title: Case T-191/09: Action brought on 14 May 2009 — HIT Trading and Berkman Forwarding v Commission

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/53

         Action brought on 14 May 2009 — HIT Trading and Berkman Forwarding v Commission
   (Case T-191/09)
   2009/C 180/99
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: HIT Trading BV (Barneveld, Netherlands) and Berkman Forwarding BV (Barendrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A.T.M. Jansen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               HIT Trading claims that the Court of First Instance should annul the Commission’s decision of 12 February 2009 in Case REC 08/01 and declare that the post-clearance recovery of customs duties and anti-dumping duties is to be waived since the remission of those duties is justified.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants submit that the Commission wrongly decided that the post-clearance recovery of customs duties and anti-dumping duties was justified, and that the Commission was wrong to find that there was no special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
   The applicants puts forward the following grounds in support of that submission:

               —

               The Commission finds that the Pakistan customs authorities made an active error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 as regards preferential origin. The Commission wrongly takes the view that, as regards non-preferential origin, this error is not an error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92.

               —

               The Commission wrongly finds that the applicants were not careful in regard to the declarations lodged after 10 September 2004.

               —

               In its examination of the question whether post-clearance recovery may be waived or whether a special situation exists, the Commission has failed, without justification, to fulfil its obligations.

               —

               The Commission finds that the Pakistan customs authorities made an active error within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 as regards preferential origin. The Commission wrongly takes the view that, as regards non-preferential origin, this error does not give rise to a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92.

               —

               It is not clear from the contested decision that the Commission genuinely weighed up the Community’s interest in compliance with customs regulations against the interests of importers, acting in good faith, in not being subject to disadvantage beyond the normal commercial risks.

               —

               It is not clear from the contested decision that the Commission took into account all the relevant facts in assessing whether the circumstances of the particular case give rise to a special situation.


title: Case C-384/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014  — Alta Realitat S.L. v Erlock Films and Ulrich Thomsen

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Alta Realitat S.L. v Erlock Films and Ulrich Thomsen
   (Case C-384/14)
   2014/C 388/04
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alta Realitat S.L.

      Defendants: Erlock Films and Ulrich Thomsen

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 (1) be interpreted to the effect that the national court hearing the action may determine, on the basis of all the information in the court-file at its disposal, whether an addressee understands a [particular] language?

         If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:

               2)

               Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 be interpreted to the effect that, where the national court hearing the action has determined, on the basis of all the information in the court-file at its disposal, that [the] addressee does understand a [particular] language, the person effecting service in such a situation does not have to offer the addressee the option of refusing the document?

               3)

               Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 be interpreted to the effect that, if the addressee of a notice refuses a document drafted in a certain language, following a declaration from the court hearing the action that that person has a sufficient level of understanding of that language, the refusal of the document is not justified, and the court hearing the action may apply the consequences provided for in the legislation of the State of transmission to this type of unjustified refusal of a document and, if the procedural rules of the State of transmission so provide, treat the document as having been served on the addressee?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000. OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.


title: Case C-257/08: Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/32

         Action brought on 17 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-257/08)
   (2008/C 209/47)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and L. Prete, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC or, in any event, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive:

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The deadline for implementing the directive expired on 1 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35.


title: Case T-171/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Officials — Promotion — Promotion year 2003 — Staff report — Award of merit points — Decision not to promote the applicant to the post of translator-reviser)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-171/05) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Promotion year 2003 - Staff report - Award of merit points - Decision not to promote the applicant to the post of translator-reviser)
   (2006/C 294/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision definitively establishing his staff report for the year 2003, of the decision awarding the applicant's merit points for the year 2003 and of the decision not to promote him in 2004, and also of the decision rejecting his complaint against those decisions and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Court of Auditors' decisions awarding the applicant his merit points for the year 2003 and not to promote him in 2004.

               2.

               Rejects the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders the Court of Auditors to bear its own costs and half those incurred by the applicant.

               4.

               Orders the applicant to bear all the costs relating to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 182 of 23.7.2005.


title: Case T-239/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Comtec Translations v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/60

         Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Comtec Translations v Commission
   (Case T-239/08)
   (2008/C 209/107)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Comtec Translations Ltd (Leamington Spa, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. R. Scott and E. Bentley, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision letter and remit the applicant's bid for reconsideration;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's Decision of 16 April 2008 rejecting its tender submitted in the framework of the tender procedure for the conclusion of framework contracts for the translation of documents relating to the policies and administration of the European Union from all EU official languages into English (call for tender No FL-GEN07-EN) (1). The reason given for not retaining the applicant's tender was insufficient technical or professional capacity and lack of, or insufficient proven professional experience.
   In support of its action the applicant puts forward a single plea in law. It claims that the administrative procedure has been conducted irregularly and that its procedural rights have not been observed. The applicant submits that it has successfully provided translation into English within the Commission for several years in the framework of contracts previously signed and regularly renewed for which it has received satisfactory rankings regarding the quality of the services. The applicant claims that the evaluation committee's decision took no or no proper account of the successful performance of the applicant in submitting translation assignments to the Commission for 12 years neither it took into consideration the documents evidencing the technical and professional qualifications of the applicant's staff, quality managers and sub-contractors.

      (1)  Contract notice published : OJ 2007/S 180 — 219517.


title: Case T-632/15: Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Tillotts Pharma v OHIM — Ferring (OCTASA)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/69

         Action brought on 10 November 2015 — Tillotts Pharma v OHIM — Ferring (OCTASA)
   (Case T-632/15)
   (2016/C 027/87)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tillotts Pharma AG (Rheinfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ferring BV (Hoofddorp, Netherlands)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘OCTASA’ — Application for registration No 8 169 881

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2015 in Case R 2386/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-218/02: Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
27.7.2002                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/17
2.    Do Directive 79/112/EEC or Articles 28 and 30 EC                    The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
      preclude a national provision which, on the placing into            measures in order to comply with the directive for the entirety
      circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-            of its territory is not disputed.
      mation such as that described in Question (1) to be
      affixed thereto only after prior authorisation by the
      competent federal minister, whereby a condition of
      authorisation is that the health-related information is             Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
      consistent with protecting the consumer from being                  of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive with
      misled?                                                             regard to Gibraltar, and since the Commission is in possession
                                                                          of no other information enabling it to conclude that the United
                                                                          Kingdom has adopted the necessary provisions, it is compelled
(1) OJ L 33, p. 1.                                                        to assume that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such
                                                                          provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          directive.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 159 of 29.6.1996, p. 1.
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the United Kingdom
             of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                           (Case C-218/02)
                           (2002/C 180/28)
                                                                          Action brought on 14 June 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 12 June 2002 by the Com-                                                (Case C-221/02)
mission of the European Communities, represented by Thomas
Cusack, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                (2002/C 180/29)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar all the laws,
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to               An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) of                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June
      13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the              2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      protection of the health of workers and the general public          represented by D. Martin and M. França, acting as Agent, with
      against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation in its          an address for service in Luxembourg.
      whole territory, or in any event by failing to communicate
      them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed
      fully to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                                within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                                Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/
                                                                                102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations
According to Article 192(1) of the Treaty, Member States shall                  and administrative provisions of the Member States
take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,                   concerning consumer credit (1), or, in any event, by failing
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty               to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                       French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Community.                                                                      that directive;


title: Case C-75/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 February 2013 — SEK Zollagentur GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 14 February 2013 — SEK Zollagentur GmbH v Hauptzollamt Gießen
   (Case C-75/13)
   2013/C 147/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SEK Zollagentur GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Gießen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the relevant provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, (1) in particular Article 50 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that an article left with a person by the customs authority for temporary storage in an approved place is deemed to have been removed from customs supervision if it is declared for an external transit procedure, but it does not in fact accompany the prepared transit papers on the transport planned and is not presented to the customs office at the place of destination?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative: In such circumstances is the person who, as the approved consignor, placed the goods in the transit procedure a customs debtor under the first indent of Article 203(3) of the Customs Code or under the fourth indent of Article 203(3) of the Customs Code?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case F-116/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Vacca v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/207/11 — Non-admission to the assessment tests — Admission tests — Cancellation of questions — Information for candidates)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/85

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — Vacca v Commission
   (Case F-116/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/207/11 - Non-admission to the assessment tests - Admission tests - Cancellation of questions - Information for candidates)
   2013/C 225/195
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Annalisa Vacca (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in the competition EPSO/AD/207/11.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the sum of EUR 500 to Ms Vacca;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Ms Vacca;

               4.

               Orders Ms Vacca to bear one third of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2013, p. 69.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 13 June 2002 in Case C-353/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Keeping Newcastle Warm Limited v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable amount — Consideration for goods or services — Subsidy)

text:
C 233/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.9.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Third Chamber)                                                            (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                4 July 2002
                            13 June 2002
                                                                           in Case C-173/01: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-353/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                      ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Keeping
Newcastle Warm Limited v Commissioners of Customs
                             & Excise ( 1)                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 1999/20/EC — Failure to implement within the
                                                                                period prescribed)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 11A(1)(a) — Taxable
  amount — Consideration for goods or services — Subsidy)                                             (2002/C 233/15)
                          (2002/C 233/14)                                                       (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    (Language of the case: English)                                            in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-173/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-353/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United
                                                                           N. Tsiros and N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that,
Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                           by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws,
before that court between Keeping Newcastle Warm Limited
                                                                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, on the interpretation
                                                                           with Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March 1999
of Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of              amending Directives 70/524/EEC concerning additives in
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                           feedingstuffs, 82/471/EEC concerning certain products used in
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                           animal nutrition, 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing the
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
                                                                           organisation of official inspections in the field of animal
the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President
                                                                           nutrition and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                           arrangements for approving and registering certain establish-
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
                                                                           ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           (OJ 1999 L 80, p. 20), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
13 June 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive, the
                                                                           Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President
                                                                           of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and C. W. A. Timmermans
Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of             (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 July 2002, in which it:
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that
a sum such as that paid in the case in the main proceedings                1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed
constitutes part of the consideration for the supply of services and             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
forms part of the taxable amount in respect of that supply for the               comply with Council Directive 1999/20/EC of 22 March
purposes of value added tax.                                                     1999 amending Directives 70/524/EEC concerning additives
                                                                                in feedingstuffs, 82/471/EEC concerning certain products used
                                                                                in animal nutrition, 95/53/EC fixing the principles governing
                                                                                the organisation of official inspections in the field of animal
( 1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.                                                     nutrition and 95/69/EC laying down the conditions and
                                                                                arrangements for approving and registering certain establish-
                                                                                ments and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector,
                                                                                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                that Directive.


title: Case C-6/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/12

         Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-6/10)
   2010/C 80/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and L. de Schiertere de Lophem, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts, 86/635/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of banks and other financial institutions and 91/674/EEC on the annual accounts and consolidated accounts of insurance undertakings (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of Directive 2006/46/EC lapsed on 5 September 2008. On the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 224, p. 1.


title: Case T-56/02: Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/64               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the decision forming the subject-matter of the dispute disre-
                                                                         gards the principle of proportionality, given the allegedly
                                                                         totally disproportionate nature of the fine at issue, especially
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put             in relation to that imposed on other undertakings in this and
forward in Case T-49/02.                                                 other recent cases, and as regards the taking into account of
                                                                         the legal maximum applicable to the fine itself.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of
                                                                         non-discrimination.
Action brought on 27 February 2002 by Société Nouvelle
des Couleurs Zinciques S.A. against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                                                                         Action brought on 28 February 2002 by Bayerische Hypo-
                          (Case T-52/02)                                 und Vereinsbank AG against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                        (2002/C 109/121)
                                                                                (Case T-56/02)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/122)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 February 2002 by Société
Nouvelle des Couleurs Zinciques S.A., established at Bouchain
(France), represented by Robert Saint-Esteben and Hugues                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Calvet, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 28 February 2002 by Bayerische
                                                                         Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG, of Munich (Germany), represented
                                                                         by W. Knapp, T. Müller-Ibold and B. Bergmann, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     principally, annul Article 3 of the Commission’s decision          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of 11 December 2001, in so far as that article imposes a
      fine of 1,53 million euros on the applicant;                       —     annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 3693 final of
                                                                               11 December 2001 in Case COMP/E-1/37.919
—     alternatively, reduce the amount of that fine very substan-              (ex 37 391) — Bank charges for currency exchange
      tially;                                                                  within the Euro zone — Germany, in so far as it concerns
                                                                               the applicant;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     alternatively, cancel or, in the further alternative, reduce
                                                                               the fine of 28 000 000 euros imposed on the applicant;
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The decision contested in the present case is the same as that           Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case T-33/02 Britannia Alloys & Chemicals v Commission.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant are similar to those advanced in Case T-33/02.                 The alleged cartel never existed. It is apparent from the
                                                                         information provided by those who attended the meeting of
                                                                         foreign exchange dealers on 15 October 1997 that, during the
According to the applicant, the arbitrary fixing of a basic              course of that meeting, the discussions concerned technical
amount far in excess of the legal maximum is contrary to                 aspects of inter-bank trading in foreign currencies and structur-
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62, inasmuch as it prevents            ing possibilities regarding pricing in retail foreign exchange
the duration of the infringement and the aggravating and                 trading. The meeting did not involve the conclusion of any
mitigating factors from being taken into account. In addition,           anti-competitive agreement.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 109/65
The applicant did not take part in the meeting on 15 October            Action brought on 1 March 2002 by Deutsche Ver-
1997. The employee of the applicant who was sent an                     kehrsbank AG against the Commission of the European
invitation to attend that meeting was not granted permission                                       Communities
by his superior to take part in it. An employee of the
Vereins- und Westbank, in which the applicant has a majority
shareholding, had been the only person attending on the                                           (Case T-60/02)
applicant’s behalf. The Vereins- und Westbank conducts itself
in the market quite independently of the applicant, and the                                     (2002/C 109/123)
links between the two banks from the standpoint of company
law cannot therefore constitute the basis for any presumption
concerning the attendance by an employee of that bank at the                              (Language of the case: German)
meeting complained of.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
In assessing the amount of the fine, the Commission manifestly          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
departed from its own guidelines and infringed the requirement          European Communities on 1 March 2002 by Deutsche
of equal treatment.                                                     Verkehrsbank AG, of Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represent-
                                                                        ed by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers.
Neither in the communication concerning the heads of
complaint nor in the context of the hearing before the official         The applicant claims that the Court should:
nominated to conduct the same was there any suggestion that
the applicant itself had taken part in the alleged agreements.          —     annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the
The Commission should have indicated the change in its point                  applicant;
of view to the applicant prior to adopting its decision.
                                                                        —     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                              the contested decision to a reasonable amount;
The applicant’s rights of defence were infringed, since the
applicant was not given full access to the file. In particular, it      —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
was not able to inspect the comments made by the other
parties involved or the files in the parallel procedures, despite
the fact that the applicant had well-founded reasons to suspect
that those files contained material which would have been               Pleas in law and main arguments
material to its defence.
                                                                        The claim is directed against Decision C(2001) 3693 of
The decision is lacking in an adequate statement of reasons,            11 December 2001, adopted in Case COMP/E-1/37.919
since, in respect of a series of points, it does not contain any        (ex 37 391) — Bank charges for currency exchange within the
considerations capable of being verified. In particular, no             Euro zone, by which the Commission found that the applicant
reasons were given for the attribution to the conduct of the            had participated in an agreement during the period from
representative of the Vereins- und Westbank of the failure to           1 January 1999 to 31 December 2001 (the period leading up
apply the rules concerning mitigating factors or for the                to the change-over to the euro) concerning the charging of a
deviation from the principle that the initiators of a cartel            percentage commission targeted at around 3 % as a fee for
should not enjoy the benefit of the non-imposition of a fine.           exchanging bank-notes in the participant currencies, and
                                                                        imposed on the applicant a fine of 14 million euros.
The conduct of the Commission in the course of the procedure            The applicant pleads as follows:
shows that it did not act with a view to punishing an
infringement of the rules on cartels but rather with a view to          It does not carry on foreign-exchange end transactions of the
lowering, for political reasons, the charges for exchanging             type concerned in this case; instead, it engages exclusively in
currencies, which it regarded as too high. Those banks which,           inter-bank trading, i.e. wholesale trading in currencies and
faced with that pressure, declared themselves willing to lower          foreign exchange, and therefore in cashless trading in foreign
the charges had been removed from the procedure, regardless             currencies.
of their role in the alleged infringement of the rules on cartels.
The Commission thus misused the provisions of competition
law in order to regulate prices, which it was not in its power          The Commission used evidence on which the applicant was
to do. This constitutes a misuse of discretionary powers.               not given a chance to comment at a hearing conducted in
                                                                        accordance with the law. The Commission refused to allow
                                                                        access to exonerating documents. It arbitrarily discriminated
                                                                        against the applicant in the context of the decision concerning
                                                                        an informal cessation of the procedure.


title: Case C-269/06: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/38

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne
   (Case C-269/06) (1)

   (2008/C 51/63)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-215/01: Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Calberson G.E. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 317/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.11.2001
Action brought on 20 September 2001 by Calberson G.E.                     therefore entitled to hold the Commission liable, as principal
     against Commission of the European Communities                       or master, for the acts of those who have acted on its behalf.
                                                                          Furthermore, Article 9(3) of Regulation No 111/1999 (2) must
                                                                          be interpreted as meaning that the intervention agency is liable
                         (Case T-215/01)                                  for the additional costs incurred by the successful tenderer
                                                                          where those costs are due to a delay in unloading or in the
                         (2001/C 317/66)                                  making available of the goods by the intervention agency or at
                                                                          the storage location.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In the alternative, even if the Commission is not guarantor of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 the acts of intervening parties, the applicant submits that the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                conditions for a finding of non-contractual liability of the
European Communities on 20 September 2001 by Calberson                    Community are satisfied in the present case.
G.E., established in Paris, represented by Thierry Gallois,
lawyer.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 220, 20.8.1999, p. 3.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 111/1999 of 18.1.1999, laying
                                                                              down general rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                              No 2802/98 on a programme to supply agricultural products to
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant by way of                  the Russian Federation (OJ L 14, 19.1.1999, p. 3).
      compensation:
      —     Euros 14 290 .61;
      —     USD 57 859 .56, together with legal interest with
            effect from the eighth day after each unpaid invoice
            of Calberson G.E.;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 11 September 2001 by Forum des
                                                                          Migrants de l’Union Européenne against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (Case T-217/01)
The present dispute concerns the performance of lot No 4                                           (2001/C 317/67)
organised by Commission Regulation No 1815/1999 of
18 August 1999, relating to the supply of skimmed milk
powder to Russia (1). Under the terms of that transaction,                                    (Language of the case: French)
Alpine, the storage firm of the intervention agency, was to
load the goods on the applicant’s means of transport.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
According to the applicant, Alpine initially demanded payment             European Communities on 11 September 2001 by the Forum
of additional loading costs and the issue of guarantees for the           des Migrants de L’Union Européenne (the European Union
return of pallets. The Commission agreed that the applicant               Migrants Forum), established in Brussels, represented by
was right to refuse payment, whereupon the intervention                   Emmanuel Degrez, lawyer.
agency was asked to intervene with Alpine and to require it to
drop its claim. Alpine then took much longer than planned
when unloading and loading the applicant’s lorries. Those two             The applicant claims that the Court should:
difficulties led to a delay in loading the ship chartered by
Calberson, with demurrage arising for the loss of use of the              —     annul the decision notified to the applicant on 11 July
vessel both at the port of departure and port of destination.                   2001 by the Directorate General for Justice and Home
                                                                                Affairs of the Commission terminating the financial
                                                                                support from the Commission under Article A0-3040 of
The applicant alleges that the Commission has incurred both
                                                                                the Community budget on the basis of Article 1 of the
contractual and non-contractual liability.
                                                                                general conditions of the grant agreement for the financial
                                                                                year 2000;
As regards contractual liability, Calberson considers that it
follows from the principles generally accepted in the laws of             —     order that the costs and expenses of the case be paid by
all the Member States that the principal is guarantor of the acts               the Directorate General for Justice and Home Affairs of
of its agents or those acting on its behalf. The applicant is                   the Commission.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 July 2001 in Case T-375/00 Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Replacement staff — Members of the auxiliary staff — Claim to classification as a member of the temporary staff of the European Communities — Action in part lacking in any legal basis and in part inadmissible)

text:
C 317/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.11.2001
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 6 July 2001                                 —     Annul the contested act;
in Case T-375/00 Danielle Dubigh and Tamara Zaur-Gora
                                                                          —     Declare her to be entitled to obtain a survivor’s pension;
       v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Replacement staff — Members of the auxiliary                 —     Set the amount of that pension at 200 000 BEF a month;
staff — Claim to classification as a member of the temporary
staff of the European Communities — Action in part lacking                —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
           in any legal basis and in part inadmissible)
                          (2001/C 317/51)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-375/00: Danielle Dubigh, a member of the auxiliary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,                      The applicant, divorced from a former member of the Court
residing in Brussels, and Tamara Zaur-Gora, also a member                 of Justice, now deceased, is challenging the defendant’s refusal
of the auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European                  to grant her a survivor’s pension. That decision is based on the
Communities, residing in Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented               alleged absence of any maintenance agreement concluded after
by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for                 the divorce was granted and on the fact that a survivor’s
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                 pension is conditional upon a right to maintenance.
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for the annulment of the Commission decisions
of 12 January 2000 rejecting the applicants’ requests of                  In support of her claims, the applicant maintains that the
24 September 1999 for regularisation of their administrative              defendant, having regard to the circumstances of the case, was
situation by recognising them as members of the temporary                 not entitled to consider that the two sworn declarations she
staff of the European Communities — the Court of First                    produced in order to establish the existence and amount of the
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-               maintenance agreement with her ex-husband were insufficient.
dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has made an order on 6 July 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed.
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                 Action brought on 30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn
                                                                          against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-174/01)
Action brought on 26 July 2001 by M against the Court
            of Justice of the European Communities                                                 (2001/C 317/53)
                          (Case T-172/01)                                 (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                          of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application was
                          (2001/C 317/52)                                                            made: German)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance                30 July 2001 by Ms Jean M. Goulbourn of Makati, Metro
of the European Communities on 26 July 2001 by M,                         Manila (Philippines), represented by Dr Siegfried Jackermeier,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Harisios Tagaras,                 with an address for service in Luxembourg. Further party
lawyers.                                                                  before the board of appeal: Redcats SA, Roubaix (France).


title: Action brought on 8 March 1995 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-61/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/7
Action brought on 8 March 1995 by the Hellenic Republic               3 . Aid for the production of olive oil
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case C-61/95 )                                 The Commission deducted 10% from the overall
                           ( 95/C 119/14 )                                expenditure, owing to inadequacies which it found in
                                                                          supervision of the payment of aid to producers of olive
                                                                          oil. However, those failings are attributable to objective
An action against the Commission of the European                          impossibility of which the Commission is aware and for
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                which the Greek authorities are not responsible.
European Communities on 8 March 1 995 by the Hellenic
Republic, represented by Panayiotis Milonopoulos, of the
Special Legal Service for the European Communities of the             4. Aid for the production of cotton
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and by Meletis Tzotzanis, Head
of the Directorate of Legal Affairs of the Ministry of                    The Commission's refusal to allow as Community
Agriculture, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                 expenditure 50 % of the expenditure in the cotton sector
the Greek Embassy, 177 Val Ste . Croix.                                   must be annulled because the Decision was adopted in a
                                                                          manner which constitutes an infringement of the rights
                                                                          of defence afforded to the Member States by Regulation
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              ( EEC ) No 729/70 on the financing of the common
                                                                          agricultural policy. In fact, although at the official
                                                                          meeting with the Greek authorities the representatives
1 , annul Commission Decision E(94 ) 3308 Rev. of                         of the Commission made no mention of cotton,
     21 December 1994 on the clearance of accounts of the
                                                                          the Commission's Director-General for Agriculture
     Member States in connection with expenditure financed                suddenly announced his decision to disallow 50 % of the
     by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  aid made available for the cotton sector .
     Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee Section, for the 1991
     financial year, in respect of the sectors challenged in this
     action and the corresponding amounts;                            5 . Tobacco
2, order the Commission to pay the costs of these                         The    Commission's       Decision   to disallow   certain
     proceedings.                                                         expenditure concerning subsidies for leaf tobacco is
                                                                          dated 21 December 1994 . However, the relevant report
                                                                          on which that Decision was based was handed to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Greek Permanent Representation one day later, that is
                                                                          to say on 22 December 1994. By taking that action the
                                                                          Commission infringed the Hellenic Republic's rights of
1 . Levy in the milk sector                                               defence. Futhermore, the Decision concerning the
                                                                          calculation of expenditure in the tobacco sector must
     The Commission's disallowance as Community                           be annulled on account of the erroneous assessment by
                                                                          the Commission of the factual circumstances and
     expenditure of an amount of Dr 1 592 000 000 is
     unlawful, since it is based on incomplete and                        infringement of the limits of its discretionary power.
     contradictory reasoning and infringes the principles of
     sound administration and of the protection of legitimate
     expectations. In its prior summary report on the
     clearance of accounts for the 1991 financial year the
     Commission aroused the expectation that it would not
     impose any correction on Greece. However, in its final
     decision, against which this action is brought, it gave as
     its reason the United Kingdom's abandonment of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     actions for annulment brought by it before the Court            Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
     against decisions concerning the clearance of                    12 October 1994, in the case of The Queen against the
     expenditure in the milk and milk products sector.                       Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte:
                                                                                Eunice Sutton
                                                                                ( Case C-66/95 )
2 . Levy for exceeding the national guaranteed quantity
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/15 )
     The Commission's refusal to allow Dr 372 933 493 as
     Community expenditure for failure to notify statistical          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     data in connection with direct sales, constitutes a misuse       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     of its discretionary power. Moreover, the decision in           Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 12 October 1994, which
     question is unlawful, since it is based on statistical data      was received at the Court Registry on 13 March 1995 , for a
     which the Commission did not evaluate in an objective            preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
     manner, since it took account only of the applications           Secretary of State for Social Security, ex-parte: Eunice
     for the grant of approval .                                      Sutton, on the following question:


title: Case T-656/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/69

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Baggi v Parliament
   (Case T-656/15)
   (2016/C 048/77)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guia Baggi (Florence, Italy) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8552 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case C-657/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hilden (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions — Staggered recovery of tax on unrealised capital gains — Preservation of allocation of powers of taxation between Member States — Proportionality)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Hilden
   (Case C-657/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 TFEU - Restrictions - Staggered recovery of tax on unrealised capital gains - Preservation of allocation of powers of taxation between Member States - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 236/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verder LabTec GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hilden

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the case of a transfer of assets from a company located within the territory of that Member State to a permanent establishment of that company located within the territory of another Member State, provides for the disclosure of unrealised capital gains pertaining to those assets which have been generated within the territory of that first Member State, the taxation of such capital gains and the staggered recovery of the tax relating to those gains over 10 annual instalments.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-265/13: Action brought on 20 May 2013 — Polo/Lauren/OHIM — FreshSide (Representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/44

         Action brought on 20 May 2013 — Polo/Lauren/OHIM — FreshSide (Representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet)
   (Case T-265/13)
   2013/C 207/74
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Davies, Solicitor, J. Hill, Barrister and R. Black, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FreshSide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 15/2012-2;

               —

               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing a representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 8 766 917

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing a representation of a polo player on a horse for goods in classes 9, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-142/08: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 18 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/32

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 18 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-142/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/69)

      Language of the case: Polish

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case F-97/06: Action brought on 15 August 2006 — Adelaida Lopez Teruel v Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/24

         Action brought on 15 August 2006 — Adelaida Lopez Teruel v Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market
   (Case F-97/06)
   (2006/C 237/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Adelaida Lopez Teruel (El Casar, Spain) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office of Harmonisation for the Internal Market
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the appointing authority's decision of 6 October 2005 to refuse the applicant's request to convene an Invalidity Committee, in accordance with Article 78 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               in so far as it is necessary, annul the appointing authority's decision of 5 May 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on 6 January 2006;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of OHIM, sent a request to the administration on 8 June 2005 asking that an Invalidity Committee be convened so as to decide on the existence of an invalidity within the meaning of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations. OHIM refused to convene such a Committee, pointing out first, that the appointing authority has discretion in such matters, and, second, that the disease she referred to could not give rise to invalidity proceedings, given that it had already given rise to arbitration proceedings.
   In her application, the applicant raises three pleas in law, of which the first, alleging infringement of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations, is made up of two parts. In the first part, it is argued that the official in question has the right to bring a matter before the Invalidity Committee, irrespective of the right to do so also given to the appointing authority, given that Articles 78 and 59 of the Staff Regulations have a different ratio legis and govern different types of situations. In the second part, the applicant takes issue with OHIM for having committed a manifest error of assessment and having exceeded the bounds of its powers, in that it substituted its assessment for that of medical experts.
   The second plea alleges infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and the principle of good administration. Specifically, OHIM did not weigh in the balance the interests in issue and did not at any time take into account the applicant's extremely delicate state of health.
   The third plea alleges infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment. According to the applicant, all other European Community officials can invoke the right to have their cases examined by an Invalidity Committee, unlike those of OHIM. The interpretation by OHIM of Article 78 of the Staff Regulations would lead to a rupture of the single administration of the Communities, as enshrined in Article 9(3) of the Treaty of Amsterdam.


title: Case T-37/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Walton v Commission (Implementation of the budget — Recovery — Offsetting of amounts receivable — Retroactive effect — Judgment of the General Court ordering the Commission to pay damages and interest — Amount receivable to be certain, of a fixed amount and due)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2011 — Walton v Commission
   (Case T-37/08) (1)

   (Implementation of the budget - Recovery - Offsetting of amounts receivable - Retroactive effect - Judgment of the General Court ordering the Commission to pay damages and interest - Amount receivable to be certain, of a fixed amount and due)
   2011/C 370/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 16 November 2007 to recover by offsetting the sum of EUR 36 551,58 due to it by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decision of 16 November 2007 to the extent that it includes interest incurred after 12 July 2007 in the amounts offset;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-598/16: Order of the General Court of 13 February 2017 — Pipiliagkas v Commission (Action for annulment — Civil service — Officials — Assignment — Transfer in the interest of the service — Reassignment of the applicant — Implementation of a judgment — Pre-litigation procedure — Measure not open to challenge — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/38

         Order of the General Court of 13 February 2017 — Pipiliagkas v Commission
   (Case T-598/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Civil service - Officials - Assignment - Transfer in the interest of the service - Reassignment of the applicant - Implementation of a judgment - Pre-litigation procedure - Measure not open to challenge - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 112/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nikolaos Pipiliagkas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 266 TFEU and 270 TFEU for annulment, first, of the Commission’s decision not to adopt the measures for compliance with the judgment of 15 April 2015, Pipiliagkas v Commission (F-96/13, EU:F:2015:29), and, secondly, of the Commission’s decision of 22 December 2015 reassigning the applicant from the European Union delegation to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, to the Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Nikolaos Pipiliagkas shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-28/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case T-415/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 October 2010 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy (Application for interim measures — Tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/30

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 October 2010 — Nexans France v Joint Undertaking Fusion for Energy
   (Case T-415/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
   2010/C 328/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Nexans France SAS (Clichy, France) (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet and J.-F. Le Corre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (represented by: A. Verpoint, Agent and C. Kennedy-Loest, C. Thomas, M. Farley, Solicitors, J. Derenne and N. Pourbaix, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of decisions taken by the defendant, in a tendering procedure, to reject the applicant’s bid and to award the contract for supply of TF and PF conductors to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-455/10: Order of the President of the Court of 1 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — G.A.P. Peeters-van Maasdijk v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-455/10) (1)

   2011/C 269/80
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case C-441/06: Action brought on 25 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/9

         Action brought on 25 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-441/06)
   (2006/C 310/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to give effect, within the prescribed period, to the Commission Decision of 2 August 2004 on the State aid implemented by France for France Télécom (State Aid C 13/b/2003) (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision, the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Pointing out, as a preliminary point, that the cancellation of unlawful aid by means of its recovery is the logical consequence of the finding that it is unlawful, the applicant invokes the defendant's failure to observe that case-law inasmuch as, more than two years after the adoption of the decision in question, no repayment of the aid granted to France Télécom has yet been made and no repayment procedure has even been commenced at national level. Consequently, several essential provisions of Community law have been infringed, in particular Article 10 EC and the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC.
   The applicant notes in that respect that, pursuant to the case-law of the Court, no provision of Community law requires the Commission to fix the exact amount of the unlawful aid to be recovered. It is sufficient that the decision ordering the recovery of aid declared incompatible with the common market includes information enabling the addressee to work that amount out himself, without undue difficulty. If that decision were, none the less, to cause practical problems, the Commission and the Member State in question would be required, in any event, to work together, pursuant to the obligation of genuine cooperation set out in Article 10 EC, in order to overcome those difficulties.
   That being so, the applicant contests the defendant's claim that it is impossible to give a sufficiently reliable estimate of the amount of aid to be recovered, particularly inasmuch as the decision of 2 August 2004, in its grounds, refers expressly to two estimates provided by the French authorities during the administrative procedure, on the basis of which the sum of the range to be recovered was fixed by the Commission in its decision. It thus follows clearly from that decision that the aid to be recovered is equivalent to the difference between the amount of business tax that France Télécom should have paid pursuant to ordinary law and the amount of tax actually paid by that company.
   The applicant also observes that, during the recovery procedure, the Commission made several specific proposals as to the amount of aid to be recovered even though, pursuant to the case-law of the Court, it is in general primarily a matter for the Member State concerned to make those proposals in the event of difficulties. Furthermore, the defendant never put forward any suggestions seeking to improve the Commission's proposals.
   The applicant concludes by observing that it also follows from the case-law that the fact that there is an appeal against a Commission decision declaring aid to be unlawful does not suspend the obligation to implement that decision and therefore to secure repayment of the unlawful and incompatible aid, except in the event of temporary measures granted by the Court of First Instance under Article 242 EC.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 269, p. 30.


title: Case C-377/04: Action brought on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/23

         Action brought on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-377/04)
   (2004/C 262/41)
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and H. Kreppel, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement fully Directive 1999/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on minimum requirements for improving the safety and health protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (1) or to inform the Commission of those measures, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of Directive 1999/92/EC expired on 30 June 2003.
   The Commission has found that, with the exception of implementation in the Länder of Lower Austria and Tyrol, that directive has not yet been implemented fully at either Federal level or the level of the remaining Länder.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 23, p. 57.


title: Case T-227/15: Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Redpur v OHIM — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/43

         Action brought on 27 April 2015 — Redpur v OHIM — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur)
   (Case T-227/15)
   (2015/C 236/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Redpur GmbH (Hayingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schiller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Redwell Manufaktur GmbH (Hartberg, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Redpur’ — Application No 10 934 305

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 in Case R 678/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the opposition;

               —

               allow Community trade mark application No 10 934 305 to proceed to registration in its entirety or, in the alternative, remit the case to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the present proceedings;

               —

               order Redwell Manufaktur GmbH to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Gestevision Telecinco SA against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-95/96)

text:
24 . 8 . 96               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 247/ 17
Alves Vieira ) — application for suspension of operation of              the light of candidates' qualifications, the examiners
the decision of the Commission of the European                           appointed were underqualified and that the objectivity of
Communities of 31 May 1996 reassigning the applicant to                  the competition had not been respected .
the Office for Official Publications of the European
Communities in Luxembourg — the President of the Court                   According to the applicant, there had never been any
of First Instance made an order on 25 July 1996 , the                    objective review of the marking of his written test papers ( c )
operative part of which is as follows :                                  and ( d ) and the Commission had improperly accepted the
                                                                         marking of the Austrian examiners .
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
2.   the costs are reserved.
                                                                         In any event, the applicant submits, there was a breach of
                                                                         Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regulations to the
                                                                         detriment of all test participants , since the selection board
                                                                         for an 'accession competition ' had had recourse to national
                                                                         examiners serving, in fact, in a determinant capacity .
Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Martin Hagleitner                      On the basis of this procedural breach , the interests of all
    against Commission of the European Communities                       those taking part in the tests had been adversely affected , in
                                                                         view of the fact that there had been no objective and legally
                            ( Case T-94/96 )                             correct test procedure . Furthermore, it was very doubtful
                              ( 96/C 247/38 )                            whether anonymity had been respected , given the
                                                                         composition of the candidates successful in the written tests
                 (Language of the case: German)                          and of the examiners .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
Martin Hagleitner, Vienna, represented by Harald Svoboda ,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna , with an address for service in
                                                                         Action brought on 17 June 1996 by Gestevision Telecinco
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, of Bonn &
Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .
                                                                           SA against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-95 /96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                        ( 96/C 247/39 )
— order the Commission to prove that the examiners were                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
    qualified , that the competition procedure was
     anonymous and that the marking was objective ,
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
— arrange for the marking of the applicant's written test                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    papers ( c ) and ( d ) to be checked by qualified persons            Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 1996 by
     ( DG IV, Legal Service, DG I ),                                     Gestevision Telecinco SA , whose registered office is in
                                                                         Madrid , represented by Santiago Munoz Machado, of the
— set aside the measures taken in connection with                        Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    competition COM/A/904 , or at least set aside the                    with Carlos Amo Quinones , 2 Rue Gabriel Lippmann .
    decision of the selection board in that competition not to
     admit the applicant to the oral tests ,
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt any decision on the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          complaints made by the applicant against the Kingdom
                                                                             of Spain alleging
After being admitted to the written tests, the applicant took
part in competition COM/A/904 to establish a reserve list                    — on 2 March 1992 that the aid received by the
for administrators of Austrian nationality . By letter of                         autonomous television companies ( Empresa Pública
1 June 1995 , the Commission informed the applicant that,                         de Radio Televisión de Andalucía , Corporació
on the basis of the results of his written tests, he did not                      Catalana de Radio i Televisió, Radio Televisión
feature among the 150 best applicants and for that reason                         Madrid , Empresa Pública Radio Televisión
was not to be admitted to the oral tests . It appeared from the                   Valenciana , Radio y Televisión de Galicia and Euskal
composition of the individual results, as set out in the                          Irrati Telebista ) from their respective Autonomous
Commission 's letter, that tests ( c ) and ( d ), in comparison                   Communities was incompatible with Article 92 of
with tests ( a ) and ( b ), were in fact indicated as having each a               the P'C Treaty, and
maximum possible mark of 30 .
                                                                             — on 12 November 1993 that the aid granted by the
The applicant claims that the marking of the written tests                        Spanish State to the public entity RTVE was also
was carried out by Austrian Government officials, that, in                        contrary to the same provision of the Treaty,
 ---pagebreak---  No C 247/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
     and that, by failing to initiate the consultative                 authority is thereby denying the applicant the right to a fair
     examination procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ) of the               hearing which is granted by the Treaty to complainants
     Treaty, the Commission has failed to fulfil its obligations       during the consultative examination procedure .
     under the Treaty,
— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Commission
     contained in the letter of the competent Head of Unit of
     DG [V, Claude Rouam , dated 20 February 1996 ,
                                                                       Action brought on 18 June 1996 by Neue Maxhiitte
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                               Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            ( Case T-97/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/40 )
The cause of this action is the Commission 's persistent
failure to take any steps with regard to the complaints                              (Language of the case: German)
lodged by the applicant company, the concessionnaire of a
private television channel, against the State aid received by
all the public television companies in Spain, with which it is         An action against the Commission of the European
in competition , both in the market for advertising market             Communities was brought before the Court of First
and in that for purchasing rights .                                    Instance of the European Communities on 18 June 1996 by
                                                                       Neue Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg
The applicant points out in that respect that in Spain                 ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Rainer M.
publicly-owned television is not very different in content             Bierwagen, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
from privately-owned television . No special public service            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger
responsibilities and duties are placed on the public television        of Messrs Elvinger & Dessoy, 31 Rue d'Eich .
companies which are not borne by the private television
operators . On the other hand , the restrictions on                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
participating in the advertising field are now the same , and
have been since 1 994, as those imposed on private operators          — annul the Commission 's decision of 13 March 1996 , in
in Spain .                                                                 so far as it concerns the applicant,
After successive contacts with the Commission               staff     — order the defendant to pay the costs .
responsible for dealing with the complaint, the applicant
was informed that that procedure had been halted pending               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the production of research which an external consultant had
been instructed to carry out into the financing of television         The action concerns the classification of loans granted to the
undertakings throughout the Community .                                applicant undertaking in connection with its privatization as
                                                                       aid contrary to Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty.
As a matter of law, the applicant claims that, in accordance
with the relevant case law, the Commission was obliged, in            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
view of the particular difficulties which it seems to have             in Case T-2/96 Neue Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH v.
encountered in carrying out an analysis of the                         Commission , which concerns the same privatization .
incompatibility with the Treaty of the aid complained of, to
initiate the consultative examination procedure provided
for in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty . From that viewpoint, the
excessive time which has elapsed since the complaints were
made ( more than four years in the case of the autonomous
television companies and more than two and a half years in
the case of the State-owned company ) is proof in itself that         Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Miguel Vicente Nunez
the Commission appears to be experiencing obvious                          against Commission of the European Communities
difficulties in deciding whether or not the aid is compatible                                ( Case T- 100/96 )
with the common market. Furthermore, the commissioning                                          ( 96/C 247/41 )
of the abovementioned report from an external consultant
bears that out .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
So, in the applicant's view, by failing to initiate the
procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the Treaty, the            An action against the Commission of the European
Commission has plainly failed to fulfil its obligations under         Communities was brought before the Court of First
the Treaty and also clearly infringed the rights conferred by         Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1996 by
Community law on the applicant in its position as                     Miguel Vicente Nunez, residing in Krainem ( Belgium ),
complainant. It is unacceptable that the defendant                    represented by Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an
institution should be able to continue a preliminary                  address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
investigation for several years , since the Community                 Evelyne Korn , 21 Rue de Nassau .