title: Case C-459/10 P: Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 8 July 2010 in Case T-396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/23

         Appeal brought on 20 September 2010 by Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 8 July 2010 in Case T-396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission
   (Case C-459/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 317/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Freistaat Sachsen (Free State of Saxony) and Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Land of Saxony-Anhalt) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 8 July 2010 in Case T-396/08 Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt v European Commission, concerning the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 on State aid which Germany is planning to implement for DHL, and annul the first paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008;

               2.

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union referred to in 1. and refer the case back to the General Court;

               3.

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is against the judgment of the General Court by which the appellants’ action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/878/EC of 2 July 2008 was dismissed. By that decision the Commission had declared that a large part of the notified training aid which Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt wanted to grant to DHL was incompatible with the common market.
   By the appeal the appellants complain of the following infringements of European Union law by the General Court:

               —

               The General Court has infringed Regulation No 68/2001, the former Article 87(3)(c) EC and the principle of equal treatment because the examination of the necessity of the aid is incorrect in law. The infringement of Regulation No 68/2001 results from the fact that substantive criteria not laid down in the regulation are examined, which is permissible, by way of exception, only where the specific features of an individual case so justify. The former Article 87(3) EC has been infringed because the General Court erred in law in not finding that training aid serves or can serve the objectives of the former Article 87(3)(c) EC and that this is to be taken into account by the Commission in the balancing test under Article 87(3) EC. Finally, there is an infringement of the principle of equal treatment since in previous decisions involving comparable facts the Commission neither examined nor established the necessity of training aid. No objective justification for this unequal treatment is apparent.

               —

               Even if it is to be assumed that the criterion of necessity was rightly used, there is an error of law. The appellants plead in this regard that the General Court did not have regard to Regulation No 68/2001, the Commission guidelines on regional aid and the former Article 87(3)(c) EC because, acting incorrectly in law, it failed to include the incentive effects on the choice of site in the examination of necessity. It is apparent from the wording of Regulation No 68/2001 that training aid can at least comprise regional aspects too. The General Court’s assumption that the promotion of enterprises in disadvantaged areas and the establishment of new undertakings can result only from regional aid is incorrect.

               —

               Furthermore, the General Court has also infringed Regulation No 68/2001, the former Article 87(3)(c) EC and the principle of equal treatment in that it erred in law in applying improper criteria when assessing the necessity of the aid. First, it should not have taken account of the business practice and strategy of the recipient of the aid, as undertakings which, on the basis of internal standards, establish a high level of training are thereby placed at a disadvantage for the purposes of the law on aid vis-à-vis undertakings which have a low training level. Second, the aid should not have been regarded as unnecessary solely because it is prescribed in national legal rules. This has the effect that undertakings from Member States with a high training level prescribed by statute are placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis undertakings from Member States with a comparatively low training level.

               —

               Finally, the General Court has also infringed the former Article 87(3)(c) EC in that, acting incorrectly in law, it failed to take account of the positive external effects of the training measure at issue.


title: Case C-348/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia Murcia (Spain) lodged on 30 July 2008 — Aurelio Choque Cabrera v Delegación del Gobierno en Murcia

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia Murcia (Spain) lodged on 30 July 2008 — Aurelio Choque Cabrera v Delegación del Gobierno en Murcia
   (Case C-348/08)
   (2008/C 260/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia Murcia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aurelio Choque Cabrera

      Defendant: Delegación del Gobierno en Murcia
   Question referred
   Should Article 62(1) and (2)(a) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and Articles 5, 11 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (1) be interpreted as precluding national legislation, and the case-law which interprets it, which permits the substitution of the expulsion of any ‘third country national’ who does not have documentation authorising him to enter and remain in the territory of the European Union by the imposition of a fine?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1.


title: Case T-515/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014  — El Corte Inglés v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark The English Cut — Earlier national word and Community figurative marks El Corte Inglés — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No likelihood of association — Connection between the signs — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 October 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM
   (Case T-515/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark The English Cut - Earlier national word and Community figurative marks El Corte Inglés - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No likelihood of association - Connection between the signs - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 421/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela, J.L Rivas Zurdo and I. Munilla Muñoz, 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: The English Cut SL (Málaga, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1673/2011-1) relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés SA and The English Cut S.L.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders El Corte Inglés SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/35

         Removal from the Register of Case T-244/04 (1)

   (2005/C 171/59)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 4 May 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-244/04, Elisabeth Saskia Smit v Europese Politiedienst (Europol).

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2005 in Case T-288/00 Gardena Hotels Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid — National procedure for repayment precluded — Action for annulment — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/20

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 March 2005
   in Case T-288/00 Gardena Hotels Srl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Commission decision declaring incompatible with the common market unlawful aid schemes and requiring repayment of incompatible aid - National procedure for repayment precluded - Action for annulment - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 155/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-288/00: Gardena Hotels Srl, Principessa Srl and Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere, established in Venice (Italy), represented by A. Bianchini, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: V. Di Bucci and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij, N.J. Forwood, I. Pelikánová, S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed in part as inadmissible in so far as it was brought by Gardena Hotels Srl and the Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere .

               2.

               Gardena Hotels Srl shall bear its own costs.

               3.

               The Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere shall bear its own costs and the Commission's costs incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by the Comitato Venezia Vuole Vivere.

               4.

               The Commission shall bear the costs it has incurred to date in connection with the action in so far as it was brought by Gardena Hotels Srl.

               5.

               The remainder of the costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.


title: Case T-216/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2014 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark IMPERIA — Earlier Community figurative mark IMPERIAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Distinctive character of the earlier mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/16

      Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2014 — Progust v OHIM — Sopralex & Vosmarques (IMPERIA)
      (Case T-216/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark IMPERIA - Earlier Community figurative mark IMPERIAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Distinctive character of the earlier mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2014/C 71/27)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Progust, SL (Girona, Spain) (represented by: initially M. E. López Camba, J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela and I. Munilla Muñoz, then J. L. Rivas Zurdo, E. Seijo Veiguela et I. Munilla Muñoz, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sopralex & Vosmarques SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and V. Fossoul, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 January 2011 (Case R 1036/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Sopralex & Vosmarques SA and Progust, SL.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Progust, SL to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case T-85/03: Action brought on 5 March 2003 by the Government of the Cayman Islands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 124/26              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                      24.5.2003
The applicant further argues that the fine is flagrantly dispro-           The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
portionate to its economic strength and is therefore a breach              in the abovementioned case. The applicant claims that there is
of the principle of proportionality and the Commission’s                   no such single undertaking as Siderpotenza-Lucchini and,
guidelines on fines. The Commission also breached the                      therefore, that the applicant is substantially unconnected to
principle of equal treatment by not fining any of the other                the infringement which is the subject of the decision. In point
marketing companies involved in the cartel and, furthermore,               of fact, the Commission has not take into account of the fact
by imposing fines on the participating manufacturers which,                that Lucchini SpA has never produced concrete reinforcing
measured in relation to turnover, were far lower than that                 bars.
determined in relation to the applicant. Since the Commission
gave no reason for that worse treatment, there was also an
infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 253
EC.
                                                                           Action brought on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.                                                   (Case T-85/03)
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2003/C 124/46)
                         (Case T-80/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                        (2003/C 124/45)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 5 March 2003 by the Government
                                                                           of the Cayman Islands, Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  represented by Ms Eleanor Sharpston, QC.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Lucchini S.p.A.,
represented by Alberto Santa Maria and Claudio Biscaretti di               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ruffia, lawyers.
                                                                           —     annul the Commission’s decision not to respond to the
                                                                                urgent request of the Cayman Islands Government to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      establish a Partnership Working Party under the Overseas
                                                                                Association Decision,
—     annul the decision of 17 December 2002 C(2002)5087
      final in Case COMP/37.956 — concrete reinforcing bars,               —     order the Commission to pay the Cayman Islands Govern-
      imposing on Lucchini SpA, jointly and severally with S.P.                  ment’s costs.
      SpA, previously known as Siderpotenza SpA, a fine of
      EUR 16,14 million;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      applicant by the Commission;
—     in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.                 The Decision challenged in the current case is the Com-
                                                                           mission’s Decision not to respond to the urgent request of the
                                                                           applicant for the establishment of a Partnership Working Party
                                                                           (‘PWP’), in accordance with Article 7 of Council Decision
                                                                           2001/822/EC of 27 November 2001 on the association of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            overseas countries and territories (OCTs) within the European
                                                                           Community ( 1). The request was made in order to consider
                                                                           OCT representations in relation to the proposal for a Council
The present action has been brought against the decision                   Directive on taxation of savings income in the form of interest
contested in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                               payments and/or the automatic exchange of information.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 124/27
In its request, the Cayman Islands Government indicated that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
it entertained significant reservations about the compatibility
of certain core provisions of the draft Directive with the
fundamental principles of non-discrimination, legitimate                  —     annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude
expectations and proportionality in EC Law and its consistency                  contracts of employment of 20 June 2002 refusing to
with the aims, purpose and wording of the Overseas Associ-                      grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;
ation Decision.
                                                                          —     annul the decision explicitly rejecting her complaint of
                                                                                13 December 2002;
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the expatriation allowance to
—     That by deciding not to respond to an urgent request for                  the applicant as from 1 April 2002, deducting, in respect
      a PWP until after the proposed directive has been agreed                  of the past, whatever has been granted to her by way of
      by ECOFIN, the Commission has deliberately ensured                        foreign residence allowance on the date of the judgment
      that an effective and useful PWP cannot take place,                       to be delivered, together with default interest at the rate
      rendering the procedure under Article 7 of the above                      of 8 % per annum, with effect from the mean date
      mentioned Council Decision devoid of purpose, and has                     between 1 April 2002 and the actual date of payment;
      placed ECOFIN and the Council in a position where these
      bodies are likely to agree respectively and formally to
      adopt the proposed directive in violation of the applicant’s        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      right to be heard.
—     That the Commission is duty bound to consider requests
      for PWPs submitted to it by OCTs under Article 7 of the
      Overseas Association Decision. In deciding, after three             Pleas in law and main arguments
      month’s delay, not to respond to the request in question,
      and in failing to give adequate reasons for that decision,
      the Commission has both misused its decision-making
      powers under the Overseas Association Decision and                  The applicant, a member of the temporary staff who has since
      failed to respect the requirements of Article 253 EC.               become a probationary official at the Commission, submits
                                                                          that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employ-
                                                                          ment wrongly refused to grant her the expatriation allowance
                                                                          on the ground that the European Youth Forum, for which the
( 1) OJ 2001 L 314, p. 1.
                                                                          applicant worked from April 1995 to January 2000, did not
                                                                          satisfy two of the five conditions laid down by the internal
                                                                          directive adopted in October 1994 laying down five criteria to
                                                                          be satisfied by organisations in order to be regarded as
                                                                          ‘international organisations’ for the purposes of Article 4 of
                                                                          Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          In support of her action, the applicant argues that, by
Action brought on 13 March 2002 by María Luisa Atienza
                                                                          refusing to grant her the expatriation allowance, the authority
Morales against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          authorised to conclude contracts of employment manifestly
                              munities
                                                                          misapplied and misinterpreted Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to
                                                                          the Staff Regulations, basing its decision on reasons which
                                                                          were incorrect both in fact and in law and therefore placing
                           (Case T-99/03)
                                                                          the applicant in an administrative situation which was discrimi-
                                                                          natory in relation to that of other officials who were in the
                                                                          same position but who received that allowance.
                          (2003/C 124/47)
                   (Language of the case: French)                         In addition, she relies on infringement of Article 69 of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations and failure to have proper regard to general
                                                                          principles of law, such as those requiring the appointing
                                                                          authority to observe equal treatment as between officials and
                                                                          to base any decision which it takes only on legally valid
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          reasons.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 March 2003 by María Luisa
Atienza Morales, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.


title: Case F-94/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Brune v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Annulment of a decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list — Implementation of a judgment — Principle of legality — Plea of illegality directed against the decision to reopen the competition procedure)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Brune v Commission
   (Case F-94/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Annulment of a decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list - Implementation of a judgment - Principle of legality - Plea of illegality directed against the decision to reopen the competition procedure)
   2013/C 129/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Markus Brune (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application to annul EPSO’s decision to reopen the procedure for open competition EPSO/AD/26/05 and to invite the applicant to participate again in the oral test and to annul the decision to exclude him from that competition following his absence from that test.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Brune to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 30.


title: Case C-437/16 P: Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Wolf Oil Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) delivered on 1 June 2016 in Case T-34/15: Wolf Oil Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/4

         Appeal brought on 4 August 2016 by Wolf Oil Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Single Judge) delivered on 1 June 2016 in Case T-34/15: Wolf Oil Corp. v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-437/16 P)
   (2016/C 428/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Wolf Oil Corp. (represented by: P. Maeyaert, J. Muyldermans, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the General Court of 1 June 2016 in case T-34/15

               —

               order the EUIPO and the intervener at first instance to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Wolf Oil.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its appeal, the appellant (Wolf Oil), asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 in case T-34/15 (‘judgment under appeal’), in which the General Court rejected the action brought by Wolf Oil against the decision of Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (‘EUIPO’) of 31 October 2014 (Case R 1596/2013-5). The appeal is based on two pleas in law.
   By its first plea, Wolf Oil challenges the judgement under appeal for a lack of proper motivation and distortion of evidence, to the extent that it failed to provide any response to a number of arguments and inconsistencies raised by Wolf Oil in support of the plea that the EUIPO had incorrectly applied the likelihood of confusion (Article 8.1.b) of Regulation (EC) on the European Union Trademark Regulation (1) (as recently amended by Regulation 2015/2424 (2)) (‘EUTMR’).
   By its second plea, Wolf alleges that the judgment under appeal has violated Article 8.1.b) EUTMR, by having wrongly applied the principles of a likelihood of confusion. The plea is divided into three parts. The first two parts of the second plea allege an incorrect interpretation of the rule, well-established in the case-law of the General Court and the Court of Justice, that conceptual differences between two trademarks may, to some extent, counteract the visual and phonetic similarities between them. The third part of the second plea challenges the judgement under appeal to the extent that, in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, it failed to account of the actual use of the trademarks made on the market.

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

      (2)  Regulation (EU) 2015/2424 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2015 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) OJ L 341, p. 21


title: Case C-29/00: Action brought on 1 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 149/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.5.2000
— Infringement of Article 109(1) of the OCT Decision, so far                  7 June1990 on the freedom of access to information on
     as mixtures of cocoa and sugar (CN codes 1806 10 30                      the environment (1), and in particular Article 3(1) and (4)
     and 1806 10 90) are concerned: here too, the amounts in                  thereof, for failing to ensure that, within a period of two
     question are very small; if one extrapolates from the                    months after the request, the authorities of the Land
     Eurostat figures, one arrives at the figure of 15 278 tonnes             Schleswig-Holstein either provided the information
     for the whole of 1999. The suggestion that these mixtures                requested or refused the request.
     are ‘[imported] ... at prices below those at which Com-
     munity producers can sell comparable products’ is not               (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
     supported by any evidence. The fact that the Commission
     also misused its powers with regard to the mixtures of
     cocoa and sugar is in particular also evident from the
     nature of the measure laid down in Article 2 of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     regulation. While it may be a relatively innocuous measure
     (provided that it is not employed by customs authorities            The Commission submits that the practice referred to in the
     for the purpose of carrying out obstructive checks), a              application does not comply with the requirements of Article
     customs surveillance mechanism such as that referred to             3 of Directive 90/313/EEC, because the word ‘respond’ in the
     in Article 2 has as its purpose to collect information in           first sentence of Article 3(4) must be interpreted as including,
     order to determine whether the imports in question may              on the one hand, the provision of the information requested
     disrupt the market. The Commission’s reasoning is based             or permission to inspect the information, and, on the other
     on false premises.                                                  hand, the refusal of a request. The time element is of crucial
                                                                         significance for the efficiency of the whole system under the
— Infringement of Article 253 EC: the reasons set out in                 directive. If an authority were merely required to give an
     recitals (1) through (5) are inadequate, internally inconsist-      interim answer within the two-month period, stating that
     ent and incomprehensible.                                           access to the information can be granted at a later date, the
                                                                         system would not be effective. The Commission maintains that
— Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision and                 only its interpretation of Article 3(4) of the directive accords
     the principle of proportionality: should it none the less be        with the aim of the directive and the effectiveness of the
     necessary to fix a threshold price for imports of OCT               opportunities for the persons concerned to obtain legal
     sugar, it would have been much more logical to proceed              protection, which the directive seeks.
     on the basis of a minimum selling price than on that of a
     minimum cif import price.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
(1) OJ 1999 L 294, p. 11.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 February 2000 by the Kingdom of
Action brought on 1 February 2000 by the Commission                      Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                                   ties
                          lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-36/00)
                          (Case C-29/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/24)
                         (2000/C 149/23)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Communities on 10 February 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
ties on 1 February 2000 by the Commission of the European                represented by Mr Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, acting as Agent,
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
with an address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la         Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.
Cruz, a Member of the Legal Service of the European Com-
mission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             1. Declare void the decision of the Commission of 26 October
                                                                              1999 declaring certain aid granted to publicly owned
(1) declare the Federal Republic of Germany in breach of                      Spanish shipyards incompatible with the common market
     its obligations under Council Directive 90/313/EEC of                    and ordering its recovery,


title: Case F-45/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 April 2011 — AO v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Disciplinary measure — Removal from post — Article 35(1)(d) and (2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure — Action, in part, clearly inadmissible and, in part, clearly unfounded)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/28

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 April 2011 — AO v Commission
   (Case F-45/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Disciplinary measure - Removal from post - Article 35(1)(d) and (2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure - Action, in part, clearly inadmissible and, in part, clearly unfounded)
   2011/C 160/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: AO (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Schober, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment of decision CMS 07/046 of the Commission ordering the removal of the applicant from his post without reduction to his entitlement to a retirement pension with effect from 15 August 2009 and to annul all the decisions taken against the applicant between the period from September 2003 until his removal from his post and, second, for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being, in part, clearly inadmissible and, in part, clearly unfounded.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010, p. 60.


title: Case C-148/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'Etat, section d'administration by judgment of that Court of 21 December 2001 in the case of Carlos Garcia Avello against Etat Belge

text:
C 144/26              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
Question 2                                                             interpreted as precluding the Belgian administrative authority,
                                                                       to which an application to change the surname of minor
Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether the effective          children residing in Belgium who have dual Belgian and
date of the pay rise commences:                                        Spanish nationality has been made on the ground, without
                                                                       other special circumstances, that those children should bear
(i)   prior to the beginning of the woman’s maternity leave,           the surname to which they are entitled according to Spanish
                                                                       law and tradition, from refusing that change by stating that
(ii) prior to the ending of the period of the earnings-related         that type of application is habitually rejected on the ground
      period of her SMP, or                                            that, in Belgium, children bear their father’s surname’, particu-
                                                                       larly where the position usually adopted by the authority
                                                                       results from the fact that it considers that the grant of a
(iii) on some other date and, if so, on what date?
                                                                       different surname may, in the context of social life in Belgium,
                                                                       arouse questions as to the parentage of the child concerned,
                                                                       but that, in order to reduce the difficulties associated with dual
Question 3                                                             nationality, it is suggested to applicants in that situation
                                                                       that they adopt only the father’s first surname, and that,
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,                     exceptionally, where there are few connecting factors to
                                                                       Belgium or it is appropriate to re-establish the same surname
(i)   how should the calculation or re-alculation of the normal        among siblings, a favourable decision may be taken?
      weekly earnings in the relevant period take into account
      the pay rise?
(ii) Should the relevant period be changed?
(iii) What allowance, if any, should be made for other factors
      occurring within the period to which the pay rise relates
      such as the numbers of hours worked, and the reason for
      the pay increase?
(iv) Does it follow that if there is a reduction in pay after the      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
      end of the relevant period but before the end of the             di Genova by order of that Court of 18 April 2002 in the
      woman’s period of maternity leave, her SMP should be             action brought by Valentina Neri against the European
      calculated or re-calculated to take account of the               School of Economics (ESE INSIGHT World Education
      reduction of pay, and if so, how is this to be done?                                       System Ltd)
                                                                                (Case C-153/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/45)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat,
section d’administration by judgment of that Court of
21 December 2001 in the case of Carlos Garcia Avello
                       against Etat Belge
                        (Case C-148/02)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di
                                                                       Genova (Office of the Magistrate Genoa) of 18 April 2002,
                        (2002/C 144/44)                                received at the Court Registry on 26 April 2002, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the action brought by Valentina Neri
                                                                       against the European School of Economics (ESE INSIGHT
                                                                       World Education System Ltd) on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat,
section d’administration (Belgian Council of State, administrat-       1.    Are the rules or administrative practices of the national
ive section) of 21 December 2001, received at the Court                      legal order, such as those described at points III and IV
Registry on 24 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case              hereof, compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty
of Carlos Garcia Avello against Etat Belge on the following                  concerning the free movement of persons (Article 39 et
question:                                                                    seq EC), the right of establishment (Article 43 et seq. EC)
                                                                             and freedom to provide services (Article 49 et seq. EC), as
Are the principles of Community law relating to European                     interpreted by the Court of Justice. Of particular relevance
citizenship and to the freedom of movement of persons,                       in that regard are national rules and/or administrative
enshrined particularly in Articles 17 [EC] and 18 [EC], to be                practices which:


title: Case C-490/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 14 September 2016 — A.S. v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 14 September 2016 — A.S. v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-490/16)
   (2016/C 419/44)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A.S.

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Does judicial protection under Article 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 concern also the interpretation of the conditions of the criterion under Article 13(1) in respect of a decision that the Member State will not examine the application for international protection, that another Member State has already assumed responsibility for examining the applicant’s application on the same basis and where the applicant challenges this?

               (2)

               Is the condition of irregular crossing under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 to be interpreted independently or in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2008/115 on return and Article 5 of the Schengen Borders Code which define illegal crossing of the border and must that interpretation be applied in relation to Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013?

               (3)

               In view of the answer to the second question, is the concept of irregular crossing under Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 in the circumstances of the present case to be interpreted as meaning that there is no irregular crossing of the border where the public authorities of a Member State organise the crossing of the border with the aim of transit to another Member State of the EU?

               (4)

               In the event that the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, is Article 13(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 consequently to be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits sending a national of a third State back to the State where he initially entered EU territory?

               (5)

               Is Article 27 of Regulation No 604/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits of Article 13(1) and Article 29(2) do not run where the applicant exercises the right to judicial protection, a fortiori where that implies also a question for a preliminary ruling or where the national court is awaiting the answer of the Court of Justice of the European Union to such a question which has been submitted in another case? In the alternative, would the time-limits run in such a case, the Member State responsible however not being entitled to refuse reception?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber, extended composition) of 14 July 1995 in Case T-275/94: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires 'CB' v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Fine - Default interest - Application of payments)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/21
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 rue Mathias Hardt v .
                          of 13 July 1995                             Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent,
m Case T-557/93 : Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of the              Jorge Monteiro, Hans-Jiirgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ),
                                                                      supported by Commission of the European Communities
                    European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                      (Agents : Eric White and Claus-Michael Happe ) and
(Officials — Reports procedure — Staffreport — Delay in               Federation of European Bearing Manufacturers '
    drawing up — Promotion — Procedural irregularity)                 Associations, established in Frankfurt-on-Main ( Germany ),
                           ( 95/C 268/44 )                            represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
                                                                      Rechtsanwàlte, Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel
                  (Language of the case: Frencb)                      Welter — application for the annulment of Council
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 55/93 of 8 January 1993 imposing a
In Case T-557/93 : Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the              definitive anti-dumping duty on imports into the
Commission of the European Communities , residing at                  Community of outer rings of tapered roller bearing
Dalheim ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of            originating in Japan ( OJ No L 9 , 1993 , p . 7 ) — the Court of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),
at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 rue Glesener v .            composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, R.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                   Garcia-Valdecasas, C. W. Bellamy and P. Lindh, Judges; H.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment, first,         Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 July 1995 , in
of the decision of the Commission not to promote the                  which it :
applicant to grade A 4 in the 1992 promotion procedure
and, second, of the decision, published in 'Administrative            1 , dismisses the application;
Notices' No 770 of 4 February 1993 , to promote certain
officials to grade A4 — the Court of First Instance (Third            2 , orders the applicant to pay its own costs and the costs of
Chamber ), composed of: J. Biancarelli, President, and C. P.                the Council and Febma;
Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:                       3 , orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
1 , annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 160, 12 . 6 . 1993 .
      the applicant to grade A 4 in the 1992 promotion
     procedure;
2 , dismisses the remainder of the action;
3 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .                                                  ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition )
                                                                                of 14 July 1995
                                                                      in Case T-275/94: Groupement des Cartes Bancaires 'CB ' v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities ( ] )
                                                                      (Competition — Fine — Default interest — Application of
                                                                                payments)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/46 )
           ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition )
                         of 14 July 1995                                              (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-166/94 : Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd v. Council of the
                        European Union ( ] )
                                                                      In Case T-275/94 : Groupement des Cartes Bancaires ' CB',
                     (Anti-dumping — Injury)                          having its registered office in Paris ( France ), represented by
                           ( 95/C 268/45                              Alain Georges and Hugues Calvet, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                      Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, against Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: English)                      European Communities ( Agents : Enrico Traversa and
                                                                      Géraud de Bergues ) — application for annulment of the
In Case T-166/94 : Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd, established in Osaka          Commission's letters of 7 June and 15 July 1994 in which
(Japan ), represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and        the Commission required, for the period 30 June 1992 to the
Charles Kaplan, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,           date of actual settlement, payment of default interest on the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/22           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
Decision 92/212/EEC of 25 March 1992 relating to a                   2 , orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
( IV/30.717-A — Eurocheque : Helsinki Agreement, OJ No               (M OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
L 95 , 1992 , p. 50 ), that amount having been set at ECU
2 000 000 by the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance on 23 February 1994 in Joined Cases T-39/92 and
T-40/92 Groupement des Cartes Bancaires ' CB' and
Europay International SA v. Commission [ 1994] ECR II,
p . 49, and in which it applied the ECU 2 000 000 paid by the
applicant first against the interest and then against the             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
principal sum of the fine plus default interest — the Court of                           of 13 September 1995
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, R. Schintgen, R.                 in Case T-276/94 : Adam Buick v. Commission of the
Garcia-Valdecasas, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio                           European Communities (')
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              (Officials     —    Leave on personal grounds                  —
judgment on 14 July 1995 , in which it:                                                       Reinstatement)
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/48 )
1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 , orders the applicant to bear the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-276/94 : Adam Buick, an official of the
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    Commission of the European Communities, currently on
                                                                     leave on personal grounds, resident in London, represented
                                                                     by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     SARL, 1 rue Glesener, against Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
                                                                     application, first, for the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                     decision not to reinstate the applicant to the post at grade
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             A 7/A 4 ( COM/ 1816/93 ) declared vacant in the ' G-24
                                                                     Coordination Unit ' of the Directorate-General for External
                         of 14 July 1995
                                                                     Economic Relations and, secondly, for damages — the
in Case T-291 /94: Zudella Patricia Pimley-Smith v.                  Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of J.
        Commission of the European Communities ( ] )                 Biancarelli ( President of the Chamber ), C. P. Briët and C. W.
 (Officials — Competitions — Decision of the Selection               Bellamy, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,
Board stating that a candidate has failed the oral tests —           has given a judgment on 13 September 1995 , in which
 Extent of the duty to provide a statement of reasons —              it :
Extent to which the Court may exercise its powers ofreview
 in the absence of any infringement of the procedural                 1 , annuls the Commission's decision not to reinstate the
                               rules)                                     applicant to the post at grade A 7/A 4 (COM/1816/93)
                          ( 95/C 268/47 )                                 declared vacant in the ' G-24 Coordination Unit ' of
                                                                          D G I;
                (Language of the case: French)                       2 , orders the Commission to compensate the applicant for
                                                                          the material damage directly suffered by him as the
                                                                          result of the adoption of the annulled decision;
 In Case T-291 /94 , Zudella Patricia Pimley-Smith, resident in
 Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure              3 , orders the parties to notify to the Court ofFirst Instance,
 Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                within three months from the date of notification of this
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 1 rue Glesener v.                   judgment, the amount of principal and interest to be
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:                          paid to the applicant by way of compensation, if such
 Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for the annulment of the              agreement is reached;
 decision of the Selection Board in Open Competition
 EUR/B/30, notified to the applicant on 29 November 1993 ,            4 , orders the parties, in default of agreement, to present
 not to include her name in the list of successful candidates             submissions to the Court ofFirst Instance, supported by
 and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of the                        figures, within the same period;
 Commission decision of 21 June 1994 rejecting the
 applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Second         5 , reserves the costs .
 Chamber ), composed of D. P. M. Barrington, acting as
 President, A. Saggio and V. Tiili , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
 has given a judgment on 14 July 1995 , in which it:                  (') OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
  1 , dismisses the application;


title: Case T-41/03: Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited and 19 other applicants against the Commission of the European Communities and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products ("EMEA")

text:
5.4.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant furthermore invokes a violation of Rule 52(2) of
                                                                         Regulation 2868/95 ( 1) and an infringement of the right to
—     cancel the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of                good administration and the right to an effective remedy and
      20 November 2002;                                                  a fair trial as incorporated in articles 41 and 47 of the Charter
                                                                         of Fundamental Rights. The applicant states that no written
                                                                         communication was attached as required by Rule 52(2).
—     reassign the application No 1131739 for the figurative
      mark ‘W@P’ to the original filing date of 8 April 1999;
                                                                         The applicant finally submits that the defendant made a
—     as an auxiliary request it is asked for that the application       statement and not a decision so that the time-limit of two
      No 1131739, the figurative mark ‘W@P’, be reassigned               months indicated in Rule 52(2) of Regulation 2868/95 is not
      the application date of 13 October 1999, the date given            applicable.
      to the application for the word mark ‘WAP FORUM’ with
      the No 1131705 which was also filed for on 8 April
      1999;
                                                                         (1 ) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                              1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
—     as an auxiliary request it is asked for that the application            Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1).
      No 1131739, the figurative mark ‘W@P’, be reassigned
      the application date of 21 December 1999;
—     as an auxiliary request it is asked for reinstatement
      according to article 78 of Council Regulation 40/94;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Merck Sharp &
                                                                         Dohme Limited and 19 other applicants against the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities and the Euro-
                                                                         pean Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
The applicant applied on 8 April 1999 for the registration of
                                                                                (‘EMEA’)
the figurative mark ‘W@P’ for goods and services in classes 35,
41 and 42 (application No 1131739). The then representatives
of the applicant requested that the filing fee be deducted from                                    (Case T-41/03)
their deposit account.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/55)
The defendant informed the applicant that the filing fee had to
be paid within a time-limit of one month. Later, the defendant
informed the applicant that since the application fee had not                                (Language of the case: English)
been paid, the application would have, as its filing date,
the date on which all flaws had been remedied. The then
representatives of the applicant requested again that the fee be
deducted from their deposit account.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
                                                                         Products (‘EMEA’) was brought before the Court of First
The defendant informed the applicant on 5 September 2000                 Instance of the European Communities on 4 February 2003 by
that the application would have 17 March 2000 as its filing              Merck Sharp & Dohme Limited, Hoddeston, United Kingdom,
date because this was the date actual payment by cheque was              Merck Sharp & Dohme BV, Haarlem, Netherlands, Laboratoires
received. The applicant was furthermore informed that the                Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret, Paris, France, MSD Sharp &
deposit account did not have sufficient funds to debit the fee.          Dohme GmbH, Haar, Germany, Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia)
                                                                         SpA., Rome, Italy, Merck Sharp & Dohme, LDA. Paço de
                                                                         Arcos, Portugal, Merck Sharp & Dohme de Espana S.A.,
The applicant contested this decision before the board of                Madrid, Spain, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ges.m.b.H., Wien,
appeal on 23 January 2001. The Board of Appeal decided that              Austria, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, USA, Dieck-
the appeal was out of time and declared it inadmissible.                 mann Arzneimittel GmbH, Haar, Germany, Neopharmed SpA,
                                                                         Rome, Italy, Istituto Gentili SpA., Pisa, Italy, Laboratórios
                                                                         Químico-Farmacêuticos Chibret, LDA., Paço de Arcos, Portu-
In support of its present application, the applicant submits             gal, Laboratoires Sanofi, Synthelabo France, Paris, France,
that the defendant has breached an obligation it has as a public         Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG, Ingelheim,
authority to keep track of its bookkeeping and an infringement           Germany, VIANEX S.A., Nea Erythrea, Greece, Sigma-Tau
of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, namely               Industrie Farmaceutiche Riunite SpA., Rome, Italy, Mediola-
the right to good administration. According to the applicant,            num SpA., Milano, Italy, BIOHORM S.A. (Groupo Uriach),
the defendant has the responsibility to notify within a reason-          Barcelona, Spain, and LACER S.A., Barcelona, Spain, represent-
able period of time any inconsistencies.                                 ed by Dr Georg M. Berrisch and Mr Peter Bogaert, Lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 83/26                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.4.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      The referral covers the entire content of the SPC. This
                                                                                goes beyond the permissible scope of an Article 30
                                                                                referral, which must be limited to a ‘clearly identified
—     annul the Contested Decision                                               question’, according to Article 30, second indent, of the
                                                                                Directive.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs                   —      It has not been demonstrated that the contested Decision
                                                                                is based on public health grounds.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 311, of 28.11.2001, p. 67.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Applicants in the present case are all Marketing Authoris-
ation Holders (MAH) for the product ZOCORD, which,
containing the active ingredient simvastatin, is a lipid-lowering         Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Lurgi AG and
medicine reducing levels of toal cholesterol, LDL-C (low                  Lurgi S.p.A. against the Commission of the European
density lipoprotein cholesterol), Apo B (Apolipoprotein B) and                                       Communities
triglycerides in the blood It also increases the amount of HDL-
C (High density lipoprotein cholesterol) in the blood.                                              (Case T-42/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/56)
They challenge the decision of the European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal Products to initiate a referral procedure                             (Language of the case: English)
under Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European
Parliament and the Council, of 6 November 2001, of the
Community code relating to medicinal products for human
use (the Directive) ( 1), in relation to the aforementioned               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
product.                                                                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Lurgi AG,
                                                                          Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and Lurgi S.p.A., Milan, Italy,
                                                                          represented by Dr Michael Schütte and Prof Massimo Benedet-
The Applicants sumit that the contested Decision violates                 teli, Lawyers with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Article 30 of the Directive on the following grounds:
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     There are no divergent decisions following decisions in
      accordance with Article 8, 10(1) and 11 of the Directive.           —      annul the notice terminating the THERMIE Contract,
                                                                                notified by the Commission’s letter of 26 November
                                                                                2002;
—     The contested Decision is a decision to harmonise the
      summary of product characteristics (SPC) for ZOCORD                 —      declare that the Commission is not entitled to claim
      and associated trade names, and the single proposal of                     reimbursement of the funds paid to the contractors under
      the referral procedure for ZOCORD is to develop and                        the THERMIE contract BM/1007/94;
      impose the EU-wide harmonised SPC. The Article 30
      procedure, however, does not allow for the adoption of a            —      order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceed-
      harmonised SPC.                                                            ings.
—     Before the mutual recognition procedure took effect,
      pharmaceutical companies were under no obligation to                Pleas in law and main arguments
      submit identical marketing authorisation applications to
      different Member States. Applicants could, for example,
      request approval of different therapeutic uses or presen-           The applicants, together with several other contractors, con-
      tations, often to take account of differences in national           cluded a contract (THERMIE contract) on 12 December 1994
      medical practices and customs. Such differences in appli-           with the Commission for activities relating to the promotion
      cations unavoidably result in differences in the approvals,         of energy technology in Europe. The contract was concluded
      but do not qualify as ‘divergent decisions’ for the purposes        under number BM 1007/1994 IT/DE/UK and its object was
      of Article 30. Hence, differences between national                  the funding and implementation of the project ‘Energy farm:
      approvals resulting from different applications are not             an IGCC plant for the production of electricity and heat trough
      covered by Article 30.                                              gasification of SFR biomass’


title: Action brought on 18 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-205/96)

text:
24 . 8 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 247/7
2 . Does the answer to Question 1 depend on whether the              The Commission claims that the Court should :
     undertaking which is awarded the contract, as well as
     pursuing its activity on the awarder's premises, is still       — declare that by failing, within the prescribed time-limit,
     using assets which have been made available to it by the             to enact the laws, regulations and administrative
     awarder ?                                                            measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                          92/42/EEC of 21 May 1 992 ( 1 ) on efficiency
3 . May it depend on what type the assets made available by               requirements for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid
     the awarder of the contract are ? Can it be decisive                 or gaseous fuels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
     whether fully equipped units ( for example, a functioning            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty ,
     kitchen ) or assets of a subsidiary nature ( for example,
     consumables ) are made available ?                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
4 . Is it necessary, for there to be a part of a business , that
     the contractor forms a specific business organization to        Pleas in laiv and main arguments adduced in support:
     perform the contract ?
                                                                     The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 1 89 of
5 . May it be relevant whether the awarder of the contract           the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
     has had influence on the organization of the contractor         necessary measures to implement directives which are
     and in particular on the number and selection of the            addressed to them before the expiry of the period allotted to
     employees employed to perform the contract ?                    them for that purpose . The period in question expired on
                                                                      1 January 1993 , without the Kingdom of Belgium having
6 . May the existence of the part of a business and with the         adopted the necessary measures .
     contract for services, because the previous contractor no
     longer has anything to carry out as a business ?                (') OJ No L 167, 1992 , p . 17 .
7. Is there a legal transfer of an undertaking, business or
     part of a business within the meaning of the Directive if
     the hospital authority terminates the contract for
     services which it has concluded with a cleaning
     undertaking and on the basis of a new invitation to
     tender concludes a new contract for services with
                                                                     Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the
     another cleaning undertaking for the performance of the
                                                                         European Communities against the Italian Republic
     cleaning work in the hospital ? May there in that case be
     a legal transfer even if no tangible and no intangible                                   ( Case C-207/96 )
     assets are transferred ?                                                                   ( 96/C 247/ 13 )
8 . Does it depend on whether the new invitation to tender
     has taken place because the previous contractor did not         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    perform the work properly with his employees ( poor              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     performance ) or whether the new invitation to tender is        19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
     intended to achieve a reduction of costs ?                      Communities , represented by Marie Wolfcarius of its Legal
                                                                     Service and Enrico Altieri , Magistrato di Cassazione
                                                                     seconded to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
(') OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 .                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                     Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     1 . declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
Action brought on 18 June 1996 by the Commission of the                   period the laws, regulations and administrative
European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                        Case C-205 /96 )                                  76/207/EEC ( 1 ) of 9 February 1976 on the
                                                                          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
                         ( 96/C 247/ 12 )                                 men and women as regards access to employment,
                                                                          vocational training and promotion , and working
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                      conditions, and by maintaining in force within its own
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                legal system rules prohibiting night-work for women,
18 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                           contrary to Article 5 of that Directive , the Italian
Communities, represented by R. Wainwright and J.-F .                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                Community law ;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, a member
of the Commission 's legal service, Wagner Centre ,                 2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
Kirchberg .                                                               proceedings .


title: Case T-351/99: Action brought on 9 December 1999 by Christian Brumter against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 63/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.3.2000
— hold that the denomination ‘Trustedlink’ is in conformity              represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier
    with Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94 for the above                  and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    reasons;                                                             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion
                                                                         Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
— condemn the OHIM to pay all expenses.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decision rejecting the application by the appli-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              cant for the post of Head of the unit responsible for
                                                                             ‘Resources, internal control and relations with the Court of
                                                                             Auditors’ within the former Directorate-General XXIII;
Trade mark concerned:         ‘Trustedlink’
                                                                         — annul the appointment of another candidate to that post;
Product or service:           Computer software for electronic
                              commerce, business consulting
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                              services for integrating commerce
                              technologies and services, softwa-
                              re integration services for integrat-
                              ing corporate application systems          Pleas in law and main arguments
                              with electronic commerce tech-
                              nologies and services, education           The applicant maintains that, by adopting the contested
                              services for electronic commerce           decisions, the defendant has breached the legal framework
                              technologies and services, as well         which it imposed on itself in drawing up the notice of vacancy,
                              as services for assisting organis-         and has infringed the principle of equal treatment and the
                              ations in deploying, expanding             principle that officials should have reasonable career prospects.
                              or managing electronic commerce            He further maintains that the defendant has disregarded
                              technologies and services (classes         Article 25 of the Staff Regulations of officials, inasmuch as it
                              9, 35, 38, 41 and 42)                      has failed to provide him with any information enabling him
                                                                         to examine the validity of the contested decisions.
Decision        contested     decision of the examiner not to
before the Board of           consider the trade mark eligible
Appeal:                       for registration, pursuant to
                              Article 7(1)(b) of the Community
                              Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR)
Pleas in law relied on:       missapplication of Article 7(1)(b)
                              of the CTMR                                Action brought on 15 December 1999 by Sonia Marion
                                                                         Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of
Subsidiary:                   lack of grounds                                             the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-356/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 9 December 1999 by Christian Brum-
ter against the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 15 December 1999 by Sonia
                        (Case T-351/99)                                  Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott
                                                                         Crosby, with an address for service at the Chambers of
                                                                         Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond-Point Schuman,
                         (2000/C 63/60)
                                                                         1040 Brussels.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         — annul the refusal of the defendant constituting a failure to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    give a substantive reply to the confirmatory application of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   the applicants of 25 October 1999;
European Communities on 9 December 1999 by Christian
Brumter, residing in Pristina (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia),          — order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.


title: Case C-532/12: Action brought on 23 November 2012 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/37

         Action brought on 23 November 2012 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-532/12)
   2013/C 26/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet, A. Tokár, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2009/81/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of procedures for the award of certain works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts by contracting authorities or entities in the fields of defence and security, and amending Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC (1) or, in any event, by not having notified those provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 72(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose on the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment of EUR 8 320 per day from the date of delivery of the judgment in this case;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2009/81/EC expired on 21 August 2011.

      (1)  OJ L 216, 20.8.2009, p. 76.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/63

         Removal from the Register of Case T-59/97 (1)

   (2005/C 217/129)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 16 June 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-59/97, A. Lukens Folkers v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997


title: Case T-380/06: Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Vischim v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/31

         Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Vischim v Commission
   (Case T-380/06)
   (2007/C 20/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Vischim Srl. (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, in particular Article 2, paragraph 2 thereof;

               —

               order the defendant to comply with its obligations under Community law and provide for accurate, reasonable and legally acceptable prospective time limits; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/76/EC (1), of 22 September 2006, and in particular its Article 2, paragraph 2, insofar as the amended specification of the active substance Chlorothalonil listed in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC (2) concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (hereinafter, the ‘PPPD’) has not provided for reasonable time limits in line with those given to other active substances under the current review and instead provides for retroactive application of its provisions.
   The applicant claims that the Commission violated its legal rights and legitimate expectations as a notifier and main data submitter of Chlorothalonil within the meaning of the PPPD and its implementing regulations, since no reasonable period was granted before the amended specification of the active substance was included in Annex I during which Member States and the applicant could prepare themselves to meet new requirements. In that sense, the applicant submits that, instead of allowing for an appropriate time period for its Chlorothalonil-based product registrations to be properly assessed for re-registration purposes in Member States, the contested measure entered into force on 23 September 2006 and only prescribed retroactive application of its provisions as of 1 September 2006 by reference to situations which already had produced legal effects in the period up to 31 August 2006. Moreover, the applicant submits that the contested measure is not in conformity with the requirements established by the PPPD and that it lacks sufficient statement of reasons in terms of Article 253 EC. Finally, the applicant claims that the contested provision also discriminates between the situation of the applicant and other notifiers in the review process of existing active substances without objective justification.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2006/76/EC, of 22 September 2006, amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC as regards the specification of the active substance chrothalonil; OJ L 263, p. 9

      (2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC, of July 1991, concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market; OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1


title: Case F-75/12: Action brought on 20 July 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/41

         Action brought on 20 July 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-75/12)
   2012/C 287/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Action for annulment of the decisions calculating the entitlement to pension rights, acquired before entry into service with the European Commission, to be credited and, if necessary, the decisions rejecting the complaints submitted by the applicants

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decisions calculating the entitlement to pension rights, acquired before entry into service with the European Commission, to be credited to them;

               —

               if necessary, annul the decisions rejecting their complaints and requiring application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force at the time when they applied to have their pension rights transferred;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-412/14: Order of the President of the Court of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Dagmar Wedel, Rudi Wedel v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-412/14) (1)

   (2015/C 146/43)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-315/03 Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark ROCKBASS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal of its own motion — Failure to take into account evidence produced by the applicant — Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/26

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 June 2005
   in Case T-315/03 Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark ROCKBASS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal of its own motion - Failure to take into account evidence produced by the applicant - Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 193/42)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-315/03: Hans-Peter Wilfer, resident in Markneukirchen (Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2003 in Case R 266/2002-1 concerning registration of the word sign ROCKBASS as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay three-quarters of its own costs and three-quarters of the costs incurred by OHIM;

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.