title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  17 November 2005  in Case C-73/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/34/EC — Organisation of working time)

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 17 November 2005
   in Case C-73/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/34/EC - Organisation of working time)
   (2006/C 22/04)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-73/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: N. Yerrell) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and O. Christmann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 15 February 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of 30 January 1996 in the cases of the companies Sodiprem, Sodiac and Sovim (C-37/96) and Roger Albert SA (C-38/96) against Direction Générale des Douanes (Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96)

text:
No C 95/ 10            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
24 January 1996, which was received at the Court Registry            Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
on 9 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in criminal             24 November 1995 in the administrative case of Faik
proceedings against Maria Paolantoni .                               Günaydin, Hatice Günaydin and the minor children Günes
                                                                           Günaydin and Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                                        Case C-36/96 )
Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                                     ( 96/C 95/ 17 )
C-58/95 ( M.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the First Senate of the
(!) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                            Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court)
                                                                     of 24 November 1995 , which was received at the Court
                                                                     Registry on 12 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     in the administrative case of Faik Günaydin, Hatice
                                                                     Günaydin and the minor children Günes Günaydin and
                                                                     Seda Günaydin v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following
Action brought on 9 February 1996 by the Commission of               questions :
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-35/96 )                            1 . is a Turkish worker within the meaning of Article 6(1 )
                           ( 96/C 95/16 )                                 of Decision No 1 /80 of the EEC-Turkey Association
                                                                          Council on the development of the Association
                                                                          ('Decision No 1 /80') duly registered as belonging to the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 labour force of a Member State and is he legally
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      employed there if he has been permitted to be employed
9 February 1996 by the Commission of the European                         by an employer in the Member State only temporarily
Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa , of its Legal                and only for the purpose of preparing for work with a
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  subsidiary company of his employer in Turkey ?
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                                                                     2 . can a claim under Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 be
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              opposed as an abuse of law if the Turkish worker has
                                                                         expressly declared his intention of returning to Turkey
1 . declare that by adopting and maintaining in force a law              after preparation for the work there and the authority
     which, in granting the relative decision-making power,               dealing with foreigners has permitted him to reside
     requires the Consiglio Nazionale degli Spedizionieri                 in the country temporarily only in view of that
     Doganali ( CNSD ) to adopt a decision by an association             declaration ?
     of undertakings contrary to Article 85 of the Treaty
     establishing the European Community in that it fixes a
     compulsory tariff for all customs agents, the Italian
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty;                                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
                                                                     d'Instance, Paris VII, by judgments of that court of
2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                    30 January 1996 in the cases of the companies Sodiprem,
                                                                     Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      ( C-38/96 ) against Direction Generale des Douanes
                                                                                ( Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 )
By Decision 93/438/EEC ( l ) of 30 June 1993 , the                                            ( 96/C 95/18 )
Commission found that the tariff adopted by the CNSD at
its meeting on 21 March 1988 constitutes an infringement             Two references have been made to the Court ofJustice of the
of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the Treaty .                                  European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
The Commission also found that the direct basis for the
                                                                     d'Instance ( District Court), Paris VII, of 30 January 1996 ,
                                                                     which were received at the Court Registry on 12 February
CNSD decision of 21 March 1988 , which hinders
                                                                     1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of the companies
competition in that it fixes a compulsory tariff for all             Sodiprem, Sodiac and Sovim ( C-37/96 ) and Roger Albert SA
customs agents, is Italian Law No 1612/1960 which                    ( C-38/96 ) against the Direction Generate des Douanes on
provides for the adoption by the CNSD of a decision by an            the following question:
association of undertakings prohibited by Article 85 ( 1 ) of
the Treaty. The Commission has therefore concluded that              do the rules laid down by Law 92-676 of 17 July 1992
Law No 1612/1969 constitutes an infringement of Article 5            concerning dock dues and implementing Decision 89/688 of
of the Treaty in relation to Article 85 .                            the Council of the European Communities of 22 December
                                                                     1 989 ( 1 ) have the effect of replacing a charge having
(') OJ No L 203 , 30 . 6 . 1993 , p . 27.                            equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, as
                                                                     considered in the preliminary ruling of 16 July 1992 in
                                                                     Legros, and of establishing — by contrast with the dock
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 95/ 11
dues arrangements previously in force — a genuine internal           13 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
charge which is not discriminatory and is consistent with the        Communities, represented by H. Van Lier, Legal Adviser,
letter and spirit of the Treaty establishing the European            and R. Vidal , of its Legal Service,with an address for service
Community ?                                                          in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                     its Legal Service, C 252, Wagner Centre .
(M OJ No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p . 46 .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     1 . declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                           or, in the subsidiary, by failing to notify, within
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by decision of                       the prescribed period, the laws, regulations or
that court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Koninklijke                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Vereeniging ter Bevordering van de Belangen des                            Council Directive 90/377/EEC ( ! ) of 29 June 1990
Boekhandels v. ( 1 ) Free Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free
                                                                           concerning a Community procedure to improve the
                  Record Shop Holding NV
                                                                           transparency of gas and electricity prices charged to
                        ( Case C-39/96 )                                   industrial end-users, the Kingdom of Spain'Has failed to
                          ( 96/C 95/ 19 )                                  fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the
                                                                           Treaty establishing the European Community;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by a decision of the                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ( District Court,
Amsterdam ) of 1 February 1996 , which was received at the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Court Registry on 13 February 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Koninklijke Vereeniging ter Bevordering        The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
van de Belangen des Boekhandels ( Royal Association for the          paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
Promotion of the Interests of the Book Trade ) v. ( 1 ) Free         of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the
Record Shop BV and ( 2 ) Free Record Shop Holding NV on              measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
the following questions :                                            them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     prescribed for doing so and forthwith to inform the
( 1 ) If an agreement between undertakings or a decision by          Commission thereof. That period expired on 1 July 1991
      an association of undertakings to regulate competition         without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into force the
      came into existence prior to the entry into force of           necessary provisions concerning transparency of gas prices
      Regulation No 17/62 (*) and was notified to the                charged to end-users .
      Commission in good time pursuant to the provisions of
      that Regulation, does that agreement or decision               (') OJ No L 185 , 17. 7. 1990 , p . 16 .
      continue to benefit from the 'provisional validity'
      which notified cartels enjoy according to the case-law
      of the Court of Justice if the Commission has not
      reacted in any way to that notification ?
( 2 ) If the answer is yes : does that 'provisional validity'        Action brought on 14 February 1996 by the Commission of
      continue for an unlimited period ? If the answer is              the European Communities against the French Republic
      no : on what circumstances will the expiry of the                                         Case C-43/96 )
      'provisional validity' then depend ?                                                       ( 96/C 95/21 )
( 3 ) Does the 'provisional validity' apply solely to the
      agreement or decision, as referred to in Question 1 , in       An action against the French Republic was brought before
      the form in which it was notified, or does it also apply       the Court of Justice on 14 February 1996 by the
      to agreements and decisions which have since come              Commission of the European Communities, represented by
      into existence and continue the same cartel agreements         Helene Michard and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal Service,
      in an amended form, in so far as they do not involve any       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      extension or reinforcement of the cartel agreements in         at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre ,
      the light of the operation and realization of the              Kirchberg.
      common market ?
                                                                     The Commission of the European Communities claims that
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1959— 1962, p. 204 .                 the Court should :
                                                                     ( 1 ) declare that, by maintaining in force legislation
                                                                            excluding the deductibility of VAT in respect of means
Action brought on 13 February 1996 by the Commission                        of transport constituting the actual tools of the trade of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                          the taxable person, the French Republic has failed to
                               Spain                                        fulfil its obligations under the Sixth Council Directive
                        ( Case C-40/96 )                                    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of
                          ( 96/C 95/20 )                                    the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                            taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                   basis of assessment ( ! ), in particular the provisions of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         Article 17 ( 2 ) thereof;


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-51/04 (1)

   (2005/C 182/61)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 22 March 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-51/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.


title: Case T-725/16: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2017 — Palos Caravina v CdT (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Officials — Recruitment — Communication of information concerning the appointment of a third party — Third paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/21

         Order of the General Court of 27 March 2017 — Palos Caravina v CdT
   (Case T-725/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Officials - Recruitment - Communication of information concerning the appointment of a third party - Third paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 178/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria José Palos Caravina (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Salerno and P. Singer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) (represented by: M. Garnier and J. Rikkert, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking annulment of, first, the CdT’s decision of 23 December 2015 refusing to provide the applicant with information concerning the appointment of a third party and, second, the CdT’s decision of 5 July 2016 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant against that refusal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union (CdT) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Maria José Palos Caravina.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case F-148/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Solberg v EMCDDA (Civil service — Former member of the temporary staff — Staff report — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Scope of discretion)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/26

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Solberg v EMCDDA
   (Case F-148/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Former member of the temporary staff - Staff report - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Scope of discretion)
   2013/C 352/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ulrik Solberg (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti, Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision establishing the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Solberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 09.03.2013, p. 30.


title: Case T-242/17: Action brought on 25 April 2017 — SC v Eulex Kosovo

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/28

         Action brought on 25 April 2017 — SC v Eulex Kosovo
   (Case T-242/17)
   (2017/C 231/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: SC (represented by: L. Moro, lawyer and A. Kunst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Eulex Kosovo

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the defendant infringed its contractual and non-contractual obligations towards the applicant;

               —

               Declare that the 2016 internal competition was unlawful and therefore the applicant’s contract has been unlawfully not renewed;

               —

               Order that the applicant be compensated for the losses suffered due to the unlawful non-renewal of her contract in the amount of 19 months’ gross salary plus daily allowances’ adjustments and salary increment as per ‘Remuneration of International Staff Contracted’ and ‘Indicative Level of Allowances’;

               —

               Order that the applicant be compensated for moral damages suffered as a consequence of the defendant’s unlawful acts and decisions;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of paragraphs 4 and 6 of the SOP on Reconfiguration, outlining, respectively, the principles and the role and responsibilities of the Head, HRO, and of paragraphs 5 (Principles) and 7 (Selections), in particular of paragraphs 7.1 (a) and (b), 7.2 (c),(f) and (k) and 7.3 (c) of SOP on Staff Selection (infringements of a contractual nature).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of paragraphs 7.2 (f) and 7.3 (c) of SOP on Staff Selection and of Article. 3.2 of the defendant’ Code of Conduct, of the contractual principles of fairness and good faith (infringements of a contractual nature) and of the applicant’s right to sound administration pursuant to Article 41 of the EU Charter (infringement of a non-contractual nature).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of principle of impartiality and the applicant’s right of sound administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Applicant’s right to fair and just working conditions (Article 31 EU Charter), of the Decision Memorandum dated 26 January 2011 (Proposal for introduction of assessment driving skills) and the requirements set out in the 2014 calls for contributions, as well as of the right to sound administration.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to fair and just working conditions (Art. 31 of the Charter).


title: Case C-399/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 July 2016 — X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-399/16)
   (2016/C 371/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X NV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 43 EC and 48 EC (now Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation on the basis of which a parent company established in a Member State cannot take into account a currency loss in connection with the amount which it has invested in a subsidiary established in another Member State, whereas it would be able to do so if that subsidiary were to be included in a single tax entity — with characteristics such as those of the Netherlands single tax entity — with that parent company established in the first-mentioned Member State, as a result of consolidation within the single tax entity?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can or must the point of departure for determining the currency loss to be taken into account be that (one or more of) the direct and indirect subsidiaries indirectly held by the parent company concerned, through the subsidiary in question, and established in the European Union, should also be included in the single tax entity?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: should account be taken only of currency losses that would have been reflected on the parent company’s inclusion in the single tax entity in the years to which the dispute relates, or should the currency exchange results that would have been reflected in earlier years also be taken into account?


title: Case C-406/03: Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
29.11.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/13
3.    If either of the previous two questions is answered in the         also prevented from evaluating the measures taken by Ireland
      affirmative, does Community law preclude a legal costs             as part of its overall evaluation with a view to proposing,
      scheme such as that in issue, under which, in principle,           as appropriate, Community measures regarding minimum
      only a limited contribution is made towards legal costs            qualification requirements.
      where a citizen is successful in proceedings brought
      before the national courts for breach of Community law
      by a Member State?
                                                                         With regard to Article 17(2) of the Regulation, the Commission
                                                                         considers that Ireland has equally failed in its obligations. It
                                                                         has not defined the minimum qualification requirements
                                                                         for personnel involved in taking all precautionary measures
                                                                         practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
                                                                         bromide from fumigation installations and operations in which
                                                                         methyl bromide is used. Nor, for that matter, does the
                                                                         Commission have any information indicating that Ireland has
Action brought on 29 September 2003 by the Com-                          taken the necessary precautionary measures.
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                         (1) OJ L 244, 29.9.2000, p. 1.
                          (Case C-406/03)
                         (2003/C 289/25)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 September 2003
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by U. Wölker and M. Shotter, acting as agents, with an address           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
for service in Luxembourg.                                               Koblenz by order of that Court of 16 September 2003 in
                                                                         the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                                SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to provide the reports referred to                                 (Case C-411/03)
      in Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC)
      No. 2037/2000 (1) on substances that deplete the ozone
      layer, and by failing, in accordance with Article 17(2) of                                  (2003/C 289/26)
      the said Regulation, to take all precautionary measures
      practicable to prevent and minimise leakages of methyl
      bromide and to define the minimum qualification require-
      ments for the personnel involved, Ireland has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Articles 16(5), 16(6), 17(1)
      and 17(2) of the said Regulation;                                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Landgericht Koblenz
                                                                         (Regional Court, Koblenz) of 16 September 2003, received at
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                         the Court Registry on 2 October 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                         in the matter concerning the companies register relating to
                                                                         SEVIC Systems Aktiengesellschaft on the following question:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Are Articles 43 and 48 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it
The Commission did not, by the required date of 31 December              is contrary to freedom of establishment for companies if a
                                                                         foreign European company is refused registration of its
2001, receive from Ireland information on the quantities of
                                                                         proposed merger with a German company in the German
ozone depleting substances recovered, reclaimed, recycled and
destroyed. Nor did it receive by that date any of the other              register of companies under paragraphs 16 et seq. of the
detailed information required to be reported to it by virtue of          Umwandlungsgesetz (Law on transformations), on the ground
                                                                         that paragraph 1 (1)(1) of that law provides only for transform-
Articles 16(5), 16(6) and 17(1) of the Regulation. In the
absence of this information, the Commission is concerned that            ation of legal entities established in Germany?
Ireland’s efforts to curb ozone depleting substances may fall
short of what is required by the Regulation, as the Commission
has been deprived of a means of verifying compliance. It is


title: Case T-363/03: Action brought on 22 October 2003 by the region of Sicily against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 304/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          13.12.2003
Action brought on 22 October 2003 by the region of                        In support of its plea the region of Sicily argued:
Sicily against the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                       A)    Infringement of Article 54(1) and Article 52(1) of Council
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) and incorrect appli-
                                                                                cation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/
                        (Case T-363/03)                                         1988 of 19 December 1988 (2), inasmuch as the decision
                                                                                to cancel the contribution is supported by reference to a
                        (2003/C 304/62)                                         provision repealed with effect from 1 January 2000.
                                                                          B)    Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                No 4253/88, and misuse of powers through failure to
                                                                                state reasons or inconsistency of reasons, as the wording
                                                                                of Article 24 does not make express provision for the
An action against the European Commission was brought                           cancellation of the whole of a contribution.
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 22 October 2003 by the region of Sicily, represented and               C)    Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC)
defended by avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.                               No 4253/88, and misuse of powers through failure to
                                                                                state reasons and to take into account crucial facts and
                                                                                information, as the reasons for the Commission’s choice
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     to cancel rather than reduce the assistance in question do
                                                                                not appear in the contested decision, in spite of the fact
—     annul Commission Decision C (2003) 2890 final of                          that the data and information supplied by the recipient
      13 August 2003, and debit note No 3240504102 of                           give evidence of the continued usefulness of the works
      26 September 2003 issued by the Commission for the                        carried out and of the imminent completion of the entire
      recovery of the sum of EUR 7 704 723,00, and order the                    Porto Empedocle Major Project.
      Commission to pay the costs accordingly.
                                                                          D)    Infringement of Article 24(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 4253/88, and misuse of powers through failure to
                                                                                state reasons and to carry out suitable preliminary
Pleas and main arguments                                                        investigations, since the Commission did not state clearly
                                                                                the reasons for which it considered the Region of Sicily’s
                                                                                observations insufficient.
The Region of Sicily brought an action before the Court of
First Instance against Commission Decision C (2003) 2890                  E)    Infringement of Article 24(3) of Council Regulation
final of 13 August 2003 concerning cancellation of the                          (EEC) No 4253/88, since the debit note issued by the
contribution from the European Regional Development Fund                        Commission does not relate to sums received unduly and
(ERDF) granted to an infrastructure investment, the Porto                       to be recovered, as required in the above-mentioned
Empedocle Major Project, under the Community support                            provision.
framework for structural assistance in the Objective 1 regions
of Italy, Region of Sicily, for the period 1989/93, and also              (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
brought an action against debit note No 3240504102 of                         down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161,
26 September 2003 issued by the Commission for the recovery                   p. 1).
of the sum of EUR 7 704 723,00.                                           (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
                                                                              laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                              2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different
The infrastructure was cofinanced by the ERDF of the European                 Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of
Union under Commission Decision C (90) 2363 025 of                            the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial
14 December 1990.                                                             instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).


title: Case F-44/05 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Strack v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Referral to the Tribunal following annulment — Waiver of immunity of the servants of an institution in respect of words spoken and documents written in the course of legal proceedings — Appointment to a post of Head of Unit — Rejection of an application — Action for annulment — Unsuccessful candidate’s interest in bringing proceedings — Authority of res judicata — Procedural defect — Balancing of the interests at stake — Action for damages — Non-material damage suffered by reason of an irregularity)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-44/05 RENV)
   (Civil Service - Officials - Referral to the Tribunal following annulment - Waiver of immunity of the servants of an institution in respect of words spoken and documents written in the course of legal proceedings - Appointment to a post of Head of Unit - Rejection of an application - Action for annulment - Unsuccessful candidate’s interest in bringing proceedings - Authority of res judicata - Procedural defect - Balancing of the interests at stake - Action for damages - Non-material damage suffered by reason of an irregularity)
   2013/C 46/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: N.A. Lödler and H. Tettenborn, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Referral following annulment — Civil Service — First, annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s application for the post of Head of the ‘Tenders and contracts’ Unit and to appoint another candidate to that post and, second, a claim for damages (formerly Case T-225/05).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Rejects the request for a waiver of the immunity given to the servants of the Commission of the European Communities in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission as being inadmissible;

               2.

               Rejects the claim for compensation in respect of the excessive duration of the administrative procedure for filling the post and in respect of the excessive duration of the pre-litigation procedure as being unfounded;

               3.

               Annuls the decision appointing Mr A and the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 19 November 2004 rejecting Mr Strack’s application to be appointed to the post of Head of the ‘Tenders and contracts’ Unit of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs in Cases F-44/05 Strack v Commission, T-526/08 P Commission v Strack and F-44/05 RENV Strack v Commission and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Strack in those cases.


title: Case C-341/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) Chamber) of  2 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) Eurofood IFCS Ltd — Enrico Bondi v Bank of America N.A., Pearse Farrell, Official Liquidator, Director of Corporate Enforcement, Certificate/Note holders (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Insolvency proceedings — Decision to open the proceedings — Centre of the debtor's main interests — Recognition of insolvency proceedings — Public policy (keywords)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) Chamber) of 2 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) Eurofood IFCS Ltd — Enrico Bondi v Bank of America N.A., Pearse Farrell, Official Liquidator, Director of Corporate Enforcement, Certificate/Note holders
   (Case C-341/04) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Decision to open the proceedings - Centre of the debtor's main interests - Recognition of insolvency proceedings - Public policy (keywords)
   (2006/C 143/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Supreme Court (Ireland)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enrico Bondi

      Defendant(s): Bank of America N.A., Pearse Farrell, Official Liquidator, Director of Corporate Enforcement, Certificate/Note holders
   Re:
   Interpretation of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings — Order appointing a provisional liquidator pending a final order — Whether that order may be regarded as a judgment opening insolvency proceedings — Court with jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Where a debtor is a subsidiary company whose registered office and that of its parent company are situated in two different Member States, the presumption laid down in the second sentence of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, whereby the centre of main interests of that subsidiary is situated in the Member State where its registered office is situated, can be rebutted only if factors which are both objective and ascertainable by third parties enable it to be established that an actual situation exists which is different from that which location at that registered office is deemed to reflect. That could be so in particular in the case of a company not carrying out any business in the territory of the Member State in which its registered office is situated. By contrast, where a company carries on its business in the territory of the Member State where its registered office is situated, the mere fact that its economic choices are or can be controlled by a parent company in another Member State is not enough to rebut the presumption laid down by that Regulation.

               2.

               On a proper interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, the main insolvency proceedings opened by a court of a Member State must be recognised by the courts of the other Member States, without the latter being able to review the jurisdiction of the court of the opening State.

               3.

               On a proper interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 16(1) of the Regulation, a decision to open insolvency proceedings for the purposes of that provision is a decision handed down by a court of a Member State to which application for such a decision has been made, based on the debtor's insolvency and seeking the opening of proceedings referred to in Annex A to the Regulation, where that decision involves the divestment of the debtor and the appointment of a liquidator referred to in Annex C to the Regulation. Such divestment implies that the debtor loses the powers of management that he has over his assets.

               4.

               On a proper interpretation of Article 26 of the Regulation, a Member State may refuse to recognise insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State where the decision to open the proceedings was taken in flagrant breach of the fundamental right to be heard, which a person concerned by such proceedings enjoys.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 2005 in Case T-33/03 Osotspa Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national and Community figurative SHARK marks — Application for Community word mark Hai — Absolute ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 March 2005
   in Case T-33/03 Osotspa Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national and Community figurative SHARK marks - Application for Community word mark Hai - Absolute ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 115/38)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-33/03: Osotspa Co. Ltd, established in Bangkok (Thailand), represented by C. Gassauer-Fleissner, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, T. Eichenberg and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Distribution & Marketing GmbH, established in Salzburg (Austria), represented initially by C. Hauer and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and A. Pohlmann, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2002 (Case R 296/2002-3) concerning opposition proceedings between Osotspa Co. Ltd and Distribution & Marketing GmbH — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and V. Vadapalas, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.


title: Case T-34/15: Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark CHEMPIOIL — Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 1 June 2016 — Wolf Oil v EUIPO — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)
   (Case T-34/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark CHEMPIOIL - Earlier figurative mark CHAMPION - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts of the Office’s own motion - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: UAB SCT Lubricants (Klaipėda, Lithuania) (represented by: S. Labesius, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 October 2014 (Case R 1596/2013-5), concerning opposition proceedings between Wolf Oil Corp. and UAB SCT Lubricants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wolf Oil Corp. to pay the costs, including those incurred by UAB SCT Lubricants for the purposes of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case T-577/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — NIOC and Others v Council

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/19

         Action brought on 27 December 2012 — NIOC and Others v Council
   (Case T-577/12)
   2013/C 79/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) (Singapore, Singapore); National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs) (London, United Kingdom); Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO) (Teheran, Iran); Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co. (Ahwaz, Iran); Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC) (Teheran); Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO) (Teheran); National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC) (Ahwaz); South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co. (Shiraz, Iran); Maroun Oil & Gas Co. (Ahwaz); Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC) (Khouzestan, Iran); Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co. (Ahmad, Iran); Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC) (Omidieh, Iran); Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC) (Khoramshar, Iran); West Oil & Gas Production Co. (Kermanshah, Iran); East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC) (Mashhad, Iran); Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC) (Teheran); Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) (Boushehr, Iran); et Iran Liquefied Natural Gas Co. (Teheran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               delcare that Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 is inapplicable with regard to them;

               —

               declare that Decision 2012/635/CFSP is inapplicable with regard to them;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons, in breach of Article 296 TFEU, in so far as the implementing regulation including the applicants in the list of the entities penalised does not expressly state the legal basis on which it was adopted.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a lack of legal basis, in so far as the legal basis for Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 (1) is Regulation No 267/2012, (2) which should be held to be applicable with regard to the applicants inasmuch as, first, Regulation No 267/2012 was adopted in breach of Article 296 TFEU and Article 215 TFEU and, second, Article 23(2)(d) of that regulation, which is the legal basis for including the applicants in the list in Annex XI to Regulation No 267/2012, infringes the Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Third, fourth, fifth and sixth pleas in law, alleging that the inclusion of the applicants in the list in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 and the annex to Decision 2012/635/CFSP (3) is invalid, on account, respectively, of (i) an error of law, (ii) an error of fact, (iii) the fact that that inclusion adversely affects the rights of the defence, the right to sound administration and the right to effective judicial protection and (iv) the fact that the inclusion in question is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that Article 1(8) of Decision 2012/635/CFSP, which is the legal basis for the applicants’ inclusion in the lists of entities the subject of restrictive measures, is inapplicable with regard to the applicants, on the ground that that provision is contrary to the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58).


title: Case T-578/08: Order of the General Court of 29 November 2010 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/56

         Order of the General Court of 29 November 2010 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
   (Case T-578/08) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/100
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-536/10: Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2013 — Kessel v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Application for Community word mark Premeno — Earlier national word mark Pramino — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 November 2013 — Kessel v OHIM — Janssen-Cilag (Premeno)
   (Case T-536/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Application for Community word mark Premeno - Earlier national word mark Pramino - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 377/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH (Mörfelden-Walldorf, Germany) (represented: initially by S. Bund, then A. Jacob, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Janssen-Cilag GmbH (Neuss, Germany) (represented by: M. Wenz, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Janssen-Cilag GmbH and Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 September 2010 (Case R 708/2010-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Kessel Marketing & Vertriebs GmbH;

               3.

               Orders Janssen-Cilag GmbH to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 December 2003 in Case T-326/99: Nancy Fern Olivieri v Commission of the European Communities and European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (Medicinal product — Marketing authorisation — Opinion of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Public health — Verification of reported data — Review of scientific evaluations — Professional reputation)

text:
C 71/22                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           20.3.2004
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 December 2003
                      of 17 December 2003
                                                                           in Case T-326/99: Nancy Fern Olivieri v Commission of
in Case T-219/99: British Airways plc v Commission of                      the European Communities and European Agency for the
                 the European Communities (1)                                            Evaluation of Medicinal Products (1)
                                                                           (Medicinal product — Marketing authorisation — Opinion
(Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — Com-
                                                                           of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
petence of the Commission Discrimination between airlines
                                                                           Products — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings
— Relevant product and geographic market — Nexus
                                                                           — Public health — Verification of reported data — Review
between the product markets allegedly affected — Legal
                                                                                of scientific evaluations — Professional reputation)
basis of the contested decision — Existence of a dominant
position — Abuse of the dominant position — Pro-
             portionality of the amount of the fine)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/39)
                          (2004/C 71/38)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-326/99, Nancy Fern Olivieri, resident in Toronto
                                                                           (Canada), represented by N. Green QC and J. Marks, barrister,
                                                                           and R. Stein, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                           bourg, v Commission of the European Communities and
                                                                           European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
In Case T-219/99, British Airways plc, established in Waterside
                                                                           (Agents: R. Wainwright and H. C. Støvlbæk), supported by
(United Kingdom), represented by W. Allan and O. Black,
                                                                           Apotex Europe Ltd, established in Leeds (United Kingdom),
solicitors, W. Wood and H. Davies, barristers, with an address
                                                                           represented by P. Bogaert, G. Berrisch, lawyers: Application
for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                           for annulment of the Commission Decision of 25 August
Communities (Agents: M. Erhart and A. Barav), supported by
                                                                           1999 granting marketing authorisation for the medicinal
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd, established in Crawley (United
                                                                           product for human use known as Ferriprox-Deferiprone
Kingdom), represented by P. Binetter, solicitor, N. Green and
                                                                           [C(1999) 2820] and of the revised Opinion of the European
C. West, barristers: Application for the annulment under
                                                                           Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products of 23 June
Article 230 EC of Commission Decision 2000/74/EC of
                                                                           1999, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed
14 July 1999 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the
                                                                           of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,
EC Treaty (IV/D-2/34.780 Virgin/British Airways) (OJ 2000
                                                                           Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
L 30, p. 1), the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                                                                           judgment on 18 December 2003, in which it:
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Jaeger and H. Legal,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 2003, in
which it:                                                                  1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicant to bear her own costs and to pay those
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                 incurred by the Commission and the European Agency for the
                                                                                Evaluation of Medicinal Products, including those relating to
                                                                                the interim proceedings;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
      incurred by the Commission and by the intervener.                    3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs, both in the main
                                                                                proceedings and in the interim proceedings.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-195/99 P: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities() (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams)

text:
13.12.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 304/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 2 October 2003
in Case C-195/99 P: Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG v Com-                                                    of 23 October 2003
         mission of the European Communities( (1))
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                      in Case C-56/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                        producers of beams)                                  the Tribunal des Affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre):
                                                                             Patricia Inizan v Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie des
                          (2003/C 304/01)                                                            Hauts-de-Seine( (1))
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Social security — Freedom to provide services — Costs of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       hospital stay to be incurred in another Member State —
                   in the European Court Reports)                            Conditions of reimbursement — Prior authorisation —
                                                                               Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Validity)
In Case C-195/99 P, Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG, established in
Dortmund (Germany), (represented by F. Montag): Appeal                                                 (2003/C 304/02)
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Compo-
sition) of 11 March 1999 in Case T-147/94 Krupp Hoesch v                                         (Language of the case: French)
Commission [1999] ECR II-603, seeking to have that judgment
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                                  in the European Court Reports)
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:                                                 In Case C-56/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Nanterre
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
                                                                             before that court between Patricia Inizan and Caisse primaire
2.    Orders Krupp Hoesch Stahl AG to pay the costs.                         d’assurance maladie des Hauts-de-Seine on the validity and
                                                                             interpretation of Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                             of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                             security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                             persons and to members of their families moving within the


title: Case T-94/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  28 November 2005  — European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility — Directive 2003/112/EC — Standing to bring proceedings)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 November 2005 — European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-94/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility - Directive 2003/112/EC - Standing to bring proceedings)
   (2006/C 48/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium), Pesticides Action Network Europe (London, United Kingdom), International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF) (Geneva, Switzerland), European Federation of Trade Unions in the Food, Agricultural and Tourism sectors and allied branches (EFFAT) (Brussels), Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Utrecht, Netherlands) and Svenska Naturskyddföreningen (Stockholm, Sweden), represented by P. van den Biesen, G. Vandersanden and B. Arentz, lawyers.

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Doherty, acting as Agent.

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Syngenta Ltd (Guildford, United Kingdom), represented by C. Simpson, Solicitor, and D. Abrahams, Barrister.
   Application for:
   Annulment of Commission Directive 2003/112/EC of 1 December 2003 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include paraquat as an active substance (OJ 2003 L 321, p. 32).
   Operative part of the Order:

               1)

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2)

               The applicants shall pay, in addition to their own costs, those of the Commission.

               3)

               The intervener shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30. 04. 2004.


title: Case T-27/01: Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli against the European Central Bank

text:
C 134/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
Action brought on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
           Tralli against the European Central Bank
                                                                         —     annul, in whole or in part, the Commission’s decision
                         (Case T-27/01)                                        under Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552/EEC (as amended)
                                                                               that measures taken by the United Kingdom to ensure
                        (2001/C 134/53)                                        that broadcasters within its jurisdiction do not broadcast
                                                                               events of major importance for society on an exclusive
                                                                               basis are compatible with Community law, and communi-
                                                                               cating the UK measures to the other Member States so as
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                               to oblige them to ensure that broadcasters within their
                                                                               respective jurisdictions comply with the UK measures;
An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 5 February 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau              —     declare under Article 241 EC that Article 3(a) TWF
(Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and                  Directive, in whole or in part, is inapplicable and cannot
Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in               serve as a basis for the Commission’s decision; and
Luxembourg.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    proceedings.
(1) annul the defendant’s decision, contained in a document
      dated 29 January 2001, rejecting the applicant’s com-
      plaint;                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
(2) annul the unilateral extension of the applicant’s pro-
      bationary period;                                                  The present application requests the annulment of the decision
                                                                         of the Commission of or around 18 November 2000 under
(3) order the defendant to pay the costs.                                Article 3(a) of Directive 89/552, of 3 October 1989, on the
                                                                         coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
                                                                         or administrative Action in Member States concerning the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          pursuit of television broadcasting activities (1) (the Directive).
                                                                         In that decision the Commission found compatible with
                                                                         Community Law United Kingdom (UK) measures prohibiting
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               broadcasters from broadcasting certain listed sporting events
advanced in Case T-373/00 Tralli v ECB (not yet published).              in a way that deprived a substantial proportion of the UK from
                                                                         viewing them and communicated the UK measures to the
                                                                         other Member States in order to ensure that broadcasters
                                                                         within their respective jurisdictions comply with the UK
                                                                         measures.
                                                                         In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
Action brought on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media                        decision infringes:
GmbH & Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         —     the principle of proportionality,
                         (Case T-33/01)
                                                                         —     the applicants’ right to property by fundamentally affect-
                                                                               ing its ability to dispose of its World Cup rights, thereby
                        (2001/C 134/54)                                        affecting their value,
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     the applicants’ freedom to carry on an economic activity
                                                                               by affecting their ability to undertake their business in
                                                                               the managing, marketing and sale of the World Cup
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      rights,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2001 by Kirch Media
GmbH & Co KgaA, a company incorporated under Germany                     —     the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
law and Kirchmedia WM AG, a company incorporated under                         and the principle of non-retroactivity by applying
Swiss law, represented by Professor Carl Otto Lenz, Andreas                    measures to rights which the applicants purchased before
Bardong and Edward William Batchelor, of Baker & McKenzie,                     the entry into force of the UK measures or Article 3(a) of
London (UK).                                                                   the Directive,


               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/33

         Removal from the Register of Case T-163/02 (1)

   (2005/C 155/62)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 26 April 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-163/02, Montan Gesellschaft Voss mbH Stahlhandel and Others v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


Important legal notice

|

E2000P0008

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Arbeidsretten (The Labour Court of Norway) of 27 September 2000 in the case of Landsorganisasjonen i Norge (Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions), with Norsk Kommuneforbund (Norwegian Union of Municipal Employees) v Kommunenes Sentralforbund (Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities) and Others (Case E-8/00)

Official Journal C 049 , 15/02/2001 P. 0009 - 0010

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Arbeidsretten (The Labour Court of Norway) of 27 September 2000 in the case of Landsorganisasjonen i Norge (Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions), with Norsk Kommuneforbund (Norwegian Union of Municipal Employees) v Kommunenes Sentralforbund (Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities) and Others(Case E-8/00)(2001/C 49/14)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Arbeidsretten (The Labour Court of Norway), which was received at the Court Registry on 2 October 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Landsorganisasjonen i Norge (Norwegian Federation of Trade Unions), with Norsk Kommuneforbund (Norwegian Union of Municipal Employees) v Kommunenes Sentralforbund (Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities) and Others, on the following questions:Scope of application of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement1(a) Does a collective agreement generally entail binding legal effects mutually between the participating members on the employer side which can be regarded as an "agreement between undertakings" under Article 53 of the EEA Agreement?1(b) If an employer organisation concludes a collective agreement, is this a "decision by an association of undertakings" under Article 53 of the EEA Agreement?1(c) Is a municipality an "undertaking" under Article 53 of the EEA Agreement when, in its capacity as employer, it becomes bound by a collective agreement without being a party thereto?2(a) Can a collective agreement provision which has objectives other than to improve salary and working conditions come within the scope of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement?2(b) If question 2(a) is answered in the affirmative, which conditions must then be met?3. Do collective agreement provisions on group occupational pension schemes, such as the provisions in clause 2.1.8, second, third and fourth paragraphs of the Basic Collective Agreement for municipalities, etc., for the period 1998-2000 fall within the scope of application of Article 53 of the EEA Agreement?Prohibition in Article 53 of the EEA Agreement4. Is it compatible with Article 53 of the EEA Agreement for a collective agreement condition to require that a group occupational pension scheme be based on a gender-neutral financing system which can only be satisfied by one supplier?5(a) Is it compatible with Article 53 of the EEA Agreement for a collective agreement provision to provide that an offer concerning occupational pension schemes made by an insurance company to an employer must be approved by representatives for the parties to a collective agreement?5(b) If question 5(a) is answered in the affirmative, will the assessment be otherwise if approval can only take place through unanimity amongst the parties?6. Is it compatible with Article 53 of the EEA Agreement for a collective agreement provision to provide that it is a condition for transfer of an occupational pension scheme that the new insurance product must have been tacitly or expressly accepted by a public body?7(a) Is it compatible with Article 53 of the EEA Agreement for collective agreement provisions to provide that a change of supplier of an occupational pension scheme is subject to the condition that the employer, before a decision on change can be made, must have entered into a separate agreement on mutual transfer of pension schemes through approval by the public body which administers the transfer scheme?7(b) If question 7(a) is answered in the affirmative, will the assessment be otherwise if inclusion in the transfer agreements cannot take place before a decision on change has been made?8. Can the sum of provisions in a collective agreement, such as the provisions in clause 2.1.8, second, third and fourth paragraphs of the Basic Collective Agreement for municipalities, etc., for the period 1998-2000, be held to be contrary to Article 53 of the EEA Agreement even though none of the provisions, viewed in isolation, come under the prohibition therein?Interpretation of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement9. Can an association of municipalities which is an interest and an employer organisation, such as the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, be regarded as an "undertaking" under Article 54 of the EEA Agreement in the negotiation of collective agreements?10. Can an undertaking, assuming that it has a "dominant position", conclude an agreement for or practise conditions for change of supplier of occupational pension schemes such as those laid down in clause 2.1.8, second, third and fourth paragraphs of the Basic Collective Agreement for municipalities, etc., for the period 1998-2000, regardless of Article 54 of the EEA Agreement?


title: Case C-536/10 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2010 by MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2010 in Case T-233/08 MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/24

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2010 by MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 September 2010 in Case T-233/08 MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-536/10 P)
   ()
   2011/C 30/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (represented by: W. Göpfert, Rechtsanwalt)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment appealed against, insofar as it dismissed the action in accordance with the forms of order sought before the General Court;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 15 April 2008 (No R 1525/2006-4); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal and of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By its appeal, the appellant applies for the judgment of the General Court to be set aside, in so far as it dismissed the action because it decided that the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not infringe Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (‘Community trade mark regulation’) or Article 7(1)(c) of the Community trade mark regulation when it rejected the registration of the word mark ‘ROI ANALYZER’ for goods in Class 9 (Computer software) and for services in Classes 35 and 42 (Management consultancy and development etc of data-processing programmes).

               2.

               The Court thereby assumed on an incorrect factual basis that what was at issue were specifically goods and services intended exclusively for experts with knowledge and interests in the field of management science. In so doing, the fact that the goods ‘computer software’ in Class 9 were to be used only ‘in particular’ to obtain and process business data was disregarded. Software with other uses could therefore also be the subject of the mark applied for. In addition, engineers and other persons who had no knowledge of specialist management science-related terminology also worked with the applicant’s software. The Court’s assessment was therefore based on incorrect factual assumptions.

         Furthermore, the Court was of the opinion, again proceeding on an incorrect factual basis, that, while the element ‘ROI’ admittedly had different meanings in different languages, consumers would in connection with the word ‘ANALYZER’, always interpret the element ‘ROI’ to mean ‘Return on Investment’. The Court was wrong to find that the consumers targeted would then without further consideration understand the mark applied for as describing ‘an instrument for analysing the rate of return on investments’.
   The Court also misinterpreted the underlying goods and services when assuming the existence of obstacles to the protection of computer hardware. Following division of the application, the sign was already registered with final legal effect with regard to those goods and services belonging to Classes 35 and 42.
   Finally, the argument based on earlier registrations in the EU, namely as Community trade marks, was rejected on the basis that national marks could not be taken into account. In that instance also an incorrect factual basis was used.


title: Case T-646/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/60

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Karanikas v Parliament
   (Case T-646/15)
   (2016/C 048/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harry Karanikas (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8594 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

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

               2.

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

               3.

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

               4.

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

               5.

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

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

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