title: Case T-189/09: Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Poloplast v OHIM — Polypipe Building Products (P)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/17

         Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Poloplast v OHIM — Polypipe Building Products (P)
   (Case T-189/09)
   2009/C 167/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Poloplast GmbH & Co KG (Leonding, Austria) (represented by: G. Bruckmüller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Polypipe Building Products Ltd (Edlington, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 25 February 2009 or alter it in such a way that it establishes that there is no likelihood of confusion between the markets covered, and

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Poloplast GmbH & Co KG.

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘p’ for goods and services in Classes 6, 11, 17, 19 and 42 (application No 3 148 194).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Polypipe Building Products Ltd.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘P’ for goods in Class 17 (Community trade mark No 33 191) and the figurative mark ‘P POLYPIPE’ for goods in Classes 6, 11, 17, 19 and 20 (Community trade mark No 2 685 691).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)), as there is no likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue.

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


title: Joined Cases C-201/09 P and C-216/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA v European Commission, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA (C-201/09 P), European Commission v ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA (C-216/09 P) (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Community market in steel beams — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Powers of the Commission — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Res judicata — Rights of the defence — Limitation period — Suspension of the limitation period — Effect erga omnes or inter partes — No statement of reasons)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 March 2011 — ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA v European Commission, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA (C-201/09 P), European Commission v ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA (C-216/09 P)
   (Joined Cases C-201/09 P and C-216/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Community market in steel beams - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Powers of the Commission - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Res judicata - Rights of the defence - Limitation period - Suspension of the limitation period - Effect erga omnes or inter partes - No statement of reasons)
   2011/C 173/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      (C-201/09 P)

      Appellant: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA (represented by: A. Vandencasteele and C. Falmagne, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents), ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA

      (C-216/09 P)

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, X. Lewis and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA, formerly Arcelor Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA, formerly Arcelor Profil Luxembourg SA, ArcelorMittal International SA, formerly Arcelor International SA (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, avocat)

      Re:

   Appeals — Competition — Community market in steel beams — Agreements fixing prices in the beams sector – Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Powers of the Commission — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Principle that penalties must fit the offence and principle of res judicata — Rules on limitation periods — Suspension of the limitation period

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders ArcelorMittal Luxembourg SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in relation to the appeal in Case C-201/09 P;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, ArcelorMittal Belval & Differdange SA and ArcelorMittal International SA to bear their own costs in relation to the appeal in Case C-216/09 P.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-88/02: Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/53
      percentage of the investment or the cost of salaries was           —     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision;
      not set beforehand in no way precludes its being done
      subsequently with the aim of checking that it does not
      exceed the level of aid for a region authorised as part of         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      overall regional aid.
e.    in the alternative to all the above pleas in law, the order        Pleas in law and main arguments
      requiring recovery of the aid (first sentence of Article 3
      of the contested decision) infringes the last sentence of
      Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 given the
      exceptional circumstances of the present case (duration            The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 4478
      of the preliminary examination, which lasted more than             final of 20 December 2001 declaring State aid incompatible
      79 months). The fact that the Commission examined the              with the common market the exemption from company tax
      fiscal scheme at issue in 1994 and did not find against it         arising from Article 14 of Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 5/
      gave rise to a well-founded expectation that it was                1993 of 24 June 1993 on urgent fiscal provisions to promote
      regarded as compliant with Community law, so that                  investment and economic activity (Boletı́n Oficial de Bizkaia
      Article 3 of the contested decision is contrary to the             No 154 of 7 July 1993), which provides for exemption from
      principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.         company tax for undertakings created between the entry into
                                                                         force of that Law and 31 December 1994, provided that they
                                                                         invest more than PTA 80 million (EUR 480 810), create more
                                                                         than 10 new jobs and have disbursed capital amounting to
                                                                         more than PTA 20 million (EUR 120 202).
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                                                                         applicants are identical to those put forward in Case T-86/02.
Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico
de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia aygainst Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-87/02)                                 Action brought on 26 March 2002 by Territorio Histórico
                                                                         de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                        (2002/C 144/105)
                                                                                (Case T-88/02)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                (2002/C 144/106)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 26 March 2002 by the Territorio                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Histórico de Bizkaia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia, Bizkaia            European Communities on 26 March 2002 by the Territorio
(Spain), represented by Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria and Marta              Histórico de Gipuzkoa — Diputación Foral de Gipuzkoa,
Morales Isasi.                                                           Gipuzkoa (Spain), represented by Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria
                                                                         and Marta Morales Isasi.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission Decision of 20 December 2001                  —     annul the Commission Decision of 20 December 2001
      on the system of aid implemented by Spain in 1993 in                     on the system of aid implemented by Spain in 1993 in
      favour of a number of newly-created undertakings in                      favour of a number of newly-created undertakings in
      Bizkaia;                                                                 Gipuzkoa;
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/54               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
—     in the alternative, annul Article 3 of that decision;                    finds therein that reserves for waste disposal by and the
                                                                               shutdown of nuclear power plants in the Federal Republic
                                                                               of Germany do not constitute aid within the meaning of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                               Article 87(1) EC;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants contest Commission Decision C(2001) 4448
final of 20 December 2001 declaring State aid incompatible               Pleas in law and main arguments
with the common market the exemption from company tax
arising from Article 14 of Norma Foral (Regional Law) No 11/
1993 of 26 June 1993 on urgent fiscal provisions to promote
investment and economic activity (Boletı́n Oficial de Gipuzkoa
                                                                         The applicants are all public utilities producing their own
No 128 of 8 July 1993), which provides for exemption from
                                                                         electricity. They operate their own conventional electricity
company tax for undertakings created between the entry into
                                                                         production plants and, as energy producers and suppliers, are
force of that Law and 31 December 1994, provided that they
                                                                         in direct competition with the operators of nuclear power
invest more than PTA 80 million (EUR 480 810), create more
                                                                         plants in the Federal Republic of Germany.
than 10 new jobs and have disbursed capital amounting to
more than PTA 20 million (EUR 120 202).
                                                                         According to the applicants, the commercial and tax law
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                   situation in the Federal Republic of Germany places the
applicants are identical to those put forward in Case T-86/02.           operators of nuclear power plants at an advantage since they
                                                                         are able to include large amounts of the costs of the later
                                                                         shutdown of the nuclear power plants and of the disposal of
                                                                         radioactive waste in their provisions. The applicants claim
                                                                         that, as a result, the profit actually realised by such operators
                                                                         is reduced by the sum of the reserves, thus exempting them to
                                                                         a considerable extent from the liability to pay income tax. The
                                                                         operators are able to dispose freely of the sums included in the
                                                                         reserves. The applicants, however, do not enjoy such an
                                                                         advantage.
Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Stadtwerke Schwä-
bisch Hall GmbH, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, Stadtwer-
ke Uelzen GmbH and Wuppertaler Stadtwerke AG against
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicants, who have filed an application with the
                                                                         defendant for the opening of a procedure against the Federal
                          (Case T-92/02)                                 Republic of Germany pursuant to Article 87 EC (1), claim that
                                                                         the unequal treatment resulting from the tax law and fiscal
                                                                         practice in the Federal Republic of Germany constitutes non-
                        (2002/C 144/107)                                 notified and unlawful aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC
                                                                         which is incompatible with the common market. The tax
                                                                         impact of the reserves represents an intervention distorting an
                   (Language of the case: German)                        existing competitive relationship and affecting trade between
                                                                         Member States. It is not merely a case of the application of
                                                                         general rules of accounting and tax law but, rather, an
                                                                         unjustified exception to the basic structure of the German tax
                                                                         law system.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Stadtwerke
Schwäbisch Hall GmbH, Schwäbisch Hall (Germany) and
3 other undertakings, represented by D.A. Fouquet, lawyer.               (1) The applicants have brought an action for failure to act with
                                                                             respect to this complaint (Case T-291/01 Dessauer Versorgungs-
                                                                             und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH and Others v Commission, OJ 2002
                                                                             C 44, p. 19).
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision C(2001) 3967 final of
      11 December 2001, to the extent that the Commission


title: Case T-155/04: Action brought on 23 April 2004 by ALENIA MARCONI SYSTEMS SpA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/11

         Action brought on 23 April 2004 by ALENIA MARCONI SYSTEMS SpA against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-155/04)
   (2004/C 179/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 April 2004 against Commission of the European Communities by ALENIA MARCONI SYSTEMS SpA, represented by Francesco Sciaudone, Lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               Order the Commission to produce to the Court of First Instance all the records available to it concerning the complaint lodged by the applicant;

               —

               Annul and/or amend the contested decision;

               —

               Adopt any other measure which the Court of First Instance may consider appropriate to ensure that the Commission fulfils its obligations under Article 223 EC and, in particular, re-examines the complaint lodged on 27 October 1997;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas and principal arguments adduced in support
   The contested decision rejected the complaint lodged on 27 October 1997 under Article 3 of Regulation No 17/62 by the company then named Alenia Difesa, the business arm of FINMECCANICA SpA, in connection with the supposed absence of the preconditions for the applicability to Eurocontrol of the Community competition provisions and the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged abuses to which the complaint related. In particular, the applicant had complained of abuses of a dominant position engaged in by Eurocontrol and the distorting effects on competition of the management methods used in respect of the contracts, for the development of prototypes and of intellectual property rights, with reference to the contracts for the supply of air-traffic management equipment, and in the provision of assistance to national administrations.
   In the first place, the decision is challenged on the ground of infringement of Article 82 of the EC Treaty, particularly to the extent to which, although recognising in principle the applicability of Article 82 to Eurocontrol, with respect to the present case it held it not to be relevant, in so far as it denies the economic nature of the activities of standardisation and assistance to national administrations carried out by that body.
   In addition to the infringement mentioned above, the decision is allegedly vitiated by the fact that the Commission:

               (a)

               failed to examine from the substantive point of view the abusive nature of the conduct complained of in relation to the activity of standardisation, regulation and validation, or the activity of providing assistance to national administrations;

               (b)

               decided, when considering from the substantive point of view, albeit briefly, the conduct of Eurocontrol relating to the purchasing of prototypes and the management of related intellectual property rights, that there was no abuse within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.

         Finally, the contested decision is, it is alleged, vitiated by the total lack of any adequate statement of reasons such as to prove the non-economic nature of certain activities of Eurocontrol and the lack of any abuse on the part of Eurocontrol within the meaning of Article 82 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case T-451/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  28 March 2006  — Mediocurso v Commission (Action for failure to act — Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice — Adoption of implementing measures during the proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 March 2006 — Mediocurso v Commission
   (Case T-451/04) (1)

   (Action for failure to act - Compliance with a judgment of the Court of Justice - Adoption of implementing measures during the proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   (2006/C 154/44)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: C. Botelho Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for failure to act seeking a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt the measures needed to comply with the judgment in Case C-462/98 P Mediocurso v Commission [2000] ECR I-7183
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Mediocurso — Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular, Lda.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.05.


title: Case C-243/04 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2004 by M against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 between M and Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/13

         Appeal brought on 9 June 2004 by M against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 between M and Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case C-243/04 P)
   (2004/C 190/22)
   An appeal against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 M v Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by M, represented by H. Tagaras, avocat.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the contested judgment and declare that she is entitled to a survivor's pension in accordance with Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested judgment is vitiated by a ‘reach of procedure’ and an ‘infringement of Community law’, both within the meaning of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. The applicant also relies on the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, on the right to a fair trial.
   The plea of ‘breach of procedure’ concerns questions of evidence. It consists of two parts. The first relates to the decision of the Court of First Instance to dismiss, as out of time, two affidavits made before a notary which were produced after the close of the written procedure, but in order to reply to further documents and arguments in the rejoinder. The second is based on the fact that the Court of First Instance failed to take account of two other affidavits which were annexed to the initial claim and the originating application.
   The plea alleging infringement of Community law consists of an error of law committed by the Court of First Instance in the application of Article 27 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, by reason of the incorrect legal classification of the agreement made in the spring of 1999 between the applicant and her ex-husband. The appeal alleges, inter alia, that the contested judgment did not recognise that the 1999 agreement was a maintenance agreement, but arbitrarily and incorrectly characterised it as an act of ‘mere courtesy’.


title: Case C-398/08 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2008 (by fax on 12 September 2008 ) by Audi AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2008 in Case T-70/06 Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/18

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2008 (by fax on 12 September 2008) by Audi AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 July 2008 in Case T-70/06 Audi AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-398/08 P)
   (2008/C 301/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Audi AG (represented by: S.O. Gillert and Dr F. Schiwek, Rechtsanwälte)

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

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 December 2005 in Case R 237/2005-2 in so far as it dismisses in part the appeal against the examiner's decision;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of proceedings before the Court of Justice, before the Court of First Instance and before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Breach of Article 7(1)B of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark: The Court of First Instance — like the Board of Appeal — did not state sufficient reasons regarding the relevant public in each case. In view of the large number of goods and services to be covered by the trade mark applied for, it was not permissible to take a uniform view across the board.
   Further, the Court of First Instance applied too strict a standard when considering distinctive character. The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that even so-called advertising slogans are essentially word marks. It applied noticeably stricter requirements to establish distinctive character solely on the basis of the fact that in its view the trade mark applied for, ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’, was an advertising slogan.
   Breach of Article 63 of Council Regulation No 40/94: The Court of First Instance confined itself to reviewing the decision of the Board of Appeal. New facts put forward by the parties, which were not already covered by the decision of the Board of Appeal were neither admitted nor taken into account in the decision. However, when considering distinctive character, the Court of First Instance referred to a document which was only submitted by the defendant with the defence. The finding that the trade mark applied for, ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’, was devoid of distinctive character was based essentially on the content of that document and the appraisal of that content by the Court of First Instance.


title: Case C-52/11 P: Order of the Court of 26 October 2011 — Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez v European Parliament, European Commission (Appeal — Action for failure to act — Letter addressed to the Parliament and Commission — Response — Decision to take no further action — Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/11

         Order of the Court of 26 October 2011 — Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez v European Parliament, European Commission
   (Case C-52/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for failure to act - Letter addressed to the Parliament and Commission - Response - Decision to take no further action - Appeal manifestly unfounded and manifestly inadmissible)
   2012/C 73/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez (represented by: P. Suarez Plácido, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and P. López-Carceller, Agents), European Commission (represented by: I. Martínez del Peral and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 November 2010 in Case T-61/10 Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking a declaration that the European Parliament and the European Commission failed to act, in so far as they unlawfully abstained from responding to the letter of 6 October 2009 sent by the appellant, an application for an injunction and a request for protective measures

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Victoria Sánchez is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/1

         Assignment of Judges to Chambers
   (2004/C 156/03)
   At its meeting on 13 May 2004, the Court decided to assign the Judges to Chambers as follows:
   First Chamber
   Mr Jann, President of the Chamber
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues, Ms Colneric, Mr Lenaerts, Mr Schiemann, Mr Juhász, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges.
   Second Chamber
   Mr Timmermans, President of the Chamber
   Mr Gulmann, Mr Schintgen, Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Kūris, Mr Arestis and Mr Klučka, Judges.
   Third Chamber
   Mr Rosas, President of the Chamber
   Mr La Pergola, Mr Puissochet, Ms Macken, Mr von Bahr, Mr Borg-Barthet, Mr Malenovský and Mr Lõhmus, Judges.
   Fourth Chamber
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber
   Ms Colneric, Mr Lenaerts, Mr Schiemann, Mr Juhász, Mr Ilešič and Mr Levits, Judges.
   Fifth Chamber
   Mr Gulmann, President of the Chamber
   Mr Schintgen, Ms Silva de Lapuerta, Mr Makarczyk, Mr Kūris, Mr Arestis and Mr Klučka, Judges.
   Sixth Chamber
   Mr Puissochet, President of the Chamber
   Mr La Pergola, Ms Macken, Mr von Bahr, Mr Borg-Barthet, Mr Malenovský and Mr Lõhmus, Judges.


               2.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/32

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 12 May 2016 in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Póst- og fjarskiptastofnun
   (Case E-6/16)
   (2017/C 66/12)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 12 May 2016 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 18 May 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fjarskipti hf. v Póst- og fjarskiptastofnun on the following questions:

               1.

               Can point (a) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002, on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), be interpreted in such a way that the term ‘electronic communications network’ covers the conveyance of signals that are written as an SMS message on users’ end device connected via a web browser to the ‘My Pages’ web server in a telecommunications undertaking’s web domain, via the public internet and to the PHP script software on the same telecommunications undertaking’s web domain, which receives the signals, processes them and conveys them in turn from the telecommunications undertaking’s web domain to an SMS server (SMSC) in its communications system, which then sends them on over a telephone network to the recipient telephone number?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is point (c) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC to be interpreted in such a way that the term ‘electronic communications service’ covers a service that consists of the conveyance of signals which takes place on a communications network as described in Question 1 when i) a fee is collected for such a service, and ii) when no fee is collected for such a service?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, is point (d) of Article 2 of Directive 2002/21/EC to be interpreted in such a way that the term ‘public communications network’ covers the electronic communications service described in Question 2, which is provided on an electronic communications network as described in Question 1, irrespective of whether that service is i) available to the public, or ii) available only to all subscribers of the telecommunication undertaking?


title: Case C-54/14: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid — Spain) — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego, María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/23

      Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 34 de Madrid — Spain) — Rafael Villafáñez Gallego, María Pérez Anguio v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA
      (Case C-54/14) (1)

      (2015/C 016/35)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-129/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2016 — Andres and Others v ECB (Appeal — Civil service — ECB staff — Pensions — Reform of the pension insurance scheme — Freezing of the pension plan — Conditions of employment of ECB staff — Right of consultation — Difference in nature between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship covered by the Staff Regulations — Distortion — Error of law)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 May 2016 — Andres and Others v ECB
   (Case T-129/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - ECB staff - Pensions - Reform of the pension insurance scheme - Freezing of the pension plan - Conditions of employment of ECB staff - Right of consultation - Difference in nature between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship covered by the Staff Regulations - Distortion - Error of law))
   (2016/C 222/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Carlos Andres (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) and the other 150 appellants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented initially by B. Ehlers and M. López Torres, and subsequently by B. Ehlers and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 in Andres and Others v ECB (F-15/10, EU:F:2013:194), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Carlos Andres and the other appellants whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case F-77/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 February 2008 — Kay Labate v Commission of the European Communities (Staff cases — Officials — Social security — Insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease — Occupational disease — Lung cancer — Passive smoking — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/35

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 February 2008 — Kay Labate v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-77/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Social security - Insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease - Occupational disease - Lung cancer - Passive smoking - No need to adjudicate)
   (2008/C 79/67)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Kay Labate (Tarquinia, Italy) (represented by: I. Forrester, QC)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission decisions of 6 October 2006 and 18 October 2004 not to recognise the cancer which led to the death of the applicant's husband as being an occupational disease caused by passive smoking
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the form of order sought by Mrs Labate in her application.

               2.

               The claims for compensation submitted in the letter of 25 October 2007 by Mrs Labate are dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               3.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 233 22.9.2007, p. 22.


title: Case F-55/08 DEP: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 27 September 2011 — De Nicola v EIB (Staff cases — Procedure — Taxation of costs — Recoverable costs — Essential costs — Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer — Obligation for an unsuccessful applicant to pay those fees — Principle of equal treatment — Effective judicial protection — Conditions)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/24

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 27 September 2011 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-55/08 DEP)
   (Staff cases - Procedure - Taxation of costs - Recoverable costs - Essential costs - Fees paid by an institution to its lawyer - Obligation for an unsuccessful applicant to pay those fees - Principle of equal treatment - Effective judicial protection - Conditions)
   2011/C 362/41
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: F. Martin, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Request for taxation of costs lodged by the defendant following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 in Case F-55/08.

      Operative part of the order

   The amount of the costs recoverable by the European Investment Bank in Case F-55/08 De Nicola v EIB is fixed at EUR 6 000.


title: Case T-393/04: Action brought on 30 September 2004 by Dirk Klaas against the European Parliament

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/39

         Action brought on 30 September 2004 by Dirk Klaas against the European Parliament
   (Case T-393/04)
   (2005/C 6/76)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 September 2004, by Dirk Klaas, represented by R. Moos, Rechtsanwalt.
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare void the annulment of 2 promotion points by the Director General for Personnel on 12 February 2004, confirmed by the letter of rejection from the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 30 June 2004, insofar as 2 promotion points, which had been awarded for the period before 1999, were taken away from the applicant;

               —

               Annul that letter in that respect and declare that the 2 promotion points are to be carried over to subsequent years;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an official of the Parliament. He was promoted to A6 with retrospective effect as of 1 January 1999. In the course of the promotion procedure all the promotion points earned by the applicant before 1999 were removed from him. By way of grounds, the Parliament referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case T-30/02 Leonhardt v Parliament, which, in its view, allowed the removal of points.
   In support of his application the applicant argued that the transitional rule that all points earned before 1999 were to be removed in the event of promotion, was in breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations. In the view of the applicant, that rule was unnecessary, disproportionate and contrary to the principle of equality. He also submitted that the present case was not comparable to Case T-30/02.


title: Case C-404/01 P(R): Appeal brought on 12 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the order made on 1 August 2001 by the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-132/01 R between Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys AB and Ferroatlantica, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 331/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.11.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions needed in order         —     set aside the order of the President of the Court of
      to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European                   First Instance of 1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997                         Euroalliages and Others v Commission;
      amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
      ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
      or, in any event, by failing to have informed the                 —     dismiss the application for interim measures in Case
      Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-                T-132/01 R; and
      ive provisions, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 3(1) of the Directive,
                                                                        —     order the applicants to pay the costs occasioned by this
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                            appeal, as well as by the application for interim relief and
                                                                              the application to amend the order of 1 August 2001.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 3(1) of the Directive, the Kingdom of Spain was           Pleas in law and main arguments
obliged to take the necessary measures to comply with the
requirements of the Directive by 23 April 2000 at the latest
and to inform the Commission thereof forthwith. However,
the Kingdom of Spain has not complied with those obligations,           —     The order misconstrued Article 3(1) of Council Regula-
since it has failed to take the measures necessary to incorporate             tion(EC) No 384/96 (1) in finding that‘ the term “material”
the Directive into the Spanish legal system.                                  can only be understood as a synonym for “serious”’. There
                                                                              is nothing in that Regulation to support the conclusion
                                                                              that a ‘material’ injury within the meaning of Article 3 of
(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18 .                                             the Regulation is the same as the ‘serious’ damage which
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.                                               must be established for the purposes of an application
                                                                              for interim measures.
                                                                        —     The order failed to have regard to the case-law on
                                                                              exceptional circumstances in finding that the circum-
                                                                              stances of this case justified departing from settled case-
                                                                              law.
Appeal brought on 12 October 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the order made on
1 August 2001 by the President of the Court of First                    —     The order failed to have regard to the case-law in
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-132/01 R                       characterising the damage possibly suffered by the appli-
between Euroalliages, Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Var-                       cants as ‘irreparable’.
gon Alloys AB and Ferroatlantica, and the Commission of
                   the European Communities
                                                                        (Alternatively)
                       (Case C-404/01 P(R))
                          (2001/C 331/27)                               —     In balancing the interests at stake, the contested order:
                                                                              adopts inconsistent reasoning in finding that the regis-
An appeal against the order made on 1 August 2001 by the                      tration of imports without requiring importers to deposit
President of the Court of First Instance of the European                      guarantees would not create an irreversible situation,
Communities in Case T-132/01 R between Euroalliages,                          whereas registration with the deposit of guarantees would
Péchiney Electrométallurgie, Vargon Alloys AB and Ferroatlan-                 do so; and
tica, and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 October 2001 (by fax received on                            misinterprets Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
11.10.01) by the Commission of the European Communities                       (which implements the Community’s obligations under
represented by V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, acting as Agents,                  Article 7 of the GATT agreement on anti-dumping) in
and P. Bentley, Barrister, with an address for service in                     concluding that the registration of imports would not
Luxembourg.                                                                   have the same effect as anti-dumping measures.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.11.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/17
(Alternatively)                                                                      Regulation (EC) No 384/96, that provisional anti-
                                                                                dumping measures (and in particular, measures
—    In its operative part, the order failed to have regard to:                      requiring registration) may not last for more than
     (1) the principle, in Article 7(1) of Regulation 384/96,                        nine months.
           which states that provisional anti-dumping duties
           are to be imposed no earlier than 60 days from the
           initiation of proceedings; and                                (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
                                                                             protection against dumped imports from countries not members
     (2) the principle, in Article 7(7) and Article 14(5) of                 of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 12 October 2004 in Case T-35/03 Aventis Cropscience S.A. v Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for registration of Community word mark CARPO — Earlier national word mark HARPO Z — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   12 October 2004
   in Case T-35/03 Aventis Cropscience S.A. v Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for registration of Community word mark CARPO - Earlier national word mark HARPO Z - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2004/C 314/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-35/03 Aventis Cropscience S.A., established in Lyon (France), represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: I. de Medrano Caballero and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings being BASF Aktiengesellschaft, established in Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany), for the annulment of Decision R 803/2001-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2002 concerning the opposition by the proprietor of the earlier national word mark HARPO Z to registration of the trade mark CARPO, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and I. Pelikánová, Judges; Registrar: I. Natsinas, administrator, gave a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.


title: Case C-59/04: Action brought on 11 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 71/18                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
—     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs of this               Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
      action.                                                              of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-55/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 71/32)
The Portuguese rule in Article 508 of the Civil Code, which
provides, essentially in so far as it deals with strict liability, for
maximum amounts of compensation which are lower than
the minimum guarantee amounts laid down in the Second                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Compulsory Motor Insurance Directive, is incompatible with                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
that Directive.                                                            2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Borde, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 8 of 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                           the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission                             Council Directive 2002/11/EC of 14 February 2002 on
of the European Communities against the Republic of                              the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation
                                Austria                                          of the vine and repealing Directive 74/649/EEC (1), and
                                                                                in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission,
                           (Case C-54/04)                                        the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
                           (2004/C 71/31)
                                                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Pleas in law and main arguments
10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Gregorio
Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in           The period prescribed for the transposition of that directive
Luxembourg.                                                                expired on 23 February 2003.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) OJ 2002 L 53, p. 20.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative measures necessary to comply with
      Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
      emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
      combustion plants (1), or, in any event, by failing to
      inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;           Action brought on 11 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-59/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 71/33)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on
27 November 2002.
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1.                                                   2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004            EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 71/19
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
1.   declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of            Pleas in law and main arguments
     the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of
     certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the            The period prescribed for the transposition of that directive
     information society (1), or in any event by failing to            expired on 22 December 2002.
     communicate those provisions to the Commission, the
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Article 13 of that directive;                                     (1) OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.


title: Case C-172/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany), lodged on 11 April 2011 — Georges Erny v Daimler AG — Werk Wörth

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein (Germany), lodged on 11 April 2011 — Georges Erny v Daimler AG — Werk Wörth
   (Case C-172/11)
   2011/C 226/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Arbeitsgericht Ludwigshafen am Rhein

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georges Erny

      Defendant: Daimler AG — Werk Wörth

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a provision concerning part-time working for older employees, contained in an individual contract, which stipulates that the agreed top-up amount is to be calculated in accordance with the German Order on Minimum Net Pay in the case also of frontier workers from France, such as Paragraph 5(1) of the contract of part-time working for older employees concluded between the parties, infringe Article 45 TFEU, as specifically implemented by Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of 15 October 1968?

               2.

               If the Court of Justice answers Question 1 in the affirmative:
               In the light of the provisions of Article 45 TFEU, as specifically implemented by Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, are provisions of this kind in collective agreements, such as Point 8.3 of the general works council agreement of 24 July 2000 and Paragraph 7 of the collective agreement of 23 November 2004, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of frontier workers, the top-up amount is not to be calculated in accordance with the table set out in the Order on Minimum Net Pay?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1968(II), p. 475).


title: Case C-682/11 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/8

         Appeal brought on 27 December 2011 by GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH v European Parliament and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-682/11 P)
   2012/C 65/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: GS Gesellschaft für Umwelt- und Energie-Serviceleistungen mbH (represented by: J. Schmidt, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 2011 in Case T-149/11 and grant the application made at first instance;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant challenges the General Court’s decision by which the action was dismissed as inadmissible for lack of direct concern.
   The appellant maintains that the regulation at issue (1) (‘the Regulation’) is of direct concern to the appellant. This follows from the fact that even at the time of the Regulation’s adoption and before its entry into force, it was clear that the Member States concerned would, in practice, exercise the discretion conferred on them in the Regulation in only one way. The possibility that the Member States concerned or their respective authorities would decide otherwise is thus purely theoretical.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1210/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 concerning authentication of euro coins and handling of euro coins unfit for circulation (OJ 2010 L 339, p. 1).


               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/2

         Appointment of the First Advocate General
   2009/C 267/05
   The Court of Justice appointed Mr Mengozzi as First Advocate General for a period of one year expiring on 6 October 2010, pursuant to the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure.


title: Case F-65/06: Action brought on  22 May 2006  — Pereira Sequeira v Commission

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/36

         Action brought on 22 May 2006 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission
   (Case F-65/06)
   (2006/C 165/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Rosa Maria Pereira Sequeira (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the individual decision relating to a change of category, effective as from 16 August 2005, notified on 19 September 2005;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a successful candidate of the internal competition COM/PC/04, published before the new Staff Regulations entered into force. She was appointed an official thereunder and classified in grade C*1, that is, the same grade in which she had been classified during her last temporary agent contract. Although previously she had enjoyed a more advantageous classification, she had been downgraded to grade C*1 prior to her appointment as an official.
   In support of her action, the applicant alleges breach of Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 5 and 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant also alleges violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of protection of acquired rights.


title: Case C-478/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria), lodged on 24 October 2012 — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH and TUI Österreich GmbH

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria), lodged on 24 October 2012 — Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic v lastminute.com GmbH and TUI Österreich GmbH
   (Case C-478/12)
   2013/C 26/40
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Feldkirch

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Armin Maletic, Marianne Maletic

      Respondents: lastminute.com GmbH, TUI Österreich GmbH

      Question referred

   Is Article 16(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, (1) which confers jurisdiction on the courts for the place where the consumer is domiciled, to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where the other party (here, a travel
         agent
       having its seat abroad) has recourse to a contracting partner (here, a travel
         operator
       having its seat in the home country), Article 16(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 is, for the purpose of proceedings brought against those two parties, also applicable to the contracting partner in the home country?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


No C 77/ 10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 3 . 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-108/95 (')                   from the register of Case C-252/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 77/22 )                              European Communities v. French Republic .
By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of             f 1 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/95 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( 1 )
                                                                                96/C 77/25 )
                                                                       By order of 6 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Removal from the register of Case C-316/94 (')                   from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( reference for a
                           ( 96/C 77/23 )                              preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
                                                                       Caen ): criminal proceedings against Dominique Luback.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
from the register of Case C-316/94 ( reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
Bruxelles ): Belgian State v. Turner International Sales Ltd
and Coditel Brabant SA .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/95 ( )
(') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 96/C 77/26 )
                                                                       By order of 19 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C- 162/95 ( reference for a
      Removal from the register of Case C-252/95 ( )                   preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Nancy ):
                           ( 96/C 77/24 )                              criminal proceedings against Philippe Baumert and Jean
                                                                       Loup Dirler.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the
                     of 1 February 1996                                Commission of 6 October 1994 requiring the applicant to
in Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert v. Commission of the
                                                                       repay the sum of Bfr 215 354 unduly paid by way of
                                                                       household allowance and, second, an order requiring the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Commission to repay the sums deducted from the
(Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue                   applicant's salary since November 1994, together with
                              payment)                                 default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum — the Court of
                           ( 96/C 77/27 )                              First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,
                                                                       President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges;
                                                                       B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February
                                                                       1996 , in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1.    Dismisses the action .
In Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert, an official of the                  2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Kraainem       ( Belgium ),       represented     by     Georges
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —


Avis juridique important

|

E1996P0007

Action brought on 5 December 1996 by Paul Inge Hansen against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-7/96)

Official Journal C 045 , 13/02/1997 P. 0014 - 0016

Action brought on 5 December 1996 by Paul Inge Hansen against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Case E-7/96) (97/C 45/05)An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 5 December 1996 by Paul Inge Hansen, represented by Jan E. Strand, lawyer, Olav Trygvasonsgt. 40, N-7011 Trondheim, Norway.The applicant claims that:'1. The EFTA Surveillance Authority is obliged to make the following decision:I.(a) The employment exchange in Norway as it functions today contravenes the EEA Agreement.(b) The Norwegian Government is obliged to make it possible for physically disabled and occupationally handicapped - if they so wish - to join the labour market as genuine job-seekers on the same lines as the able-bodied unemployed.(c) The Norwegian Government is ordered to reduce the employment exchange monopoly.(d) The Norwegian Government is ordered to make it possible for the Rebecca Foundation to participate in the EU's programmes for the physically and occupationally handicapped.(e) The Norwegian Government is obliged to give the Rebecca Foundation the necessary approval(x) to run a business activity,(y) to run private recruitment of personnelfor people in Norway who fall within, or may fall within the provisions of the National Insurance Act:(i) 3 - illness(ii) 5 - rehabilitation(iii) 8 - disability(iv) 11 - occupational injuryor who are a part of a physically disabled and occupationally handicapped group.(f) The Norwegian Government is obliged to ensure that the Rebecca Foundation may be established and run its activities under the same framework conditions and with the same means as the Norwegian Government.(g) The Norwegian Government is obliged to ensure that the necessary changes in the law are made so that the Norwegian law agrees with provisions in the EEA Agreement.II.To ensure implementation of item I, the Norwegian Government shall be ordered to allow the following:(a) The employment exchange in Norway to be open to the Rebecca Foundation's members with(x) minimum 13 % of the estimated 100 000 eligible physically disabled in Norway, i.e. for 13 000 people,(y) minimum 12 % of the estimated 100 000 eligible occupationally handicapped in Norway, i.e. for 12 000 people.(b) The Norwegian Government shall be obliged to provide the Rebecca Foundation with adequate funds, limited to Nkr 25 000 000 - towards establishment and operation of the activity.(c) The Norwegian Government to be ordered to pay compensation to the Rebecca Foundation and/or Paul Inge Hansen, limited to Nkr 4 000 000 - to cover loss suffered until a verdict has been reached.(d) The Norwegian Government to be ordered to cover the plaintiff's costs in connection with the handling of the complaint by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, limited to Nkr 250 000.2. The EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay up to Nkr 300 000 in compensation to the Foundation and/or Paul Inge Hansen.3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority covers the plaintiff's costs for this right.`In the alternative the applicant claims that:'1. The EFTA Surveillance Authority is obliged to make the following decision:(a) as under the principal claim;(b) as under the principal claim;(c) the Norwegian Government is ordered to end the employment exchange monopoly in Norway;(d) as under the principal claim;(e) the Norwegian Government is ordered to pay compensation to the Rebecca Foundation and/or Paul Inge Hansen amounting to Nkr 29 250 000;(f) as under the principal claim, item I (g).2. The EFTA Surveillance Authority pays Nkr 300 000 in compensation to the Rebecca Foundation and/or Paul Inge Hansen.3. The EFTA Surveillance Authority covers the plaintiff's costs for this right.`Also in the alternative:'1. The Norwegian Government is judged in accordance with items I and II in the principal claim.2. The EFTA Surveillance Authority pays Nkr 300 000 in compensation to the Rebecca Foundation and/or Paul Inge Hansen.3. The Norwegian Government and the EFTA Surveillance Authority jointly cover the costs for this right.`Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:- On 1 January 1996 Paul Inge Hansen, a founder of the Rebecca Foundation, a Norwegian foundation supporting handicapped people in particular in relation to employment opportunities, lodged a complaint with the EFTA Surveillance Authority alleging a contravention by Norwegian authorities of Articles 53 and 54, together with Articles 58 and 59 of the EEA Agreement, through illegal business refusal by a State monopoly. The applicant submits that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has omitted to deal with his complaint.- The applicant refers to Article 37 (3) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, signed on 17 May 1993. The applicant further submits, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has omitted to put an end to the refusal to set up business.- On 8 August 1996 the applicant called on the EFTA Surveillance Authority to act, with reference to Article 37 (2) of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.


title: Case T-513/09: Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Designs)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/37

         Action brought on 22 December 2009 — Baena Grupo v OHIM — Neuman and Galdeano del Sel (Designs)
   (Case T-513/09)
   2010/C 51/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Manuel Baena Grupo, SA (Santa Perpètua de Mogoda, Spain) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

      Form of order sought

               —

               allow the action against the decision of 14 October 2009 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 1323/2008-3;

               —

               annul OHIM's decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community registered design No 000 426 895-0002 for ornamentation for T–shirts, ornamentation for caps, ornamentation for stickers, ornamentation for printed material including advertising material.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Herbert Neuman and Andoni Galdeano del Sel

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: figurative Community mark No 1 312 651, for goods in Classes 25, 28 and 32 of the Classification of Nice.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division of the Designs Department: allow the application and declare the design to be invalid.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annul the contested decision and, pursuant to the power conferred on it by Article 60(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 on Community designs, decide the appeal on its merits and declare the invalidity of the Community design.

      Pleas in law: incorrect interpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-122/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court, Dublin, by order of that court of 21 March 2000, in the case of Omega Air Ltd, Aero Engines Ireland Ltd and Omega Aviation Services Ltd against the Irish Aviation Authority

text:
C 163/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bezirksgericht                civil subsonic jet aeroplanes’ as including ‘civil subsonic jet
Innere Stadt Wien by order of 21 March 2000 in the                      aeroplanes’ as defined at Article 2(1) thereof that have been
         criminal proceedings against Walter Hahn                       modified to meet Chapter 3 standards by being completely re-
                                                                        engined with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three
                        (Case C-121/00)                                 having regard in particular to:
                        (2000/C 163/27)                                 I.   the duty to give reasons under Article 253 of the EC Treaty
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  II. the principle of equal treatment
European Communities by order of 21 March 2000 by the
Bezirksgericht Innere Stadt Wien (Inner City of Vienna District         III. the principle of proportionality
Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 March
2000, for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against          IV. the compatibility of that provision with the Agreement
Walter Hahn on the following questions:                                      establishing the World Trade Organisation and in particu-
                                                                             lar the Agreement on Technical barriers to Trade annexed
Is Council Directive 91/493/EEC of 22 July 1991 (1) laying                   thereto.
down the health conditions for the production and the placing
on the market of fishery products, which has been incorporated
into national law by the Verordnung der Bundesministerin für            (1) OJ L 115, 04.05.1999, p. 1 and Corrigendum OJ L 120,
Frauenangelegenheiten und Verbraucherschutz über Hygiene-                   08.05.1999, p. 47.
bestimmungen für das Inverkehrbringen von Fischerzeugnis-
sen (Fischhygieneverordnung, BGBl. No 260/1997) (Order of
the Federal Minister for Women and Consumer Protection
concerning health regulations for the placing on the market of
fishery products), to be interpreted in its entirety as precluding
the application of provisions of national law which, in respect
of fishery products not chemically preserved (in particular,
smoked salmon), lay down a policy of zero tolerance towards
contamination of such foods with listeria monocytogenes?                Action brought on 30 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(1) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 15.
                                                                                (Case C-124/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/29)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court,                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March
Dublin, by order of that court of 21 March 2000, in the                 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
case of Omega Air Ltd, Aero Engines Ireland Ltd and                     represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser in
Omega Aviation Services Ltd against the Irish Aviation                  its Legal Service, and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national
                           Authority                                    civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                        (Case C-122/00)                                 Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
                        (2000/C 163/28)
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court, Dublin              — declare that, by not adopting and by not communicating
of 21 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry                   to the Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the
on 23 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
Omega Air Ltd, Aero Engines Ireland Ltd and Omega Aviation                   to comply fully with Directive 97/54/EC of the European
Services Ltd against the Irish Aviation Authority, on the                    Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 1997 (1)
following question:                                                          amending, as regards the maximum design speed of
                                                                             wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors, Council Directives
Is Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1) of                74/150/EEC, 74/151/EEC, 74/152/EEC, 74/346/EEC,
the 29th day of April 1999 on the registration and operation                 74/347/EEC, 75/321/EEC, 75/322/EEC, 76/432/EEC,
within the Community of certain types of civil subsonic jet                  76/763/EEC, 77/311/EEC, 77/537/EEC, 78/764/EEC,
aeroplanes which have been modified and recertificated as                    78/933/EEC, 79/532/EEC, 79/533/EEC, 80/720/EEC,
meeting the standards of Volume 1 Part II Chapter 3 of Annex                 86/297/EEC, 86/415/EEC and 89/173/EEC, the Hellenic
16 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation third                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
edition (July 1993) invalid is so far as it defines ‘recertificated          Treaty;


title: Case T-535/08: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Tuzzi fashion v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci — Earlier national word mark and international registration TUZZI — Earlier company name Tuzzi fashion GmbH — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons — Article 73 and Article 62(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 and Article 64(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) — Examination of the facts by the adjudicatory body of its own motion — Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Article 79 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Tuzzi fashion v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)
   (Case T-535/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Emidio Tucci - Earlier national word mark and international registration TUZZI - Earlier company name Tuzzi fashion GmbH - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state reasons - Article 73 and Article 62(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 and Article 64(2) of Regulation No 207/2009) - Examination of the facts by the adjudicatory body of its own motion - Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009) - Article 79 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 355/40
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Tuzzi fashion GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented initially by J.L. Rivas Zurdo, E. López Camba and E. Seijo Veiguela and, subsequently, by J.L. Rivas Zurdo and E. Seijo Veiguela, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2008 (Case R 1561/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Tuzzi fashion GmbH and El Corte Inglés, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Tuzzi fashion GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-291/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Ministère Public against Léon Henri Schmitz

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Ministère Public against Léon Henri Schmitz
   (Case C-291/04)
   (2004/C 217/33)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) of 4 June 2004, in the case of Ministère Public against Léon Henri Schmitz, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004.
   The Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
   Do Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EEC Treaty preclude a Member State from adopting a measure requiring a worker who is resident within its territory to register his vehicle there even when that vehicle belongs to his employer, a company established in another Member State and to which that worker is linked by an employment contract but in which at the same time he occupies the position of shareholder, director, day-to-day manager or similar?


title: Case T-522/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Quant (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a black and white flower — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat v OHIM — Quant (AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA)
   (Case T-522/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark AGATHA RUIZ DE LA PRADA - Earlier Community figurative mark representing a black and white flower - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 311/66
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: R. Bercovitz Álvarez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Mary Quant Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Arnold and C. Hicks, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2008 (Case R 1523/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Mary Quant Ltd and Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Agatha Ruiz de la Prada de Sentmenat to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


No C 286/ 8           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 10 . 95
      Removal from the register of Case C-2 13/94 (M                         Removal from the register of Case C-93/95 (M
                          ( 95/C 286/17)                                                         ( 95/C 286/18 )
By order of 27 July 1995 the President of the Court ofJustice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-213/94 : Commission of the European                By order of 21 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
                                                                      register of Case C-93/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                      V ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 13 July 1995                                                       of 13 July 1995
in Case T-44/93 : Monique Saby v. Commission of the                   in Joined Cases T-466/93 , T-469/93 , T-473/93 , T-474/93
                 European Communities (*)                             and T-477/93 : Thomas O'Dwyer and Others v. Council of
(Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Proper                                 the European Union ( ] )
conduct of the pre-litigation procedure — Duty to provide             (Common organization of the market in milk and milk
assistance — Duty to have regard for the welfare ofofficials         products — Milk quotas — Additional levy — Reduction of
  — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)           reference quantities without compensation — Claim for
                          ( 95/C 286/ 19 )                                                          damages)
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/20 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-44/93 : Monique Saby, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Mérète Turlin and Aloyse May, of             In Joined Cases T-466/93 , T-469/93 , T-473/93 , T-474/93
the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                    and T-477/93 : Thomas O'Dwyer, Thomas Keane, Thomas
Luxembourg at their Chambers, 31 Grand-Rue,                           Cronin and James Reidy, residing respectively at
Luxembourg, v. Commission of the European Communities                 Drumdowney, Snowhill, Waterford, Ireland; at Corbally,
( Agent : Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) — application, first, for a        Gurtymadden, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland; at
declaration of misconduct on the part of the Commission               Ardmore, Waterford, Ireland ; and at Carrowreagh, Cooper,
and, second, for compensation for alleged material and                Tubbercurry, County Sligo, Ireland, represented by
non-material damage — the Court of First Instance (Third              Anthony Burke, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and C. P.          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12
Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has              Boulevard de la Foire, against Council of the European
given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:                       Union ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Michael Bishop ),
                                                                      supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                      ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and Christopher Docksey ) —
                                                                      application, in Cases T-466/93 , T-469/93 , T-473/93 and
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      T-474/93 , for reparation of the damage allegedly suffered by
                                                                      the applicants as a result of the application of Council
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 816/92 of 31 March 1992 amending
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 on the common organization
                                                                      of the market in milk and milk products ( OJ 1992 L 86 ,
                                                                      p. 83 ) and, in Case T-477/93 , for reparation of the damage
(') OJ No C 206 , 30 . 7. 1993 .                                      allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the
                                                                      application of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 748/93 of
                                                                      17 March 1993 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92
                                                                      establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
                                                                      sector ( OJ 1993 L 77, p. 16 ) — the Court of First Instance


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-126/09 ( OJ C 129, 6.6.2009, p. 18 )

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/53

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-126/09
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 129, 6 June 2009, p. 18
      )
   2009/C 153/102
   The notice in the Official Journal concerning Case T-126/09 Italy v Commission and EPSO is to read as follows:

         ‘Action brought on 24 March 2009 — Italy v Commission and EPSO
         (Case T-126/09)
         2009/C 129/31
         Language of the case: Italian

            Parties

            Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

            Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

            Form of order sought

                     —

                     Annulment of Notices of open competitions EPSO/AD/144/09 (public health), EPSO/AD/145/09 (food safety (policy and legislation)), and EPSO/AD/146/09 (food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation)) for the drawing up of a reserve from which to recruit 35, 40 and 55 administrators (AD 5) respectively, with Bulgarian, Cypriot, Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian citizenship, in the field of public health.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in Case T-166/07 Italy v Commission.’