title: Case T-106/15: Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/16

         Action brought on 25 February 2015 — Opko Ireland Global Holdings v OHIM — Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (ALPHAREN)
   (Case T-106/15)
   (2015/C 228/19)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Opko Ireland Global Holdings Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and A. Smith, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd (Jerusalem, Israel)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ALPHAREN’ — Application for registration No 4 320 297

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2014 in Case R 2387/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 1(d)(2) of Regulation No 216/96 in that a member of the Board who took the original 2009 Board of Appeal decision was also a member of the Board that took the contested decision;

               —

               Infringement of Article 50 of the Implementing Regulation by relying upon new evidence not before OHIM at the first hearing of the opposition;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by failing to impose the burden of proof in the opposition to prove the similarity of the goods in issue upon the opponent;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the identification of the relevant public and overall in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion.


title: Case F-120/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 April 2011 — AR v Commission

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/43

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 April 2011 — AR v Commission
   (Case F-120/10) (1)

   2011/C 232/80
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.11, p. 35.


title: Case C-338/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2010 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 7 July 2010 — Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt
   (Case C-338/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (GLS)

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt

      Question referred

   Is an anti-dumping regulation adopted by the European Commission in proceedings under Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (1) invalid because the Commission adopted that anti-dumping regulation by reference to a normal value determined on ‘[an]other reasonable basis’ (in this case, on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for like products in the Community) without conducting further investigations to ascertain a normal value after two companies in a country which the Commission had initially considered to be an analogue country had been contacted in writing but to no effect (one of them not replying at all and the other indicating its willingness to cooperate but failing to respond to the questionnaire which was then sent to it), and parties to the proceedings had drawn the Commission’s attention to another possible analogue country?

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1.


title: Case T-229/00: Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 302/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
In particular, the applicant claims that:                                 —     make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
                                                                                ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order
—    the assessment of the aid granted by the Italian authorities               requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
     to municipal undertakings should not have been carried                     the applicant.
     out without assessing the role played by other undertak-
     ings active in the self-same sector — port services — the
     nature and purpose of which is absolutely identical with             Pleas in law and main arguments
     those which the Commission accepts in respect of the
     municipal undertakings mentioned by the Commune di
     Venezia and, in particular, Panfido SpA, entrusted with              The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
     running ships’ towage services in the port of Venice.                Case T-228/00 Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Porto di Venezia v
                                                                          Commission (1).
—    the applicant is entrusted by the public authorities with
     the running of a service in the general public interest as a
     monopoly and without any impact on intra-Community                   (1) Not yet published.
     trade. Accordingly, the measures granted to it are evi-
     dently required and necessary for the accomplishment of
     the task with which it has been entrusted.
(1) Not yet published.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds
                                                                                against the European Parliament
                                                                                (Case T-237/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/79)
Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo Ormeggia-
tori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l. against Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (Case T-229/00)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                        (2000/C 302/78)                                   8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds, residing in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by Pierre Legros, of the Brussels Bar, and Stéphane
                                                                          Rodrigues, of the Paris Bar.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —     annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the Euro-
European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo                                pean Parliament dated 18 July 2000;
Ormeggiatori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l., represented
by Sergio Maria Carbone and Alberto Taramasso, of the Genoa
Bar.                                                                      —     declare that the European Community has incurred non-
                                                                                contractual liability on account of the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the Parliament to pay to the applicant the arrears
                                                                                of salary and pension due to him since 15 July 2000,
—    annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999                          together with interest on all those arrears at the annual
     on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of                           rate of 10 %;
     relief from social security contributions under Laws
     Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes from
     Article 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which find            —     award the applicant damages on account of the non-
                                                                                material damage caused by the contested decision, in a
     themselves in circumstances identical to those of the
                                                                                sum amounting to 250 000 euro;
     undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
     and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
     measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;                   —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-202/99: Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
7.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/19
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the                2. The ‘recognition’ directive precludes a doctor who holds a
directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                   single degree and a single professional qualification from
                                                                               being included simultaneously in the register of medical
                                                                               practitioners and in that of dental practitioners;
(1) of 22 December 1995, OJ L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 10.
(2) Council Directive 77/99/EEC of 21 December 1976 on health             3. It appears to the Commission that, so far as professional
    problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products OJ               title is concerned, doctors who practise in Italy mainly as
    L 026, 31.1.1977, p. 85.                                                   dentists do not practise with the title ‘odontoiatra’ (dental
(3) of 17 December 1996, OJ L 013, 16.1.1997, p. 24.                           practitioner) but with that of ‘medico dentists’ (doctor
(4) of 17 December 1992, OJ L 062, 15.3.1993, p. 49.                           dentist), a title which was not notified to the Commission.
(5) of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-
    Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal              The Commission submits that the present situation runs
    market. OJ L 395, 30.12.89, p. 13.                                         counter to the coordinated system established by the
(6) of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks              ‘dental practitioner’ directives. A situation of this kind
    applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and            creates confusion in a host Member State and adversely
    products with a view to the completion of the internal market. OJ          affects professionals seeking to exercise their right of free
    L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.                                                   movement, whose qualifications may be challenged by the
                                                                               host State and held to be at variance with the directives.
                                                                          (1) Council directive of 25.7.1978, OJ L 233 of 24 August 1978,
                                                                              p. 10.
Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret by
                                                                          order of 21 May 1999 in the case of Henning Veedfald v
                          (Case C-202/99)                                                      Århus Regional Authority
                                                                                (Case C-203/99)
                          (1999/C 226/30)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/31)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
represented by Enrico Traverso, Legal Adviser, and Bernard                European Communities by order of 21 May 1999 by the
Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address           Højesteret (Danish Supreme Court), which was received at the
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la            Court Registry on 26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi.                               the case of Henning Veedfald v Århus Regional Authority on
                                                                          the following questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Question 1:
1. declare that, by maintaining a second system of training
     for entry into the dental profession which is contrary to            Must Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July
     Directive 78/687/EEC (1), and by maintaining the possi-              1985 be construed as meaning that a defective product is not
     bility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly             put into circulation if the producer of the defective product, in
     registered in the registers of medical and dental prac-              the course of providing a specific medical service, produces
     titioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-       and uses the product on a human organ which, at the time
     gations under Directive 78/687/EEC;                                  when the damage occurred, had been removed from a donor’s
                                                                          body in order to be prepared for transplant into another
                                                                          person’s body, with resulting damage to the organ?
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Question 2:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Must Article 7(c) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1. It is clear to the Commission that the second training                 1985 be construed as meaning that a publicly owned hospital
     provided for by Law No 409 of 24 July 1985 (dental                   is free from liability under the directive for products produced
     training lasting three years) does not meet the mandatory            and used by that hospital in the course of providing a specific
     requirements of Article 1 of the ‘coordination’ directive,           publicly financed service to the person suffering injury and in
     which calls for special dental training lasting five years;          respect of which that person has not paid any consideration?


               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/1

         Designation of the Judge replacing the President as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures
   2010/C 148/02
   On 12 May 2010, the General Court decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge Papasavvas to replace the President of the General Court for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 July 2010 to 31 August 2010.


title: Case C-475/07: Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/23

         Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-475/07)
   (2008/C 22/43)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by W. Mölls and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by reason of the failure to adapt by 1 January 2006 its system of taxation of electricity to the requirements of Article 21(5) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The transitional period accorded to the Republic of Poland for implementing the directive expired on 1 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 283 of 3.10.2003, p. 51.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2003 in Case T-288/02: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research contract — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 47/28               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         21.2.2004
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 European Communities on 8 December 2003 by Flavia
                                                                           Angeletti, residing in Nice (France), represented by Juan Ramón
                      of 15 October 2003                                   Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
in Case T-288/02: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Action for annulment — Decision to conclude a research
                  contract — Inadmissibility)
                                                                           —     annul the medical findings of 22 February 2003, notified
                         (2004/C 47/55)                                          on 7 October 2003 and received on 14 October 2003 by
                                                                                Flavia Angeletti;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 October
                                                                                2003, received on 14 October 2003, refusing to recognise
In Case T-288/02 Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), estab-                     the occupational origin of the applicant’s medical com-
lished in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H Teissier du                   plaint;
Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
against the Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: P. Kuijper and B Schöfer) — application for the
annulment of the decision of the European Commission of                    —     annul the decision of the Commission of 17 October
22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract within the                      2003, corrected by letter of 27 October 2003, charging
framework of the ‘Asia-Invest’ programme with the Centre for                     to the applicant part of the fees and expenses charged by
Energy-Environment Research and Development — the Court                          members of the medical committee;
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
President, R García-Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 15 October 2003, the operative                 —     annul the mandate of the medical committee, communi-
part of which is as follows:                                                     cated to the applicant on 18 April 2003, as a preparatory
                                                                                act;
(1) The action is dismissed as clearly inadmissible.
(2) The parties are ordered to bear their own costs in the main            —     annul the letter of 5 May 2003 containing a refusal to
     proceedings and in the proceedings for interim relief.                      allow the forwarding to the medical committee of a scan
                                                                                carried out on 21 February 2003, as a preparatory act;
(1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 30 January 2001, and uphold the
                                                                                request of the applicant made by way of her complaint of
                                                                                4 September 2000, and the opinion of the medical
                                                                                committee of 5 November 1999;
Action brought on 8 December 2003 by Flavia Angeletti
  against the Commission of the European Communities                       —     order the Commission to pay the fees and expenses of
                                                                                the medical committee in full;
                        (Case T-394/03)
                         (2004/C 47/56)                                    —     order the Commission to pay, in their entirety, the fees
                                                                                and expenses incurred by the applicant in the context of
                                                                                the irregular opinion of the medical committee and of
                   (Language of the case: French)                                the decision of the institution taken on the basis thereof,
                                                                                together with interest thereon;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.


               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/3

         Lists for the purposes of determining the composition of the formations of the Court
   (2008/C 301/04)
   At its meeting on 30 September 2008, the Court drew up the lists referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 11c(2) of the Rules of Procedure for determining the composition of the Chambers of three Judges as follows:
   For the Fifth Chamber:
   Mr Tizzano
   Mr Borg Barthet
   Mr Levits
   Mr Kasel
   For the Sixth Chamber:
   Sir Konrad Schiemann
   Mr Makarczyk
   Mr Kūris
   Mr Bay Larsen
   Ms Toader
   For the Seventh Chamber:
   Mr Cunha Rodrigues
   Mr Klučka
   Mr Lõhmus
   Ms Lindh
   Mr Arabadjiev
   For the Eighth Chamber:
   Ms Silva de Lapuerta
   Mr Juhász
   Mr Arestis
   Mr Malenovský


title: Case T-162/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission (Non-contractual liability — Customs union — Proof of the Community nature of products of sea-fishing — Submission of certain documents as proof not possible — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by its bodies)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/57

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia v Council and Commission
   (Case T-162/07) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Customs union - Proof of the Community nature of products of sea-fishing - Submission of certain documents as proof not possible - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct by its bodies)
   2009/C 267/98
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia (Moschato, Greece) (represented by: N. Skandamis and E. Perakis, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by F. Florindo Gijón and M.-M. Joséphidès, and subsequently by F. Florido Gijón and M. Balta, Agents); and Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by E. Cujo, S. Schønberg and M. Konstantinidis, and subsequently by S. Schønberg and M. Patakia, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages to compensate for the damage alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the fact that the Council and the Commission did not adopt provisions enabling the customs authorities of a Member State to accept as proof of the Community nature of products of sea-fishing documents other than the T2M form provided for in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pigasos Alieftiki Naftiki Etairia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-401/06: Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/34

         Action brought on 28 December 2006 — Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council
   (Case T-401/06)
   (2007/C 42/61)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong), Seasonable Footwear (Zhong Shan) Ltd (Banfu, China), Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd (Guangzhou, China), Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 to the extent it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present application, the applicants are seeking annulment of the contested regulation to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on their exports to the European Union. The application is based on the following grounds:

               —

               A breach of Articles 2(7)(b) and (9)(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports (the ‘Basic Regulation’), Article VI of the GATT, as well as principles of non-discrimination, nemo auditur and legitimate expectations, with regard to the failure of the Community institutions to examine each Market Economy Treatment (‘MET’) and Individual Treatment (‘IT’) request individually;

               —

               a violation of Articles 18 and 20 of the Basic Regulation, and a breach of the applicants' rights of defence with regard to the Community's Institutions' failure to inform the applicants of the treatment accorded to MET and IT requests;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment as well as a breach of Articles 5(4) of the Basic Regulation with regard to the evaluation of the standing of the Community producers in supporting the investigation, Article 1(4) of the Basic Regulation with regard to the definition of the product scope, Article 17 of the Basic Regulation and Article 253 EC with regard to the selection of the sample of exporting producers, Article 3(2) of the Basic Regulation and Article 253 EC with regard to the injury of determination, Article 3(2) of the Basic Regulation with regard to the assessment of the causal link between dumped imports and injury, and, finally, Article 9(4) of the Basic Regulation in the calculation of the injury elimination level.


title: Case T-416/12: Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2014 — HP Health Clubs Iberia v OHIM — Shiseido (ZENSATIONS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ZENSATIONS — Earlier Community word mark ZEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Admissibility of the applicant’s form of order — Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure — Obligation to state reasons — First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 March 2014 — HP Health Clubs Iberia v OHIM — Shiseido (ZENSATIONS)
   (Case T-416/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ZENSATIONS - Earlier Community word mark ZEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Admissibility of the applicant’s form of order - Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure - Obligation to state reasons - First sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of the facts by the Office of its own motion - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 112/38
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: HP Health Clubs Iberia (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Serrat Viñas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carillo, Agent)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: Shiseido Company Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: B. Moreau-Margotin, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2012 (Case R 2212/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Shiseido Company Ltd and HP Health Clubs Iberia S.A.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Dismisses the heads of claims of Shiseido Company Ltd other than that essentially seeking the dismissal of the action as manifestly inadmissible.

               3.

               Orders HP Health Clubs Iberia S.A. to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM.)

               4.

               Orders Shiseido Company Ltd to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case T-155/01: Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against the Commission of the European Communities.

text:
C 275/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   29.9.2001
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-            Action brought on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton against
      ally assessed at 1 euro;                                                 the Commission of the European Communities.
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                                                   (Case T-155/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 275/26)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant is a freelance interpreter who has worked                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
regularly for the Commission since 1986. After her 65th birth-           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
day, the applicant noticed that the Commission no longer                 European Communities on 10 July 2001 by Robert Walton,
contacted her with new offers of work. Later, the Commission             residing in Oxford (UK), represented by Paul Harris of Monck-
informed the applicant of its decision no longer to engage               ton Chambers, London (UK).
conference interpreters over the age of 65 and thus no longer
to call on her services on that ground. According to the
Commission, that decision was taken after the Council adopted            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regulation No 628/2000 (1) amending Article 78 of the
Conditions of Employment of other Servants of the Communi-               1.    Annul the Commission decision of 3 October 2000;
ties (CES).
                                                                         2.    Declare that that decision and/or the Commission’s letter
                                                                               of termination was unlawful and/or in breach of the
According to the applicant, the Commission gives Article 78                    notice of termination provisions in Article 5 of the
of the CES as the reason for its decision to make termination                  contract and/or Article 47 of the Conditions of Employ-
of the employment of freelance interpreters subject to                         ment of Other Servants of the European Communities;
Article 74 of the CES, and thus subject also to the age limit of
65 years. However, the applicant claims that Article 74 is               3.    Order the Commission to pay the applicant compen-
clearly not intended to govern the situation of freelance                      sation for breach of contract, and/or for breach of
interpreters. It is not feasible to consider that the engagement               Article 47 of the Conditions of Employment, in the
of an interpreter ceases as provided for by Article 74 ‘at the                 amounts referred to in the compensation section of this
end of the month in which the agent reaches the age of                         application;
65 years’, since such engagement could be reduced to a matter
of days. Any age limit in respect of the provision of services           4.    Order the Commission to pay to the applicant his costs;
by freelance interpreters can therefore be considered to be a                  and
condition which applies only in the event of recruitment of a
freelance interpreter. However, there is no statutory provision          5.    Take such further measures and grant such further relief,
regarding any age limit with regard to pursuit of their activities.            under the Statute of the Court of Justice and/or Rules of
                                                                               Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as may be
                                                                               necessary, just or equitable.
The applicant claims that to subject freelance interpreters who
provide their services to the Community institutions to an
age limit constitutes discrimination between those freelance
interpreters who provide their services to the Community                 Pleas in law and main arguments
institutions and those who do not.
                                                                         The applicant in the present case is a Chartered Engineer,
                                                                         specialising in power and nuclear projects, who in October
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads, moreover,                1999 was recruited by the Commission to set up in Research
breach of the principle of non-retroactivity, acquired rights,           Directorate-General XII a help desk for small and medium-
legitimate expectations, sound administration and legal cer-             sized enterprises involved with innovation and research.
tainty. In addition to her claims for annulment, the applicant
also seeks compensation for material and non-material damage
allegedly suffered as a result of the Commission’s decision.             The application seeks the annulment of the decision contained
                                                                         in a letter of termination, of 3 October 2000, which purported
                                                                         to ‘terminate [the applicant’s] employment’, ‘with effect from
(1) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 628/2000 of                16.10.2000’.
    20 March 2000 amending Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC)
    No 259/68 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
    European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of             The applicant claims wrongful dismissal and states to that end
    Other Servants of the Communities (OJ L 76 of 25.3.2000, p. 1).      that:
                                                                         —     The commencement date of the contract was 1 November
                                                                               1999.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.9.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 275/13
—    Article 34 of the Staff Regulations is not applicable to his      Pleas in law and main arguments
     employment. His probationary period was governed by
     Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
     Servants of the European Communities and by the
     contract.                                                         In 1995 the Danish Minister for Transport established the
                                                                       company DSB Busser A/S with ownership vested in De Danske
                                                                       Statsbaner (DSB). The company took over buses and other
—    Under Article 5(a) of the contract and Article 14 of the
                                                                       assets from DSB and operated a number of regional and local
     Conditions of Employment, his probationary period was
                                                                       bus routes in Denmark. The company was subsequently
     six months, coming to an end on 30 April 2000.
                                                                       transferred to the Danish Ministry of Transport and changed
                                                                       its name to Combus A/S (’Combus’).
—    He was not dismissed during that six-month probationary
     period.
—    The termination decision did not provide him with the             In connection with the company’s taking over of the operation
     requisite three- months’ notice and was thus made in              of routes, employees of DSB placed on loan to Combus were
     breach of Article 5(b) of the contract and Article 47 of          offered compensation for transferring to employment on a
     the Conditions of Employment. In addition, no or no               group contract basis, this compensation being paid by DSB. In
     full compensation has been paid, in further breach of             1999 the Ministry of Transport granted Combus a secured
     Article 47.                                                       loan of DKK 100 million and made a capital injection of DKK
                                                                       200 million, ostensibly in order to prevent Combus, which
—    In any event the applicant never accepted the proposed,           was in serious financial difficulties, from going into liquidation.
     or any, extension of his probationary period. On the
     contrary, he expressly and repeatedly rejected any exten-
     sion whatsoever.                                                  The applicant, which is a branch organisation of bus compani-
                                                                       es, lodged a complaint with the Commission in November
                                                                       1999 in regard to the above measures.
                                                                       In November 2000 the Danish State informed the Commission
                                                                       that it intended to grant State aid to Combus in connection
Action brought on 11 July 2001 by Danske Busvognmænd                   with the company’s sale to the English-owned company Arriva
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   Danmark A/S. The aid was estimated at DKK 171.8 million. In
                                                                       the contested decision the Commission approved the aid in
                       (Case T-157/01)                                 the respective amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK 171.8
                                                                       million.
                       (2001/C 275/27)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Commission has approved
                  (Language of the Case: Danish)                       unlawful State aid in so far as the conditions in
                                                                       Article 87(3)(c) EC have not been satisfied. Even though the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              Commission can, as a general rule, lawfully apply the frame-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             work provisions on State aid to undertakings in crisis, those
European Communities on 11 July 2001 by Danske Bus-                    framework provisions cannot depart from the provisions of
vognmænd, Frederiksberg (Denmark), represented by Per Dal-             Article 87 EC. The aid for Combus, it argues, is not in the
skov.                                                                  Community interest and does not serve those objectives which
                                                                       may justify approval of aid as restructuring aid. The aid was in
                                                                       the nature of operating aid or, possibly, rescue aid, but this has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            not been mentioned by the Commission as relevant in this
                                                                       case. Further, the aid had the effect of distorting competition.
—    Primarily: annul the European Commission’s decision
     of 28 March 2001 concerning aid measure
     No NN 127/2000 (State aid for Combus A/S) (SG (2001)              The applicant also claims that the Commission has mistakenly
     D/287297), and rule that the decision is void pursuant to         dealt with only two out of three tranches of State aid in that it
     the first paragraph of Article 231 EC;                            failed to address the obligation which DSB undertook to pay
                                                                       compensation to employees transferring to employment on a
—    In the alternative: annul the European Commission’s               group contract basis. The Commission further erred, it argues,
     approval of the portion of the aid granted to Combus A/S          in treating the State aid as one entire aid measure despite the
     on 31 May 1999;                                                   fact that three separate and independent State aid measures
                                                                       were granted. While there was presumably a causal connection
—    Order the European Commission to pay the costs                    between the two aid amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK
     involved in bringing the case before the Court of First           171.8 million, these were separate in time and served different
     Instance.                                                         objectives.


               6.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/16

         Action brought on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-2/17)
   (2017/C 108/14)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 February 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               By maintaining in force (i) an authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and raw egg products such as the one laid down in Article 10 of Act No 25/1993 and Articles 3 (e) and 4 of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012; (ii) an authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk and additional requirements, such as laid down in Article 10 of Act No 25/1993 and Article 3 (f), 4 and 5 of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012, and a prohibition of the marketing of imported dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk, such as laid down in Article 7a of Regulation (IS) No 104/2010; and (iii) an administrative practice of requiring importers to make a declaration and obtain an approval for the import of treated egg and dairy products, such as the one established in the context of the application of Regulation (IS) No 448/2012, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the Act referred to at Point 1.1.1 of Chapter I of Annex I to the EEA Agreement, Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market as amended and as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto and by the sectoral adaptions in Annex I thereto, and in particular Article 5 of that directive.

               2.

               Iceland bears the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) claims that Iceland has breached its obligations under Directive 89/662/EEC by (i) maintaining in force an authorisation system for the import of raw eggs and raw egg products; (ii) maintaining in force an authorisation system for the import of unpasteurised milk and dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk and additional requirements and a prohibition of the marketing of imported dairy products processed from unpasteurised milk; and (iii) maintaining in force an administrative practice of requiring importers to make a declaration and obtain an approval for the import of treated egg and dairy products.

               —

               ESA submits that the rules concerning the intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin and veterinary checks are harmonised at EEA level. Council Directive 89/662/EEC regulates veterinary checks in intra-EEA trade of products of animal origin. Its main objective is to eliminate veterinary checks at the EEA’s internal borders while reinforcing the checks carried out at the point of origin. The competent authorities of the EEA State of destination may only check, by means of non-discriminatory spot-checks, compliance with the relevant EEA legislation.

               —

               ESA submits that by maintaining in force the current measures, Iceland imposes additional requirements, which are not allowed by the harmonised framework of veterinary checks.

               —

               According the ESA, the EFTA Court, in its judgment in Case E-17/15 Ferskar kjötvörur ehf. v the Icelandic State concerning the restrictions on the importation of raw meat into Iceland, has already recognised the noncompliance of such requirements with EEA law. Similar restrictions concerning egg- and dairy products are laid down in the Icelandic legislation in question.


title: Case F-32/09: Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Andrikopoulou v Council

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/22

         Action brought on 1 April 2009 — Andrikopoulou v Council
   (Case F-32/09)
   2009/C 129/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Anna Andrikopoulou (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 under the 2008 promotion procedure and, to the extent that it is necessary, the decision to promote to that grade less meritorious officials.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 under the 2008 promotion procedure and, to the extent that it is necessary, the decision to promote to that grade less meritorious officials;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case T-454/07: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Prym and Others v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/29

         Order of the General Court of 7 February 2012 — Prym and Others v Commission
   (Case T-454/07) (1)

   2012/C 89/49
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of 7 June 2017 in Case E-17/16 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2009/127/EC amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application)

text:
               28.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 321/11

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 7 June 2017
   in Case E-17/16
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

      (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2009/127/EC amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application)

   (2017/C 321/09)
   In Case E-17/16, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application) as adapted by way of Protocol 1 thereto and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, or in any event, by failing to inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Benedikt Bogason (ad hoc), Judges, gave judgment on 7 June 2017, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 1c of Chapter XXIV of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/127/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 amending Directive 2006/42/EC with regard to machinery for pesticide application) as adapted by way of Protocol 1 thereto and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-188/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2008 — Fastweb v Commission (State aid — Subsidised purchase of digital decoders — Telecommunications — Commission decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market — Decision adopted in the course of the present proceedings by the Member State not to effect recovery of the aid from the company which contested the Commission's decision in annulment proceedings — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2008 — Fastweb v Commission
   (Case T-188/07) (1)

   (State aid - Subsidised purchase of digital decoders - Telecommunications - Commission decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the common market - Decision adopted in the course of the present proceedings by the Member State not to effect recovery of the aid from the company which contested the Commission's decision in annulment proceedings - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   (2009/C 32/66)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Fastweb SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola and T. Ubaldi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Martenczuk, G. Conte and E. Righini, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Sky Italia Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. González Díaz and D. Gerard, lawyers); and Centro Europa 7 Srl (Rome) (represented by: R. Mastroianni, F. Ferraro and M. Condinanzi, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/374/EC of 24 January 2007 on State aid C 52/2005 (ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004) implemented by the Italian Republic for the subsidised purchase of digital decoders (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 1).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170 of 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-248/99 P: Appeal brought on 2 July 1999 by the French Republic against the judgment delivered on 22 April 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-112/97 between Monsanto Company and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic

text:
18.9.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 265/1
                                                                       I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                    COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
Appeal brought on 2 July 1999 by the French Republic                       decision for the same reasons as those relied on by the Court
against the judgment delivered on 22 April 1999 by the                     of First Instance in Lilly. It also refuses the assertion made by
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                       the Court of First Instance in paragraph 64 of the contested
European Communities in case T-112/97 (1) between Mon-                     judgment that in the absence of ‘anything in fact or law which
santo Company and the Commission of the European                           would permit a different conclusion, reference must be made
      Communities, supported by the French Republic                        to the grounds of its judgment in Lilly and the contested
                                                                           decision must, as a result, be annulled’.
                       (Case C-248/99 P)
                                                                           The French Government considers that the Court of First
                        (1999/C 265/01)                                    Instance had before it new elements of fact or law which were
                                                                           conducive to deciding the case differently from case T-120/96.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 22 April 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                (1) OJ C 199, 28.06.1997, p. 27.
European Communities in case T-112/97 between Monsanto
Company and the Commission of the European Communities,
supported by the French Republic, was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 July 1999
by the French Republic, represented by Ronny Abraham,
Jean-François Dobelle, Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Christina               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Vasak, acting as agents, with an address for service in                    Bremen by order of 1 June 1999 in the case of Bacardi
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8, boulevard Joseph II.                              GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                                         (Case C-253/99)
1. annul paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment                                         (1999/C 265/02)
     of the Court of First Instance dated 22 April in case
     T-112/97;                                                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of 1 June 1999 from the
2. grant the form of order sought by the defendant at first                Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Bremen, which was received at
     instance, namely dismissal on substantive grounds of                  the Court Registry on 7 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
     Monsanto’s application, and order the applicant to pay the            the case of Bacardi GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremerhaven on
     costs.                                                                the following questions:
                                                                           1. Can import duties be repaid under Article 236 of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Customs Code (1) in the case where the importer of
                                                                               Bourbon whiskey imported from the USA entered the
The Court of First Instance based its assessment of the                        Code Number 2208 30 82 in the customs declaration of
Monsanto action on the solution adopted in case T-120/96,                      10 September 1996, and only on 2 October 1996, on
Lilly v. Commission.                                                           submission of a certificate of authenticity corresponding
                                                                               to Annex 5 to the regulation implementing the Customs
The French Government disputes the Court of First Instance’s                   Code (2), applied for classification under Subheading 2208
statement that, in any event as far as it is concerned, the parties            30 11 of the Combined Nomenclature, which would result
considered that it was necessary to annul the Commission’s                     in application of a longer rate of customs duty?


title: Action brought on 12 May 1995 by Alfred Hauer against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-119/95)

text:
No C 208/32           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
been successful; shortly afterwards he learned that an                The applicant claims that the Court should :
external candidate had been appointed to that post. He
therefore lodged a complaint against the decision rejecting           — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, inasmuch as it does
his candidature, which formed the subject of a decision                   not provide for any award of compensation in respect of
expressly rejecting it.                                                   the suspended proportion of the reference quantity, and ,
                                                                          in addition, award the applicant damages ,
The applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities,           — order the defendants to pay the costs .
claiming that the decision rejecting his candidature
contained no statement of reasons . Alternatively, he claims          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
that the reasoning set out in the decision rejecting his              In the present proceedings, the applicant is applying for the
complaint is incorrect, since of the two candidates the one           annulment of Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, inasmuch as that
selected was not the one who possessed the qualifications             Regulation provides for the reduction of reference
and abilities necessary for performing the duties of that             quantities, without compensation, in the interests of the
post.                                                                 European milk market; he also claims damages pursuant to
                                                                      Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
Furthermore, the applicant points out that he was the only            EC Treaty for the loss suffered by him as a result of the
internal candidate for the post concerned and that the                application of the aforesaid Regulation .
appointing authority should , consequently, have
interviewed him to ascertain, in the light of his                     By virtue of the 24th Order amending the Milch
qualifications, knowledge , abilities and experience, whether         Garantiemengen-Verordnung ( Milk Guarantee Quantities
he met the conditions required to fill the post. Since such an        Order ), which transposes Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92 into
interview never took place, he considers that his candidature         German law, a partial quantity, constituting 4,74 % of the
was not validly assessed under Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff          previous reference quantity, was 'suspended ' with effect
Regulations and that that procedure was not correctly                 from 1 April 1 992 . By contrast with the situation previously
followed with regard to him .                                         prevailing, compensation is now no longer paid . That
                                                                      legislation has the effect of an expropriation measure and is
The applicant also considers that the decision taken by the           incompatible with the basic right to property .
appointing authority not to fill the post at issue using any of
the procedures in Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations, but      Although the Milch-Garantiemengen-Verordnung, which
to follow the exceptional procedure laid down in                      completes Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92, makes provision for
Article 29 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations instead , infringed the      the suspension of quantities, and thus for their withdrawal,
latter provision and also Article 45 of the Staff                     it contains no rules regarding compensation . The same
Regulations .                                                         applies as regards the contested Regulation ( EC ) No 816/92 .
                                                                      Consequently, those provisions infringe Article 14 ( 3 ) of the
Lastly, the applicant claims that even before declaring the           Grundgesetz ( German Basic Law); thus they also
post vacant, the Commission had decided to appoint a                  contravene, by virtue of the foregoing, the right to property
certain person to it. The defendant had therefore committed           enshrined in the legal order of the European Communities,
an abuse of procedure and a misuse of powers; on the same             which is safeguarded in accordance with the constitutional
account it had failed to comply with Articles 7 and 27 of the         conceptions common to the Member States .
Staff Regulations, in so far as those provisions establish the
principle of the prohibition of discrimination in the general         The reduction of the reference quantity without any
rules of the Community civil service and in particular in the         corresponding indemnification or compensation is illegal,
rules governing recruitment procedure .                               since it contravenes the right to property and the principle of
                                                                      the protection of legitimate expectations, and is therefore
                                                                      null and void . Because the applicant has been unable, since
                                                                      the definitive suspension on 29 June 1992 of 4,74 % of his
                                                                      previous reference quantity, to supply 11 612 kg of milk
                                                                      included within that quantity, despite having purchased
Action brought on 12 May 1995 by Alfred Hauer against                 reference quantities of that volume for supply at the then
the Council of the European Union and the Commission of               price of DM 1,60/kg, he has suffered a corresponding loss
                  the European Communities                            for which he should be compensated .
                        ( Case T-119/95 )
                          ( 95/C 208/67 )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      Action brought on 24 May 1995 by Daniel Chabert against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                                       ( Case T-122/95 )
 before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             95/C 208/68 )
 Communities on 12 May 19 95 by Alfred Hauer, of
Niederweiler ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented                              (Language of the case: French)
 by Matthias H. Francois, Rechtsanwalt, Bitburg, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 An action against the Commission of the European
 Annie k Wurth .                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 24 January 2002 in Case C-118/99: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — 1995 financial year — Arable crops)

text:
C 84/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
      No 3559/91 of 6 December 1991, where it has not informed               amendments to the indicative allocation of Community initiat-
      the undertaking of that requirement within the period prescribed       ives, communicated to the Italian Republic by letter of
      by Article 3(2) of that regulation. Exceeding the time-limit           19 January 1999 from the Secretary-General of the Com-
      may be permissible where the competent national authority,             mission, and of all measures underlying or linked to that
      without negligence on its part, did not know the details of the        decision, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
      undertaking’s sugar production and where that lack of knowl-           President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President of
      edge may reasonably be attributed to the undertaking, because          the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
      it has not acted in good faith and has not complied with all the       R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:
      relevant provisions.                                                   J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 30 January 2002, in which it:
3.    The competent national authority may, without infringing
      Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
      No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common                      1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 16 December 1998
      detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds           approving amendments to the indicative allocation of Com-
      on agricultural products or the general principles of Community              munity initiatives, communicated to the Italian Republic by
      law, refuse to accept retrospectively an export declaration                  letter of 19 January 1999 from the Secretary-General of the
      presented for the purpose of obtaining export refunds and of                 Commission;
      extending the period allowed for supplying proof of export
      where, because the undertaking has applied for and obtained            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      from that authority a C sugar export licence for sugar which it              the costs;
      was impossible to regard as C sugar, the undertaking has
      neither applied for nor obtained the export refunds to which it        3.    Orders Ireland and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
      would have been entitled if the sugar had been exported as A or              Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.
      B sugar.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                           30 January 2002
                                                                                24 January 2002
in Case C-107/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                 in Case C-118/99: French Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Structural funds — Financing of Community initiatives —
               Alteration of indicative allocations)                         (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — 1995 financial year
                                                                                — Arable crops)
                            (2002/C 84/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/03)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-107/99, Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
by I. M. Braguglia), v Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: E. de March, K. Simonsson and H. Speyart)                      In Case C-118/99, French Republic (agents: J.-F. Dobelle,
supported by Ireland (Agent: J. Payne, assisted by D. McGuin-                K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Vasak), Republic of Finland
ness, SC, and E. Kent, solicitor) and by United Kingdom of                   (agent:T. Pynnä) v Commission of the European Communities
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: J. E. Collins, assisted           (agent: P. Oliver): Application for partial annulment of Com-
by D. Wyatt, QC,): Application for the annulment of the                      mission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the
Commission’s decision of 16 December 1998 approving                          clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 84/3
respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section               1.    Dismisses the action;
of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
(OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37), in so far as it concerns the French                 2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Republic, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gul-
mann, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges, Advocate General:               (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
3     .Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                             24 January 2002
                                                                           in Case C-164/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim): Portugaia
                                                                                Construções Lda (1)
                                                                           (Freedom to provide services — Construction undertakings
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum
                                                                                wage)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/05)
                      of 27 November 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-146/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Tomatoes — Minimum
                        price for producers)
                                                                           In Case C-164/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                          (2002/C 84/04)                                   EC by the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim (Germany) for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the infringement proceedings brought
                                                                           before that court against Portugaia Construções Lda, on the
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (now Article 50 EC) and of Directive 96/71/EC of the
                   in the European Court Reports)                          European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
                                                                           concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
                                                                           provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
In Case C-146/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted             D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges,
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities                  Advocate General: J. Mischo, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                 Administrator, has given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in
application for annulment of Commission Decision                           which it has ruled:
1999/186/EC of 3 February 1999 excluding from Community
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States                1.    In assessing whether the application by the host Member State
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                         to service providers established in another Member State of
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 34),                       domestic legislation laying down a minimum wage is compat-
in so far as it disallowed ITL 7 421 939 820 of expenditure                      ible with Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
incurred by the Italian Republic for aid for the processing of                   Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50
tomatoes — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Mack-                      EC), it is for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the
en, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann                            national courts to determine whether, considered objectively,
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                       that legislation provides for the protection of posted workers. In
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                  that regard, although the declared intention of the legislature
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2001, in                      cannot be conclusive, it may nevertheless constitute an indication
which it:                                                                        as to the objective pursued by the legislation.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 June 2000 in Case C-318/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del Friuli, Italy): Criminal proceedings v Giancarlo Fornasar and Others (Waste — Definition of hazardous waste — Directive 91/689/EEC — Decision 94/904/EC — More stringent measures of protection)

text:
C 302/2                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
No 1/80, of 19 September 1980, on the development of the                     before that court against Giancarlo Fornasar, Andrea Strizzolo,
Association, adopted by the Association Council established by               Giancarlo Toso, Lucio Mucchino, Enzo Peressutti and Sante
the Association Agreement between the European Economic                      Chiarcosso, — on the interpretation of Article 1(4) of Council
Community and Turkey — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-                     Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1994, on hazardous
sed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second                   waste (CJ 1991 L 377 p. 20) and Council Decision 94/904/EC
Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kap-               of 22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
teyn, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris, Judges; A. La                  pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 (OJ 1994 L 356,
Pergola, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               p. 14) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schint-
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in                  gen, President of the Second Chamber, acting for the President
which it has ruled:                                                          of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
                                                                             (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate General: G. Cosmos; Registrar:
The first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1180, of 19 Sep-             L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on 22 June
tember 1980, on the development of the Association, adopted by the           2000, in which it has ruled:
Association Council established by the Association Agreement
between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be                   1.    Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
interpreted as covering the situation of a Turkish national who, like              hazardous waste does not prevent the Member States, including,
the applicant in the main proceedings, was authorised in her capacity              for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts, from classifying
as the spouse of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the              as hazardous waste other than that featuring on the list of
labour force of the host Member State to join that worker there, in                hazardous waste laid down by Council Decision 94/904/EC of
circumstances where that spouse, having divorced before the expiry of              22 December 1994 establishing a list of hazardous waste
the three-year qualification period laid down in the first indent of               pursuant to Article 1(4) of Council Directive 91/689, and
that provision, still continued in fact to live uninterruptedly with her           thus from adopting more stringent protective measures in order
former spouse until the date on which the two former spouses                       to prohibit the abandonment, dumping or uncontrolled disposal
remarried. Such a Turkish national must therefore be regarded as                   of such waste. If they do so, it is for the authorities of the
legally resident in that Member State within the meaning of that                   Member State concerned which have competence under national
provision, so that she may rely directly on her right, after three years,          law to notify the Commission of such cases in accordance with
to respond to any offer of employment, and, after five years, to enjoy             the second indent of Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689.
free access to any paid employment of her choice.
                                                                             2.    Article 1(4) of Directive 91/689 and Decision 94/904 must
                                                                                be interpreted as meaning that it is not a necessary precondition
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.                                                          for waste to be classified, in a specific case, as hazardous, that
                                                                                its origin be determined.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 22 June 2000                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-318/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                               (Fifth Chamber)
the Pretura Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di
Cividale del Friuli, Italy): Criminal proceedings v Giancar-                                            of 22 June 2000
                      lo Fornasar and Others (1)
                                                                             in Case C-332/98: French Republic v Commission of the
(Waste — Definition of hazardous waste — Directive                                               European Communities (1)
91/689/EEC — Decision 94/904/EC — More stringent
                        measures of protection)
                                                                             (Aid for the Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre Français
                                                                                (CELF))
                            (2000/C 302/03)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/04)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Case C-318/98: reference to the Court under Article 177                                       in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura
Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del                   In Case C-332/98: French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger
Friuli, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings          and F. Million) v Commission of the European Communities


title: Case T-237/16: Action brought on 17 May 2016 — NI v EDPS

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/43

         Action brought on 17 May 2016 — NI v EDPS
   (Case T-237/16)
   (2016/C 260/54)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: NI (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez-Acebo Dennes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor of 18 March 2016, rejecting the applicant’s request for review of the decision of that Supervisor of 08 December 2015, and order the cessation by the European Ombudsman of the current or future processing of personal data contained in a contract entered with the applicant.

               —

               Order the European Ombudsman to refrain from publishing any personal data of the applicant or data that makes the applicant identifiable. In particular, it should order the European Ombudsman not to make any reference to the position held by the applicant.

               —

               Order the European Ombudsman to process and to comply completely and thoroughly with the right to object to the processing of his personal data in the Own Initiative Inquiry 2/2014 proceedings or any other proceedings that have the same purpose and to which the applicant may be a party.

               —

               Order the European Data Protection Supervisor to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is directed, in substance, against the decision of the defendant not to uphold the applicant’s complaint regarding the refusal to conceal certain personal data relating to the processing, before the European Ombudsman, of two investigations concerning the authorisation given to the applicant to carry out a professional activity in the private sector, after he had finished his duties as a member of the European Commission.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               The activity of the applicant, the procedure followed by the Commission when authorising his activity subsequent to carrying out his duties as a member of the Commission, the first investigation carried out by the European Ombudsman concerning that authorisation, and the reopening of the case investigated by the new European Ombudsman, together with the intention of the latter to publish personal data of the applicant, which make him directly and indirectly identifiable, have not been duly taken into consideration by the defendant in the light of the statutory provisions and case-law applicable to its decisions.

               2.

               The anonymous collection of data does not make it possible to ensure the traceability necessary to determine whether the processing of data by the European Ombudsman is lawful, given that that data has been obtained anonymously and processed unlawfully.

               3.

               According to the applicant, the processing of the data that is the subject of the present proceedings must be regarded as excessive, inappropriate and irrelevant to the purpose for which it was collected, even if this was done anonymously. The contract delivered concerns, solely and exclusively, the relationship between the applicant and a private company, after the applicant had left his post as a member of the Commission, and the subject of that contract is unrelated to his duties in the Commission.

               4.

               There is no new information or facts that justify the processing and publication of the applicant’s personal data, which, moreover, were considered confidential in the first investigation carried out by the previous European Ombudsman. A change in the confidential treatment of the data in question has no legal basis nor have grounds been given for this at any time by the European Ombudsman.

               5.

               The publication of the personal data in the present case does not contribute in any way to a better investigation, given that the European Ombudsman can investigate the authorisation given to the applicant to carry out private employment without using data concerning his private life and, in particular, without publishing that data.


title: Case C-299/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad (Taxation — Directive 2008/7/EC — Articles 5(2) and 6 — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Tax on the conversion of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Isabelle Gielen v Ministerraad
   (Case C-299/13) (1)

   ((Taxation - Directive 2008/7/EC - Articles 5(2) and 6 - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Tax on the conversion of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities))
   (2014/C 439/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Isabelle Gielen

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(2) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as precluding the taxation of the conversion of bearer securities into registered securities or dematerialised securities such as that at issue in the main proceedings. Such a tax cannot be justified under Article 6 of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-415/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 July 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2013 in Case T-19/12 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/16

         Appeal brought on 22 July 2013 by Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 May 2013 in Case T-19/12 Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Impexmetal
   (Case C-415/13 P)
   2013/C 274/28
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik S.A. (represented by: P. Borowski, adwokat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Impexmetal S.A.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court and allow in full the application of 9 January 2012 by annulling the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011;

               —

               should that head of claim not be upheld, set aside the judgment of the General Court in its entirety and refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               order the other parties to the appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the appellant before the Board of Appeal and Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and those incurred in the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court breached Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) by applying it in a factual context to which that provision could not apply.
   According to the appellant, the incorrect application of that provision was attributable to a mistaken finding by the General Court that the appellant’s trade mark was similar to the trade mark of the intervener and that consequently there was a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public. The appellant maintains that the General Court failed to have regard for the following facts:

               —

               goods coming under the designation ‘machines and tool-making machines’, which are covered by the appellant’s mark, and goods coming under the designation ‘bearings’, which are covered by the intervener’s mark, are characterised by the fact that they differ significantly and are certainly not complementary goods;

               —

               the appellant’s mark and that of the intervener differ significantly in visual terms;

               —

               the appellant’s mark contains within it a word element in the form of the noun ‘Kraśnik’, which has a crucial bearing on the differences, in visual, phonetic and conceptual terms, between the opposing marks;

               —

               the appellant’s mark and that of the intervener differ significantly in phonetic terms;

               —

               the appellant’s mark constitutes part of the name of his undertaking, and that name was in use long before the date of the trade-mark application;

               —

               that mark is a historically established sign which distinguishes the appellant;

               —

               the marks in question have for a long time peacefully co-existed on the one market;

               —

               the similarity between the opposing marks does not justify any claim whatsoever that this might be the source of a likelihood of confusion.

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