Deputy Director-General for Competition, on
governed by Administrative Circular 07/1998. The rules                   the basis of which 6 days of annual leave were deducted,
applying to the applicants were altered, to the detriment of             amounting to an implied refusal of the applicant’s request for
the applicants, by Administrative Circular 01/2000. In the               special leave for elections and the relevant travelling time,
applicants’ view, those rules affect the essence of their employ-        infringes the provisions in force relating to the powers of the
ment relationships, and the amendment of them likewise                   appointing authority and to any decisions to delegate authority,
constitutes an infringement of their contractual rights.                 inasmuch as it was signed by someone who was not empow-
                                                                         ered to do so.
The applicants further claim that, upon concluding their
contracts, they were compelled to accept a rule whereby future
amendments to the Conditions of Employment or to the SR
are to form the subject-matter of contractual obligations.
However, the defendant is not empowered to lay down rules                II.    Infringement of the Staff Regulations
in the nature of employment legislation, and can therefore                      and the internal instruction of the
neither unilaterally alter substantive provisions for the reim-                 Commission of 21 February 1996
bursement of travel costs nor unilaterally change the contrac-
tual obligations by means of the new rules contained in
Articles 7.2.0 and 8.1.0 SR.                                             The implied refusal of the appointing authority infringes
                                                                         Article 57 of the Staff Regulations and Annex V respectively,
                                                                         as well as the internal instruction of the Commission of
                                                                         21 February 1996, which provides that travelling time is to be
                                                                         granted only upon submission of documentary evidence of
                                                                         participation in the elections. The requirement to submit any
                                                                         other documentary evidence other than that required for
Action brought on 31 January 2001 by Francisco Miguel                    special leave and the relevant travelling time for elections has
Viana França against Commission of the European Com-                     no legal basis.
                            munities
                         (Case T-25/01)
                        (2001/C 108/46)                                  III.   Breach of the duty to cooperate in good
                                                                                faith and of the principle of pro-
                                                                                portionality
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                First, the applicant was asked, in February 2000, to submit
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               documents relating to the events which took place in June and
European Communities on 31 January 2001 by Francisco                     October 1999, despite the fact that no provision of law obliged
Miguel Viana França, residing in Brussels, represented by                the applicant to keep such documents and that it was
Gonçalo Gentil Anastácio, advogado.                                     unreasonable to expect him to possess them.
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
Secondly, despite not being in possession of documentary                  Following an exchange of correspondence with the Com-
evidence to prove that he had participated in the elections, the          mission, the applicant sent the defendant a letter calling upon
appointing authority did not grant even a single day in respect           it to act pursuant to Article 232 EC. However, even after being
of travelling time to the applicant, who had travelled from his           so called upon, the Commission has failed to define its
place of work to the place where elections were being held.               position. Therefore the applicant states that, some 20 months
The appointing authority’s refusal to grant him even the                  after the lodging of the complaint, the Commission has not
minimum amount of travelling time is a manifest breach of                 defined its position with regard to the preliminary inquiry
the principle of proportionality.                                         undertaken by it.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                          principle of good administration, inasmuch as the Commission
                                                                          ought to have concluded the preliminary stage of the procedure
                                                                          within a reasonable time.
                                                                          Secondly, the defendant has failed to define its position with
                                                                          regard to the requests contained in the complaint.
Action brought on 29 January 2001 by Fiocchi Munizioni
 SpA against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-26/01)
                          (2001/C 108/47)
                                                                          Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
                                                                          Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Case T-30/01)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 January 2001 by Fiocchi                                                (2001/C 108/48)
Munizioni SpA, represented by Ivo Van Bael, Enrico Adriano
Raffaelli, Fabrizio Di Gianni and Renato Antonini, avvocati.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     declare, on the grounds set forth in the present application        European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
      and as a consequence thereof, that the Commission has               Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava, established
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 232 EC by            in Alava (Spain), represented by Marta Morales Isasi and
      failing to act with respect to the complaint of the                 Ignacio Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández, lawyers.
      applicant, having refrained from adopting the appropriate
      decisions and not having addressed the requisite acts;              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs; and                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
                                                                                initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
                                                                                with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 18/1993;
—     adopt any other necessary and equitable measure.
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present proceedings — an undertaking                 The measure to which the contested decision relates is
involved in the manufacture and marketing of arms and                     contained in Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 18/1993 of the
munitions — claims to have lodged with the Commission a                   Territorio Histórico de Alava of 5 July 1993 concerning urgent
complaint relating to State aid allegedly granted by the                  fiscal measures in support of investment and the promotion
Kingdom of Spain to E.N. Santa Barbara, having its registered             of economic activity. That measure concerns the grant of an
office in Spain. In that complaint, the applicant pointed out             exemption from corporation tax to undertakings founded in
that the alleged aid gave rise to serious distortion of compe-            1993 and 1994, and was adopted as part of a whole series of
tition in the market for arms, in which it is in direct                   fiscal measures in support of investment and the promotion
competition with E.N. Santa Barbara.                                      of economic activity.


title: Case C-20/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014  — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 17 January 2014 — BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH v Bodo Scholz
   (Case C-20/14)
   2014/C 129/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BGW Marketing- & Management-Service GmbH

      Defendant: Bodo Scholz

      Question referred

   Must Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of identical and similar goods and services, there may be taken to be a likelihood of confusion for the public if a distinctive sequence of letters which dominates the earlier word/figurative trade mark of average distinctiveness is made use of in a third party’s later mark in such a way that the sequence of letters is supplemented by a descriptive combination of words relating to it which explains the sequence of latters as an abbreviation of the descriptive words?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks; OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


title: Judgment of the Court of 31 May 2001 in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxembourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse nationale des prestations familiales (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxembourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances — Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension but not resident in the Member State responsible for the pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept of "worker" and "social advantage")

text:
C 200/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
M. Patakia and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agents: U. Lean-            Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese SpA, established in Bolog-
za, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a declaration                na, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio
that, by placing restrictions on the pursuit of the activity of            del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), Società Fondiaria
transport consultant, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its        Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena (Italy),
obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                represented by V. Cerulli Irelli, G. Pittalis and G. Fanzini,
after amendment, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court                     avvocati — appeal against the order of the Court of First
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                 Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber,
Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric                Extended Composition) of 8 December 1998 in Case T-39/98
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;              Sadam Zuccherifici and Others v Council [1998] ECR II-4207,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 2001, in               as amended by an order of 29 January 1999 (not published in
which it:                                                                  the European Court Reports), seeking to have the first order
                                                                           set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Council of
1.    Declares that, by subjecting, in the context of Law No 264           the European Union, (Agents: J. Carbery and I. Dı́ez Parra) —
      Disciplina dell’attività di consulenza per la circolazione dei       the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
      mezzi di trasporto (Law No 264 on the activity of transport          President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and C. W.A. Tim-
      consultancy), of 8 August 1991, the pursuit of the activity          mermans (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
      of transport consultant to possession of an administrative           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      authorisation, failing which liability to penalties is incurred,     a judgment on 31 May 2001, in which it:
      and by making its issue subject to the condition that nationals
      of other Member States reside in Italy and lodge a security, the     1.    Dismisses the appeal.
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 52 and 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,              2.    Orders Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI — Società
      Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);                                                 Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam Castiglionese
                                                                                SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA and
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR) to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                              of 31 May 2001
                          of 31 May 2001                                   in Case C-43/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Conseil supérieur des assurances sociales (Luxem-
in Case C-41/99 P: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della                     bourg)]: Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu v Caisse
SECI — Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA and                                 nationale des prestations familiales (1)
         Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68 — Luxem-
                                                                           bourg maternity, childbirth and child-raising allowances —
(Appeal — Sugar — Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 — Aid to
                                                                           Residence condition — Rights of a person receiving a pension
beet sugar producers — Abolition — Marketing year
                                                                           but not resident in the Member State responsible for the
2001/02 — Action for annulment — Natural or legal
                                                                           pension — Family allowances and family benefits — Concept
                     persons — Inadmissible)
                                                                                of ‘worker’ and ‘social advantage’)
                          (2001/C 200/42)                                                             (2001/C 200/43)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-41/99: Sadam Zuccherifici, divisione della SECI —                In Case C-43/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Società Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil supérieur
 ---pagebreak--- 14.7.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/25
des assurances sociales (Luxembourg) (Social Insurance                      5.    A person receiving an invalidity pension who resides in a
Appeals Board) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                        Member State other than the State providing his pension is not
pending before that court between Ghislain Leclere and Alina                      a worker within the meaning of Article 7 of Council Regulation
Deaconescu and Caisse nationale des prestations familiales —                      (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
on, first, the interpretation of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC                     movement for workers within the Community and does not
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 42 EC),                          enjoy rights attaching to that status unless they derive from his
Articles 1(u), 10a, 73 and 77 of Council Regulation (EEC)                         previous professional activity.
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the                  (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) and
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the Community
(OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) and, second, the
validity of Articles 1(u)(i) and 10a of and Annexes II and IIa to,
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
lation No 118/97 — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and A. La Pergola (Presidents                                    ORDER OF THE COURT
of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
P. Jann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha                                            (Fifth Chamber)
Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 May 2001, in                                          of 26 October 2000
which it has ruled:
                                                                            in Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Proceedings brought out of time — Inadmissibility)
1.    Examination of the first question referred to the Court has
      disclosed no factor of such a kind as to call into question the
      validity of Article 1(u)(i) of and Annex II to Council Regulation                                (2001/C 200/44)
      (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
      social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
      persons and to members of their families moving within the                               (Language of the case: German)
      Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
      (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, in so far as they permit
      the imposition of a residence condition for the grant of
      Luxembourg antenatal and childbirth allowances.                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-165/99: Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi,
2.    Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                    assisted by M. Schütte) v Commission of the European
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, is invalid in so far as              Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and D. Triantafyllou) —
      the Luxembourg maternity allowance appears in point I.                application for annulment of Commission Decision
      Luxembourg (b) thereof.                                               1999/779/EC of 3 February 1999 on an Austrian state aid
                                                                            granted in the form of an exemption from beverage tax of
                                                                            wine and other fermented beverages sold directly on the place
                                                                            of production to the consumer (OJ 1999 L 305, p. 27) — the
3.    An allowance such as the Luxembourg child-raising allowance           Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
      is not one of the family allowances which, pursuant to                of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón
      Article 77 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, are to be paid to persons            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 26 October
      receiving pensions for old age, invalidity or an accident at work     2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
      or occupational disease, irrespective of the Member State in
      whose territory they are residing.                                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            2.    The Republic of Austria is to pay the costs.
4.    A person receiving an invalidity pension cannot derive from
      Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, a right to family benefits
      other than the family allowances referred to in Article 77 of
      that regulation.


title: Case C-412/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Article 132(1)(d) — Supplies of human organs, blood and milk — Scope — Plasma of human blood transformed and used for industrial purposes)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/3

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht — Germany) — TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar
      (Case C-412/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest - Article 132(1)(d) - Supplies of human organs, blood and milk - Scope - Plasma of human blood transformed and used for industrial purposes))
      (2016/C 441/04)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Hessisches Finanzgericht

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH

         Defendant: Finanzamt Kassel II — Hofgeismar

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 132(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted to the effect that supplies of human blood which Member States are required to exempt by virtue of that provision do not include supplies of plasma obtained from human blood where that plasma is intended to be used, not for direct therapeutic purposes, but exclusively for the manufacture of medicinal products.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.


title: Case F-32/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/58

         Action brought on 8 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-32/13)
   2013/C 207/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the rejection of the application for reimbursement of the unpaid sum which the Commission ought to pay to the applicant as the severance grant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 9 January 2013 by which it refused to grant the applicant’s application and rejected his complaint seeking to obtain reimbursement of the unpaid sum which the Commission ought to pay him because he resigned. To the extent necessary, the action also seeks annulment of the Commission’s letter of 13 April 2012 by which the Commission adopts a view for the first time relating to the applicant’s application to recalculate the amount which the Commission must pay to him;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-200/05 P: Appeal brought on  9 May 2005  by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  23 February 2005  in Case T-454/04  Carlos Correia de Matos  v  Commission

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/21

         Appeal brought on 9 May 2005 by Carlos Correia de Matos against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 23 February 2005 in Case T-454/04 Carlos Correia de Matos v Commission

   (Case C-200/05 P)
   (2006/C 143/37)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Appellant: Carlos Correia de Matos (represented by: Carlos Correia de Matos)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   By order of 16 March 2006 the Court of Justice held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — FNCBV and Others v Commission (Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Beef and veal — Suspension of imports — Fixing of a trade union price scale — Regulation No 26 — Associations of undertakings — Restriction of competition — Trade union action — Affecting of trade between Member States — Duty to state reasons — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of proportionality — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Aggravating and mitigating circumstances — Non-aggregation of penalties — Rights of the defence)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2006 — FNCBV and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-217/03 and T-245/03) (1)

   (Competition - Article 81(1) EC - Beef and veal - Suspension of imports - Fixing of a trade union price scale - Regulation No 26 - Associations of undertakings - Restriction of competition - Trade union action - Affecting of trade between Member States - Duty to state reasons - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of proportionality - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Aggravating and mitigating circumstances - Non-aggregation of penalties - Rights of the defence)
   (2006/C 331/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: in Case T-217/03, Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande (FNCBV) (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Collin, M. Ponsard and N. Decker, lawyers), and in Case T-245/03, Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA) (Paris); Fédération nationale bovine (FNB) (Paris); Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait (FNPL) (Paris); and Jeunes agriculteurs (JA) (Paris) (represented by: B. Neouze and V. Ledoux, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver, A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: French Republic (represented by: initially G. de Bergues, F. Million and R. Abraham, subsequently G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and S. Ramet, lawyers)
   Re:
   Applications for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 — French beef) (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) and, in the alternative, for cancellation or reduction of the fines thereby imposed.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the Fédération nationale de la coopération bétail et viande, the applicant in Case T-217/03, at EUR 360 000;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fines imposed on the applicants in Case T-245/03 at EUR 9 000 000 for the Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles, EUR 1 080 000 for the Fédération nationale bovine, EUR 1 080 000 for the Fédération nationale des producteurs de lait and EUR 450 000 for the Jeunes agriculteurs;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               4.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs incurred in the main proceedings, together with three-quarters of the costs incurred by the Commission in those proceedings;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear one-quarter of its own costs incurred in the main proceedings and to pay all costs relating to the applications for interim measures;

               6.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/51

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe B.V., against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-48/04)
   (2004/C 94/139)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe B.V., Waalre, The Netherlands, represented by Dr G.Berrisch, lawyer and Mr D. Hull Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant supplies throughout Europe a satellite-based truck fleet management system called EutelTRACS. It seeks the annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 April 2003 (1). With the contested decision, the Commission found the acquisition of joint control by DaimlerChrysler Services and Deutsche Telekom over a joint venture, Toll Collect GmbH, to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.
   The applicant states that Toll Collect was formed after a consortium of DaimlerChrysler Services, Deutsche Telekom AG, and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes S.A. won a contract from the German government for the establishment and operation of a system for collecting tolls from heavy goods vehicles using German motorways. The contested decision did not deal with the toll collection activities of Toll Collect, but with the question of whether the partners could offer telematics services through Toll Collect. As submitted by the applicant, the Commission established that the partners would obtain a dominant position in the market for traffic telematics for transport and logistics undertakings, but concluded that the commitments offered would be sufficient.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that when finding that the commitments would be sufficient to prevent Toll Collect's on-board-unit from becoming the dominant platform for the provision of telematics services, the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal, wrongly established the facts, and contradicted its own competitive assessment. According to the applicant, the commitments fail to remedy the competition concerns identified by the Commission, namely that Toll Collect's on-board-unit, which allows the provision of all core telematics services, is provided free of charge and that truck operators will not pay for alternative systems if they can obtain telematics services through Toll Collect's on-board-unit. The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision is not supported by sufficient reasoning.

      (1)  2003/792/EC: Commission Decision of 30 April 2003 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/M.2903 - DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom/JV) (Text with EEA relevance.) (notified under document number C(2003) 1409) (OJ L 300, p. 62)


title: Case T-488/13: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — GEA Group AG v OHIM (engineering for a better world) (Community trade mark — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal by fax — Receipt of the fax — Lateness — No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/26

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — GEA Group AG v OHIM (engineering for a better world)
   (Case T-488/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal by fax - Receipt of the fax - Lateness - No force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 089/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GEA Group AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J. Schneiders, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially by A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by S. Hanne, Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 March 2013 (Case R 935/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘engineering for a better world’ as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               GEA Group AG shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-546/11: Action brought on 11 October 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/28

         Action brought on 11 October 2011 — Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development v Commission
   (Case T-546/11)
   2011/C 355/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Accept the present application for annulment based on Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Declare it admissible;

               —

               Declare the action to be well-founded and annul the decision of 2 August 2011 of the Information Society and Media Directorate-General of the European Commission;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements, is in two parts based on:

                           —

                           first, the lack and insufficiency of the statement of reasons, on the ground that the Commission does not state, for two of the four contracts concerned, the justification and evidence on which the contested decision is based for the conclusion that the eligible costs be adjusted;

                           —

                           second, breach of the rights of the defence, on the ground that the Commission opposes Technion — Israel Institute of Technology being made aware of and commenting on the documents on which the decision is based.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment on the ground that the contested decision does not prove, on the basis of the evidence relied upon, that the services for which the Commission claims repayment were not actually performed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legitimate expectation and proportionality on the ground that the Commission:

                           —

                           adopted a decision adjusting the eligible costs although it had guaranteed the costs when the projects were put in place prior to the signature of the contracts and

                           —

                           claimed an adjustment of the eligible costs in a sum exceeding the amount for which it claimed to adduce evidence.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1996 in Case T-82/95: Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez v. European Parliament (Officials - Retirement - Article 50 of the Staff Regulations - Protection of the interests of the official concerned)

text:
No C 180/28            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                         of 8 May 1996                               in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
in Case T-19/95 : Adia Interim SA v . Commission of the
                                                                     Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament (Agents : Gregorio
                                                                     Garzón Clariana and Manfred Peter) — application for
                   European Communities ( J )                        annulment of the decision, based on Article 50 of the Staff
 (Public service contract — Agency staff — Tender vitiated           Regulations of officials of the European Communities,
 by a calculation error — Statement ofreasons ofthe decision         retiring the applicant from service — the Court of First
rejecting the tender — No obligation for the contracting             Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
              authority to contact the tenderer)                     President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H.
                          ( 96/C 180/73 )                            Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1996 , in
                                                                     which it :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it
In Case T-19/95 : Adia Interim SA, having its registered                  requests the Court to issue directions to the European
office in Brussels, represented by Vincent Thiry, of the Liège            Parliament.
Bar , Christian Jacobs, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, Hans
Joachim Prieß and Klaus Heinemann, Rechtsanwälte,
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            2 . Annuls the decision retiring the applicant from service,
Chambers of Tom M. Gilliams, 47 Grand-Rue, v.                             which was communicated to the applicant by letters
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:                          from the President of the Parliament of 30 November
Xénophon A. Yataganas and Hendrik van Lier ) —                            1994 and 19 December 1994 .
application for annulment of the Commission decision,
communicated to the applicant on 5 December 1994,
informing it that the tender which it submitted in response          3 . Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
to invitation to tender No 94/21/IX.C.1 on the supply of
agency staff had been rejected, and for annulment of the
Commission's decision, communicated to the applicant on              P ) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
21 December 1994 , awarding the contracts in question to
the companies Ecco , Gregg and Manpower — the Court of
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar: B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
8 May 1996 , in which it:
 1 . Dismisses the application.                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 May 1996
2 . Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                           in Case T-326/94 : Konstantinos Dimitriadis v. Court of
                                                                              Auditors of the European Communities (^
(') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Official — Staff report — Damages)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/75 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 14 May 1996                              In Case T-326/94 : Konstantinos Dimitriadis, an official of
in Case T-82/95 : Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sánchez v.             the Court of Justice of the European Communities and
                    European Parliament ( 1 )                       formerly an official of the Court of Auditors of the
(Officials  — Retirement — Article 50 of the Staff                  European Communities, residing in Luxembourg,
Regulations — Protection of the interests of the official           represented by Markos Papazisis of the Salonika Bar, with
                             concerned)                             an address for service in Luxembourg at the applicant's
                         ( 96/C 180/74 )                            residence, 4A Boulevard Grand-Duchesse Charlotte, against
                                                                    the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                    ( Agents : Jean-Marie Stenier, Christos Komninos and Paolo
                (Language of the case: French)                      Giusta ) — application for the annulment of the applicant's
                                                                    staff report of 13 July 1994 and compensation for the
In Case T-82/95 : Carmen Gomez de Enterría y Sanchez, a             damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance
former official of the European Parliament, represented by          ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 September 2003 in Case C-170/02 P: Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for a declaration of failure to act — Competition — Complaint — Control of concentrations — Definition of a position for the purposes of Article 232 EC — Inadmissibility)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 275/21
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                      of 25 September 2003
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
in Case C-170/02 P: Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH and
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             in Case C-323/02: Commission of the European Communi-
(Appeal — Action for a declaration of failure to act —                                           ties v Hydrowatt SARL (1)
Competition — Complaint — Control of concentrations —
Definition of a position for the purposes of Article 232 EC
                         — Inadmissibility)
                                                                             (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of contract —
                                                                                Termination — Recovery of sums advanced — Interest)
                         (2003/C 275/36)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                      (2003/C 275/37)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-170/02 P, Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH, estab-                                     in the European Court Reports)
lished in Innsbruck (Austria), J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co.
KG, established in Linz (Austria), Styria Medien AG, established
in Graz (Austria), Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH,
established in Bregenz (Austria), Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger
Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei GmbH, established in Schwarz-
ach (Austria), ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH, established            In Case C-323/02, Commission of the European Communities
in Vienna (Austria), and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-                   (Agent: H. Støvlbaek assisted by E. Cabau) v Hydrowatt SARL,
Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, established in Salzburg (Austria),                established in Lyon (France): Application by the Commission
represented by M. Krüger, Rechtsanwalt: Appeal against the                   under Article 238 EC for recovery of the outstanding balance
order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                of an advance paid by the applicant to the defendant under
ties (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2002 in Case T-3/02                         Contract No HY 134/87 FR on the completion of a project
Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser and Others v Commission [2002]                    receiving financial support pursuant to Council Regulation
ECR II-1473, seeking to have that order set aside, the other                 (EEC) No 3640/85 of 20 December 1985 on the promotion,
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European                   by financial support, of demonstration projects and industrial
Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  pilot projects in the energy field (OJ 1985 L 350, p. 29), the
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the                 Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of
Chamber, C. Gulmann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha                   the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges;
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,                A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 September 2003, in                     judgment on 11 September 2003, in which it:
which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  1.    Orders Hydrowatt SARL to pay to the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities the sum of EUR 25 109, plus
2.    Orders Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser GmbH, J. Wimmer Medien                     contractual interest of EUR 23 422,91;
      GmbH & Co. KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-
      Gesellschaft mbH, Eugen Ruβ Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und
      Druckerei GmbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH and              2.    Orders Hydrowatt SARL to pay the costs.
      ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
      to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
(1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 June 2003 in Case C-72/02: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and wild birds)

text:
2.8.2003                  EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 184/15
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to              of the payment of sums not due, made to a person in receipt of more
      ensure, as regards the waste-disposal sites at Torreblanca, San           than one pension by virtue of his belonging to social security schemes
      Lorenzo de Tormes, Santalla del Bierzo, Sa Roca and Campello              in various Member States, in the form of a pension supplement where
      (Spain), the implementation of Articles 4 and 9 of Council                the maximum authorised income is exceeded. The two year time-limit
      Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended                 referred to in Articles 94, 95, 95a and 95b of Regulation No 1408/
      by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, and, as                 71 cannot be applied by analogy to such a situation.
      regards the first two disposal sites, the implementation of
      Article 13 thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil             National law must, however, observe the Community principle of
      its obligations under that directive;                                     equivalence, in accordance with which the detailed procedural rules
                                                                                governing the treatment of situations arising out of the exercise of a
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             Community freedom must be no less favourable than those governing
                                                                                purely internal situations, and the principle of effectiveness, in
                                                                                accordance with which those procedural rules must not render
(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                                virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights arising
                                                                                out of the situation of Community origin.
                                                                                Those principles apply to all the procedural rules governing the
                                                                                treatment of situations arising out of the exercise of a Community
                                                                                freedom, whether those rules are administrative or judicial, such as
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       the provisions of national law applicable to the limitation of actions
                                                                                and the recovery of sums paid though not due or those requiring the
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                    competent institutions to take account of the good faith of the
                                                                                persons concerned or to carry out proper checks of their situation
                                                                                with regard to pensions.
                            of 19 June 2003
in Case C-34/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
the Tribunale ordinario di Roma): Sante Pasquini v Isti-
      tuto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (1)
(Social security — Old-age pensions — Recalculation —
Recovery of sums paid though not due — Limitation —
   Law applicable — Detailed procedural rules — Concept)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (2003/C 184/28)
                                                                                of 24 June 2003
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                in Case C-72/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v Portuguese Republic (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC — Conservation of
                                                                                natural habitats and wild birds)
In Case C-34/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Tribunale Ordinario di Roma (Italy) for a preliminary
                                                                                (2003/C 184/29)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Sante Pasquini and Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale
(INPS), on the interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71                                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
persons and to members of their families moving within the                                             the European Court Reports)
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) and
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for                        In Case C-72/02, Commission of the European Communities
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the Court (Fifth                      (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents:
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                            L. Fernandes and M. Telles Romão and M. João Lois): Applica-
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and                          tion for a declaration that,
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                      by failing to implement in national law:
19 June 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                —      Article 3(3), Article 10, Article 11 and Article 12(4) of
Since Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971                       Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                  conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within                   flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), and
the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, does no more than ensure                          —      Article 7, Article 8 and Article 12 of Council Directive
coordination of provisions of national legislation in the field of social              79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild
security, it is national law which is applicable to a situation arising out            birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), and
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/16                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
by failing to implement correctly:                                            Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou): Application for a declaration
                                                                              that, by failing to draw up or, in any event, to communicate to
—     Article 1, Article 6(1) to (4) and Article 12(1)(d) of                  the Commission within the prescribed period (by 16 September
      Directive 92/43, and                                                    1999) the plans, outlines and summaries required under
—     Article 2, Article 4(1) and (4) and Article 6 of Directive              Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
      79/409,                                                                 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
                                                                              nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive
Article 23 of Directive 92/43 and Article 18 of Directive 79/                 and the EC Treaty, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
409, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Presi-                  C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola
dent, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.                    (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann                            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                          2003, in which it:
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2003, in                 1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up, within the prescribed
which it:                                                                           period, summaries of inventories of equipment with PCB
                                                                                volumes of more than 5 dm3, plans for the decontamination
1.    Declares that by failing to implement in national law:                        and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and the PCBs
                                                                                contained therein, and outlines for the collection and subsequent
      Article 3(3), Article 10, Article 11 and Article 12(4) of                     disposal of equipment which is not subject to inventory, in
      Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conser-                     accordance with Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/
      vation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and                   59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlori-
                                                                                nated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
      —     Article 7 and Article 8 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC                 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
            of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and                  directive.
      —     by failing to implement correctly:
      Article 1, Article 6(1) to (4) and Article 12(1)(d) of Directive        2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      92/43, and
      —     Article 2, Article 4(1) and (4) and Article 6 of Directive        (1) OJ C 118 of 18.05.2002.
            79/409,
      —     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
            under the EC Treaty;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                   in Case C-161/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v French Republic (1)
                             of 5 June 2003
in Case C-83/02: Commission of the European Commu-                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                    nities v Hellenic Republic (1)                            1999/94/EC — Failure to communicate implementing
                                                                                measures)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste
management — Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC                                                  (2003/C 184/31)
on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
                    nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            (2003/C 184/30)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)                           (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-161/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-83/02, Commission of the European Communities                       (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic
(Agents: H. Støvlbæk and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic                        (Agents: G. de Bergues and E. Puisais): Application for a


title: Case C-353/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014  — Elisabet Rion Bea v Bankia, S.A. and Others

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2014 — Elisabet Rion Bea v Bankia, S.A. and Others
   (Case C-353/14)
   2014/C 339/15
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elisabet Rion Bea

      Defendants: Bankia, S.A., Sección Sindical UGT, Sección Sindical CCOO, Sección Sindical ACCAM, Sección Sindical CSICA, Sección Sindical SATE and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 56 of the Worker’s Statute (Royal legislative decree 1/1995 of 24 March), the Fifth transitional provision of Law 3/2012 of 6 July on urgent measures for the reform of the labour market and Articles 123 and 124.13 of Law 36/2011 of 10 October governing the social courts (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Social, which refers to the other provisions) contrary to Articles 107 and 108 of the consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, inasmuch as they materially increase the compensation authorised by the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?

               2.

               Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be fair, to adjust the compensation to the legal minimum provided for under national law contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?

               3.

               Is an interpretation of those national provisions that would allow the court, in the event that the dismissal is held to be unfair, to adjust the compensation to the amounts provided for under the agreement reached in the consultation period, provided that those amounts are greater than the legal minimum but lower than the legal maximum, contrary to the abovementioned provisions of EU law and to the Decision of the European Commission in the case ‘State aid SA.35253 (2012/N) Spain. Restructuring and Recapitalisation of the BFA Group’?


title: Case T-439/15: Action brought on 4 August 2015 — Amrita and Others v Commission

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/24

         Action brought on 4 August 2015 — Amrita and Others v Commission
   (Case T-439/15)
   (2015/C 328/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Soc. coop. Amrita arl (Scorrano, Italy), Cesi Marta (Alliste, Italy), Comune Agricola Lunella — Soc. Mutua Coop Agricola (Galatone, Italy), Mustich Loredana Faustina (Lequile, Italy), Rollo Olga (Lecce, Italy), Borrello Claudia (Salve, Italy), Società agricola Merico Maria Rosa di Consiglia, Marta e Vito Lisi (Miggiano, Italy), Marzo Luigi (Specchia, Italy), Azienda Agricola Piccapane di Pellegrino Giuseppe (Castrignano del Capo, Italy), Azienda Agricola Le Lame di Russo Antonello e Russo Gianluigi Ss (Cutrofiano, Italy), Lanzieri Ivana (Ugento, Italy), Stendardo Giovanni (Presicce, Italy), Stasi Anna Maria (Castrignano del Capo, Italy), Azienda Agricola Crie di Miggiano Gianluigi (Muro Leccese, Italy), Castriota Maria Grazia (Galatone, Italy), Gabrieli Tommasi Emanuele (Calimera, Italy), Azienda Agricola di Canioni Fiorella (Melendugno, Italy), Azienda Agricola Spirdo Ss agricola (Ruffano, Italy), Coppola Silvia (Guagnano, Italy), Fondazione le Costantine (Uggiano la Chiesa, Italy), Impresa Agricola Stefania Stamerra (Lecce, Italy), Azienda Agricola Clemente Pezzuto di Pezzuto Francesco (Trepuzzi, Italy), Cooperativa Sociale Terrarossa (Tricase, Italy), Vaglio Irene (Tricase, Italy), Simone Cosimo Antonio (Morciano di Leuca, Italy), Azienda Agrituristica ‘Gli Ulivi’ di Baglivo Cesaria (Tricase, Italy), Preite Osvaldo (Taurisano, Italy), Masseria Alti Pareti Società Agricola arl (Maglie, Italy), Società Agricola Li Matonni Sas di Sammarco Ascanio & C. (Erchie, Italy) (represented by: L. Paccione and V. Stamerra, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should annul Commission Implementing Decision No 789 of 18 May 2015, published in the Official Journal of the European Union No 125/36 of 21 May 2015, entitled ‘Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/789 of 18 May 2015 as regards measures to prevent the introduction into and the spread within the Union of Xylella fastidiosa (Well and Raju)’, if necessary after disapplying Council Directive No 29 of 8 May 2000 published in the Official Journal of the European Union No 169 of 10 July 2000, with all the legal consequences thus arising as to costs and jurisdiction.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present proceedings is the same as that contested in Cases T-436/15, Consorzio Vivaisti viticoli pugliesi and Negro v Commission, and T-437/15, Eden Green Vivai Piante di Verdesca Giuseppe and Others v Commission.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on sixteen pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging (i) that Directive 2000/29 is unlawful in so far as it infringes Article 48 TEU in connection with Article 3 TFEU and Article 5 TEU, (ii) lack of competence and (iii) breach of the principle of cooperation in good faith.

                           —

                           In that respect, the applicants claim that the Directive confers on the Union exclusive powers which are not recognised by the Treaties.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Directive 2000/29 is unlawful on the grounds of lack of competence and infringement of Article 5 TEU in relation to the principles of cooperation in good faith and subsidiarity.

                           —

                           The applicants maintain in that regard that the Directive confers on the Commission the power, which is not recognised by the Treaties, to repeal measures adopted by the Member State concerning the regulation of plant health requirements.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2015/789 is unlawful on the ground that Directive 2000/29, on which it is based is unlawful, as referred to in the above paragraphs 1 and 2.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Article 6 TEU in connection with the principle of effective judicial protection, which has already been granted to the applicants by the Italian administrative courts.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Article 5 TEU in connection with the principles of cooperation in good faith and subsidiarity in the absence of any justification whatsoever concerning the key point regarding potentially inadequate action to combat the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa by the Member State.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Article 5 TEU, in relation to the principle of proportionality and the precautionary principle.

                           —

                           It is submitted in this connection that the prescriptive content of the contested decision appears excessive in relation to the stated objectives.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes ISPM No 9 in connection with Article 5 TEU and Protocol (No 2) TFEU concerning the application of the principle of proportionality and the precautionary principle.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that Commission Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right to the extent that it infringes Article 5 TEU and the principle of proportionality laid down therein by referring to the entire province of Lecce as an ‘infected zone’ and an area approximately 10 km north of that province as a ‘buffer zone’. The contested measure also infringes essential procedural requirements of decisions on the grounds of failure to investigate and to give reasons. It is also vitiated by incorrect and unjustified assumptions.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right 2015/789 in so far as it infringes Article 5 TUE and on the grounds of lack of competence, given that it was for the Italian state alone to identify and determine the extent of any infected zone.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Article 5 TUE and on the grounds of lack of competence in so far as it imposes a prohibition on planting host plants in the ‘infected zone’, and breach of Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in so far as it turns the contested measure into an uncodified restriction of the applicants’ rights in rem over agricultural land in their possession.

               11.

               Eleventh plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Articles 11 and 191 TFUE, the precautionary principle and Article 5 TEU in in connection with Directive 2001/42, since the measure concerning the uprooting of infected and healthy plants within a 100 m radius and the requirement for compulsory plant-health treatments to eradicate the insect vector, involves environmental harm and changes to the landscape of Salento in the absence of a Strategic Environmental Assessment and an assessment of risks to the environment and human health.

               12.

               Twelfth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Article 11 TFEU, Article 191 TFEU and Directive No 43/1992, since the measures adopted do not include evaluation of the risks that uprooting, eradication and plant-protection products may entail in parts of the territory enjoying special protection under EU law since they have been identified as Special Protection Areas, natural parks and Sites of Community Interest.

               13.

               Thirteenth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes the European Landscape Convention signed in Florence on 20 October 2000 and Articles 191 and 11 TFEU, in connection with Directive No 43/1992.

                           —

                           The applicants maintain in that regard that the EU measure requires olive trees to be uprooted indiscriminately and the administration of chemical pesticides which are strictly banned in organic farming, with the de facto result of destroying the businesses of the applicants, who have been practising organic olive cultivation for years.

               14.

               Fourteenth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 and Articles 11 and 191 TFEU, including in connection with Directive 2009/128/EC, and on the ground of infringement of the principle of proportionality and essential procedural requirements.

                           —

                           The applicants submit in that connection that the EU decision requires them to administer chemical substances which are not authorised in organic farming and also to uproot plants which are only suspected of infection. It is argued that those measures are at odds with the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Agency and are based on an assumption that there is a causal link between rapid desiccation of olive trees and the bacterium Xylella, which to date has not been established.

               15.

               Fifteenth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as the European Commission, instead of adopting provisional risk management measures to ensure a high level of health protection, took a purely hypothetical approach to the risk, which the Court of Justice has expressly ruled out.

               16.

               Sixteenth plea in law, alleging that Decision 2015/789 is unlawful in its own right in so far as it infringes Article 5 TEU with regard to infringement of essential procedural requirements and the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicants maintain in that regard that the use of pesticides and the eradication measure, which were deemed by EFSA to be ineffective and impractical, are not necessary for the purpose laid down by EU law in Directive 2000/29/CE, thereby infringing the principle of proportionality.


title: Case F-27/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 January 2013 — BO v Commission (Staff case — Social security — Payment of transport costs connected to medical care — Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 January 2013 — BO v Commission
   (Case F-27/11) (1)

   (Staff case - Social security - Payment of transport costs connected to medical care - Transport costs incurred for linguistic reasons)
   2013/C 79/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BO (Amman, Jordan) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Staff case — Application for annulment of the defendant’s decisions refusing to authorise medical benefits requested by the applicant for his son, his wife and himself.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions of the European Commission of 1 June 2010 refusing to pay the costs for the transport and accompaniment of BO’s son;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by BO.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.11, p. 33.


title: Action brought on 17 October 1996 by Gundolf Bosetti against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-161/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370 / 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    interpreted by case-law. He maintains that the Commission
                                                                       has not accorded the union which he represents all the
The applicant states, with regard to the admissibility of his          rights to which it is entitled, inasmuch as the practical effect
claim, that it is directed not against an act of the appointing        of the contested decision results is to prohibit it from taking
authority but against a failure to act . That failure to act           part in meetings organized between the institutions and
consists in the fact that, because the weightings have still           trade unions and staff associations, to refuse it the
not been definitively fixed, the applicant's pension for the           necessary means for properly carrying out its tasks, to deny
period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 has not yet been               it the right to disseminate information and to prohibit it
finally determined .                                                   from carrying on trade union activities during working
                                                                       hours on the Commission's premises .
Moreover, the action is also well founded since there
                                                                       The applicant also complains that the Commission has not
appears to be no reason why the principles applying to
                                                                       complied with the framework agreement and that it has
officials residing in the Federal Republic of Germany                  distorted the aims thereof.
should differ from those applying in respect of all other
countries, or why the appointing authority should refrain              Lastly, he pleads infringement of the obligation to provide a
from applying the principles clearly obtaining since June              statement of reasons arising from the second paragraph of
1994 to the preceding period as well .                                 Article 25 and Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
Action brought on 17 October 1996 by Gundolf Bosetti                   Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Sandro Forcheri
    against the Commission of the European Communities                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-161 /96 )                                                    ( Case T-l 62/96 )
                           ( 96/C 370/36 )                                                       ( 96/C 370/37)
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                       An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1996                Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 1996
by Gundolf Bosetti , residing in Luxembourg, represented by            by Sandro Forcheri , residing in Brussels, represented by
Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                 Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address for
for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 Avenue du                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn ,
                                                                       21 Rue de Nassau .
Bois .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul or declare to be unlawful the failure of the
— annul the decision of the Commission of 31 October                        Commission to second the Head of Division B/4 of
     1995 refusing to admit the independent trade union                     DG XXI to SAMCOMM on the date that he took up
     'Action et Defense — Luxembourg' to the framework                      his duties or at the very least with effect from
     agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning relations                    29 October 1992,
     between the Commission and trade unions and staff
     associations ,                                                    — annul the Commission 's decision of 12 December 1995
                                                                            refusing the applicant's request for payment of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                                differential allowance provided for by Article 7 ( 2 ) of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — annul the Commission's decision of 24 July 1996
                                                                            granting his complaint in part, in that it fails to accept
The applicant, deputy general secretary of the trade union                  that he has, since 29 October 1992 , been performing
'Action et Defense — Luxembourg', states that on                            temporarily the duties of Head of Division XXI B/4 and
9 October 1995 that organization applied to be admitted to                  in that it therefore does not grant him the differential
the framework agreement of 20 September 1974                                allowance from 30 January 1993 and without
concerning relations between the Commission and trade                       limitation in time,
unions and staff associations . On 31 October 1995 the
competent Member of the Commission rejected the                        — order the Commission to pay him that differential
application on the ground that, as matters then stood, he                   allowance, together with interest for late payment at the
was not able to assess the extent to which the organization                 rate of 8% per annum from the date each month on
in question was a representative body.                                      which that allowance should have been paid until full
                                                                            payment,
The applicant considers that that decision disregarded
Articles 9 and 24a of the Staff Regulations of officials, as           — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Joined Cases C-147/06 and C-148/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — SECAP SpA (C-147/06) v Comune di Torino, intervening parties: Tecnoimprese Srl, Gambarana Impianti Snc, ICA Srl, Cosmat Srl, Consorzio Ravennate, ARCAS SpA, Regione Piemonte, and Santorso Soc. coop. arl (C-148/06) v Comune di Torino, intervening parties: Bresciani Bruno Srl, Azienda Agricola Tekno Green Srl, Borio Giacomo Srl, Costrade Srl (Public works contracts — Award of contracts — Abnormally low tenders — Exclusion rules — Works contracts not reaching the thresholds laid down in Directives 93/37/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Obligations upon the contracting authorities deriving from the fundamental principles of Community law)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — SECAP SpA (C-147/06) v Comune di Torino, intervening parties: Tecnoimprese Srl, Gambarana Impianti Snc, ICA Srl, Cosmat Srl, Consorzio Ravennate, ARCAS SpA, Regione Piemonte, and Santorso Soc. coop. arl (C-148/06) v Comune di Torino, intervening parties: Bresciani Bruno Srl, Azienda Agricola Tekno Green Srl, Borio Giacomo Srl, Costrade Srl
   (Joined Cases C-147/06 and C-148/06) (1)

   (Public works contracts - Award of contracts - Abnormally low tenders - Exclusion rules - Works contracts not reaching the thresholds laid down in Directives 93/37/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Obligations upon the contracting authorities deriving from the fundamental principles of Community law)
   (2008/C 171/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SECAP SpA (C-147/06), Santorso Soc. coop. arl (C-148/06)

      Defendant: Comune di Torino

      Intervening parties: Tecnoimprese Srl, Gambarana Impianti Snc, ICA Srl, Cosmat Srl, Consorzio Ravennate, ARCAS SpA, Regione Piemonte (C-147/06), Bresciano Bruno Srl, Azienda Argicola Tekno Green Srl, Borio Giacomo Srl, Costrade Srl (C-148/06)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 30(4) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) and of Article 55(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Abnormally low tenders — Extent of the obligation to set in motion an examination procedure
   Operative part of the judgment
   The fundamental rules of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services and the general principle of non-discrimination preclude national legislation which, with regard to contracts with a value below the threshold set by Article 6(1)(a) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, which are of certain cross-border interest, imposes an absolute duty on the contracting authorities, where the number of valid tenders is greater than five, automatically to exclude tenders considered to be abnormally low in relation to the goods, works or services according to a mathematical criterion laid down by that legislation without allowing those contracting authorities any possibility of verifying the constituent elements of those tenders by requesting the tenderers concerned to provide details of those elements. That would not be the case if national or local legislation or even the contracting authorities concerned were to set a reasonable threshold above which abnormally low tenders were automatically excluded on account of there being an unduly large number of tenders, which might oblige the contracting authorities to examine on an inter partes basis such a high number of bids that it would exceed their administrative capacity or might, due to the delay which such an examination would entail, jeopardise the implementation of the project.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

      OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case T-698/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/29

      Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Trasta Komercbanka a.o. v ECB
      (Case T-698/16)
      (2016/C 441/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Trasta Komercbanka AS (Riga, Latvia) and 6 others (represented by: O. Behrends, L. Feddern and M. Kirchner, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the ECB’s decision dated 3 March 2016 withdrawing the banking license of Trasta Komercbanka AS; and

                  —

                  order the defendant to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 24 SSM Regulation (1), and related provisions in connection with the review of the ECB's earlier decision by the Administrative Board of Review.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging that the ECB failed to examine and appraise carefully and impartially all factual aspects including without limitation that the ECB did not respond appropriately to the fact that the information and documents submitted by the local Latvian regulatory authority were inaccurate.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of proportionality by failing to recognize the availability of alternative measures.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principle of equal treatment.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated Article 19 and Recital 75 SSM Regulation and committed a détournement de pouvoir.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging that the ECB violated procedural rules including the right to be heard, the right of access to the file, the right to an adequately reasoned decision, and violation of Article 83(1) SSM Framework Regulation.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1024/2013 of 15 October 2013 conferring specific tasks on the European Central Bank concerning policies relating to the prudential supervision of credit institutions (OJ L 287, 29.10.2013, p. 63)


title: Case C-178/12: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social — Spain) — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO) (Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social policy — Principle of equal treatment — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Determination of length of service — Difference in treatment between civil servants and contractual staff — Taking into account previous periods of employment completed in the administration — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/4

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social — Spain) — Rafaela Rivas Montes v Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)
   (Case C-178/12) (1)

   (Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social policy - Principle of equal treatment - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Determination of length of service - Difference in treatment between civil servants and contractual staff - Taking into account previous periods of employment completed in the administration - Clear lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   2013/C 129/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rafaela Rivas Montes

      Defendant: Instituto Municipal de Deportes de Córdoba (IMDECO)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo social — Interpretation of Article 45(4) TFEU — National legislation governing the method of calculation of length-of-service increments in the civil service — Application by a public authority of different rules according to whether the employment relationship is of a public service or of a contractual kind — Failure to take into account certain periods of service completed by contractual staff

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly has no jurisdiction to reply to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social no 1 de Córdoba (Spain) by decision of 27 February 2012.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.