title: Joined Cases T-383/06 and T-71/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Icuna.Com v Parliament (Actions for annulment — Actions for damages — Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Rejection of a tender — Decision to annul the tendering procedure — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — No need to give a decision)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2008 — Icuna.Com v Parliament
   (Joined Cases T-383/06 and T-71/07) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Actions for damages - Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Rejection of a tender - Decision to annul the tendering procedure - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - No need to give a decision)
   (2008/C 197/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Icuna.Com SCRL (Braine-le-Château, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. De Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caissou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, Agents)
   Re:
   In Case T-383/06, (i) an application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 1 December 2006 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in the framework of lot 2 (programme contents) of the tender procedure EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003 relating to the creation and establishment of the European Parliament web television channel and (ii) an application for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the decision of 1 December 2006 and, in Case T-71/07, (i) an application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 31 January 2007 annulling the tender procedure EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003 relating to the creation and establishment of the European Parliament web television channel, in so far as concerns lot 2 (programme contents), and (ii) an application for damages to compensate for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the decision of 31 January 2007.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-383/06 and T-71/07 shall be joined for the purposes of the order.

               2.

               In Case T-71/07, the objection of inadmissibility shall be considered together with the substance of the case.

               3.

               The action in Case T-71/07 is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               4.

               There is no longer any need to give a decision on the application for annulment in Case T-383/06.

               5.

               The application for damages in Case T-383/06 is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               6.

               In Case T-383/06, the Parliament shall bear its own costs and pay half of the costs of Icuna.Com SCRL, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief. Icuna.Com shall bear half of its own costs.

               7.

               In Case T-71/07, Icuna.Com shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament, including those relating to the proceedings for interim relief and to the objection of inadmissibility.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-196/09: Order of the General Court of 1 March 2010 — TerreStar Europe v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/78

         Order of the General Court of 1 March 2010 — TerreStar Europe v Commission
   (Case T-196/09) (1)

   2010/C 113/115

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Willem Goris against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-151/97)

text:
26 . 7. 97               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/ 19
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Brigitte Bennett                             consideration to the possible application             of
   against the Commission of the European Communities                        Article 31 ( 2) of the Staff Regulations,
                          ( Case T-150/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/44 )                             — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                                                                             decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly
                (Language of the case: French)                               rejecting the applicant's complaint,
An action against the Commission of the European                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Brigitte Bennett, residing in Brussels, represented by
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .                                              Case T- 16/97 (').
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
— annul the Commission's decision of 12 July 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                         Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Maria Conception
                                                                         Martinez-Ezquerra against the Commission of the
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                                      European Communities
     decision adopted on 3 February 1997 expressly                                                 ( Case T-152/97)
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/46 )
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997 by
Case T-16/97 ( M.                                                        Maria Concepcion Marfnez-Ezquerra, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                   address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
                                                                         ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 5 May 1997 by Willem Goris against                     — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
        the Commission of the European Communities                            rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                              consideration to the possible application of
                           ( Case T-151/97)
                                                                              Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                              ( 97/C 228/45 )
                                                                         — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
                 (Language of the case: French)                               decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                                                                              rejecting the applicant's complaint,
 An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
 Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1997
 by Willem Goris, residing at Strassen ( Luxembourg),
 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
 ciaire Myson Sari , 30, Rue de Cessange.
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                          Case T-16/97 ( M.
 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
 — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
      rejecting the applicant's request that it give


title: Case T-472/12: Action brought on 30 October 2012 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

text:
               15.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/8

         Action brought on 30 October 2012 — Novartis Europharm v Commission
   (Case T-472/12)
   2012/C 389/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis Europharm (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2012) 5894 final of 16 August 2012 to grant a marketing authorisation to Teva Pharma BV, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1); and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the data protection rights of Novartis Europharm Ltd. for its product Aclasta pursuant to Articles 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2309/93 (1), read in conjunction with Article 89 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. As Aclasta was granted a separate independent marketing authorisation through the centralised procedure, the Aclasta authorisation does not fall under the same global marketing authorisation as Zometa (another product of Novartis Europharm Ltd), as specified in article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (2) for the purposes of data protection.
   In addition, the contested decision is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC as data protection for the reference medicinal product Aclasta has not expired and hence the conditions for granting a marketing authorisation under this article have not been complied with.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 1)

      (2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-349/01: Betriebsrat der Firma ADS Anker GmbH v ADS Anker GmbH (Social policy — Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 94/45/CE — European Works Council — Information and consultation of workers in Community-scale undertakings — Obligation for central management to provide certain information to employees' representatives)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-349/01: Betriebsrat der Firma ADS Anker GmbH v ADS Anker GmbH (1)

   (Social policy - Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 94/45/CE - European Works Council - Information and consultation of workers in Community-scale undertakings - Obligation for central management to provide certain information to employees' representatives)
   (2004/C 228/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-349/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court) Bielefeld (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Betriebsrat der Firma ADS Anker GmbH and ADS Anker GmbH on the interpretation of Articles 4 and 11 of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ 1994 L 254, p. 64) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 4(1) and Article 11 of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees must be interpreted as meaning that Member States are required to impose on undertakings established within their territory and constituting the central management of a Community-scale group of undertakings for the purposes of Article 2(1)(e) and Article 3(1) of the Directive, or the deemed central management under the second subparagraph of Article 4(2), the obligation to supply to another undertaking in the same group established in another Member State the information requested from it by its employees' representatives, where that information is not in the possession of that other undertaking and it is essential for opening negotiations for the setting up of a European Works Council.

      (1)  OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.


title: Case F-27/14: Action brought on 24 March 2014 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/43

         Action brought on 24 March 2014 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-27/14)
   2014/C 184/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision by which the applicant was removed from his post without reduction of his entitlement to a pension, with effect from 1 February 2014, following disciplinary proceedings taken after the indictment of the applicant by the national authorities for European public procurement fraud, forgery and use of forgery, money laundering and corruption.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 16 January 2014 by which the EEAS removed the applicant from his post, without reduction of his entitlement to a pension;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case C-37/07: Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/8

         Action brought on 1 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-37/07)
   (2007/C 69/18)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2003/109/EC expired on 23 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.


title: Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-Serla OYJ, UPM-Kymmene OYJ (formerly United Paper Mills Ltd), Tamrock OY (formerly Tampella Corporation) and Kyro OYJ ABP (formerly OY Kyro AB) against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94 Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-294/98 P)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/21
directives for their implementation. In the present case,          the European Communities was brought before the Court
when the time limits expired, the Italian Republic had not         of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July 1998
adopted the measures necessary to comply with the                  by Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others, represented by Hans
Directives named in the Commission's application.                  Hellmann, Am Morsdorfer Hof 16, D-50933 Cologne,
                                                                   and Hans-Joachim Hellmann LL.M., Schilling, Zutt &
(1) OJ L 148, 30.6.1995, p. 52.                                    Anschütz, Otto-Beck Straûe 42, D-68165 Mannheim,
(2) OJ L 49, 28.2.1996, p. 29.                                     Rechtsanwälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                   at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe, B.P.
                                                                   1107, L-1011 Luxembourg.
                                                                   The appellants claim that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de               1. declare void, in so far as it concerns the appellants, the
Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 5, Oviedo, by order of              Commission Decision of 13 July 1994 relating to a
that Court of 1 June 1998 in the Case of Entidad de                    proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C
Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales                   33.833 Ð Cartonboard), notified to the appellants on
      (EGEDA) v. Hostelería Asturiana, SA (HOASA)                      8 August 1994 and published in the Official Journal
                       (Case C-293/98)                                 of the European Communities of 19 September 1994;
                         (98/C 299/32)
                                                                   2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Primera Instancia e Instrucción (Court of First Instance)
No 5, Oviedo, of 1 June 1998, which was received at the            Infringement of Community law: there is no legal basis for
Court Registry on 29 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling           an order that the appellants should bear joint and several
in the Case of Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los               liability for the fine imposed on Finnboard. Article 15(2)
Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v. Hostelería                    of Council Regulation No 17 does not impose liability for
Asturiana, SA (HOASA), on the following question.                  infringements of third parties. Neither the Commission
                                                                   nor the Court of First Instance found that the appellants
Must Article 1(2)(a) and (3) of Directive 93/83/EEC (1) be         had themselves infringed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
interpreted as meaning that the reception by a hotel               The Court's view that an undertaking may be held jointly
establishment of satellite or terrestrial television signals       and severally liable for payment of a fine where the
and their retransmission by cable to the various rooms of          Commission finds in the same instrument that the
the hotel is an act of communication to the public' or            infringement could have been established also in the case
reception by the public'?                                         of that undertaking infringes the principle of nulla poena
                                                                   sine lege, or the prohibition which follows by analogy
                                                                   from that principle, and the principle of the presumption
(1) OJ L 248, 6.10.1993, p. 15.                                    of innocence; it is incompatible with the principles of the
                                                                   rule of law and contravenes the appellants' fundamental
                                                                   rights of defence.
                                                                   The Court of First Instance wrongly relies on the case-law
                                                                   of the Court of Justice on the determination of fines in
Appeal brought on 29 July 1998 by Metsä-Serla OYJ,                 regard to undertakings which form an economic unit.
UPM-Kymmene OYJ (formerly United Paper Mills Ltd),                 Joint and several liability cannot be derived from the
Tamrock OY (formerly Tampella Corporation) and Kyro                principles of economic unity. Moreover, the preconditions
OYJ ABP (formerly OY Kyro AB) against the judgment                 for a finding that there was economic unity do not exist.
delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Third Chamber
(extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-339/94,
T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94 Metsä-Serla OYJ and
Others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                      (Case C-294/98 P)                            Action brought on 29 July 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities against the French Republic
                         (98/C 299/33)
                                                                                (Case C-296/98)
                                                                                (98/C 299/34)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
1998 by the Third Chamber (extended composition) of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in             An action against the French Republic was brought before
Joined Cases T-339/94, T-340/94, T-341/94 and T-342/94             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Metsä-Serla OYJ and Others against the Commission of               29 July 1998 by the Commission of the European


title: Case T-384/10: Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2013 — Spain v Commission (Cohesion fund — Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 — Projects concerning water supply to settlements in the Guadiana river basin in the Andévalo area, drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir river basin and water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga — Partial withdrawal of financial assistance — Public works and services contracts — ‘Work’ — Split of the procurement — Determination of the financial corrections — Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation No 1164/94 — Proportionality)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/63

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 May 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-384/10) (1)

   (Cohesion fund - Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Projects concerning water supply to settlements in the Guadiana river basin in the Andévalo area, drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir river basin and water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga - Partial withdrawal of financial assistance - Public works and services contracts - ‘Work’ - Split of the procurement - Determination of the financial corrections - Article H(2) of Annex II of Regulation No 1164/94 - Proportionality)
   2013/C 225/141
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by J. M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, and subsequently by A. Rubio González, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė, D. Kukovec and B. Conte, acting as Agents, assisted initially by J. Rivas Andrés, X. García García, lawyers, and M. Vilarasau Slade, lawyer, and subsequently by Rivas Andrés and X. García García)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4147 of 30 June 2010, reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the following (groups of) projects: ‘Water supply to settlements in the Guadiana basin: Andévalo area’ (2000.ES.16.C.PE.133), ‘Drainage and water treatment in the Guadalquivir basin: Guadaira, Aljarafe and the areas of natural protection of the Guadalquivir’ (2000.16.C.PE.066) and ‘Water supply to multi-municipal systems in the provinces of Granada and Málaga’ (2002.ES.16.C.PE.061).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case F-75/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Wenig v Commission (Public service — Officials — Request for assistance — Damage to reputation and breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/61

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Wenig v Commission
   (Case F-75/09) (1)

   (Public service - Officials - Request for assistance - Damage to reputation and breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence)
   2011/C 30/116
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fritz Harald Wenig (Woluwé-Saint-Pierre, Belgium) (represented initially by: G.-A Dal and D. Voillemot, lawyers, then by G.-A Dal, D. Voillemot, T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   First, an application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 23 September 2008 for assistance from the European Commission and, second, an application for annulment of the European Commission’s rejection decision of 14 November 2008.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Wenig’s action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Wenig to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7/11/2009, p. 85.


title: Case F-106/10: Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Gross and Others v Court of Justice

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/34

         Action brought on 22 October 2010 — Gross and Others v Court of Justice
   (Case F-106/10)
   2011/C 72/55
   Language of the case: French.

      Parties

      Applicants: Ivo Gross (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: J. Kayser, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions set out in the applicants’ salary adjustment slips for the period from July to December 2009 and in the salary slips issued since 1 January 2010 within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decisions adjusting the applicants’ remuneration, as reflected in the retroactive salary adjustment slips 12/2009, issued in 2010, salary slips 1/2010, 2/2010, 3/2010, 4/2010, 5/2010, 6/2010, 7/2010, 8/2010, 9/2010 and all of the salary slips issued subsequently until the date of the final decision bringing the present proceedings to an end, in so far as they unlawfully apply a salary adjustment rate of 1.85 % instead of a rate of 3,7 %;

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.


title: Case C-278/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court of 22 June 2005, in 1) Carol Marilyn Robins 2) John Burnett v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court of 22 June 2005, in 1) Carol Marilyn Robins 2) John Burnett v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-278/05)
   (2005/C 243/09)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, of 22 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1) Carol Marilyn Robins 2) John Burnett and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the following questions:

               (1)

               Is Article 8 of Directive 80/987/EEC (1) to be interpreted as requiring Member States to ensure, by whatever means necessary, that employees' accrued rights under supplementary company or inter company final salary pension schemes are fully funded by Member States in the event that the employees' private employer becomes insolvent and the assets of their schemes are insufficient to fund those benefits?

               (2)

               If the answer to Question (1) is no, are the requirements of Article 8 sufficiently implemented by legislation such as that in force in the United Kingdom as described above?

               (3)

               If the UK legislative provisions fail to comply with Article 8, what test should be applied by the national court in considering whether the consequent infringement of Community law is sufficiently serious to attract liability in damages? In particular, is the mere infringement enough to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach, or must there also have been a manifest and grave disregard by the Member States for the limits on its rule making powers, or is some other test to be applied and if so which?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 23).


title: Case C-266/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — L. Kik v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — National of a Member State, in which he resides, employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of another third State — Person initially employed by an undertaking established in the Netherlands and subsequently by an undertaking established in Switzerland — Work performed, in succession, on the continental shelf adjacent to a third State, in international waters and in the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States — Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 — Determination of the legislation applicable)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — L. Kik v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën
   (Case C-266/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - National of a Member State, in which he resides, employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of another third State - Person initially employed by an undertaking established in the Netherlands and subsequently by an undertaking established in Switzerland - Work performed, in succession, on the continental shelf adjacent to a third State, in international waters and in the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States - Scope ratione personae of Regulation No 1408/71 - Determination of the legislation applicable))
   (2015/C 155/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: L. Kik

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, must be interpreted to the effect that the persons covered by it include an employed person who, like Mr Kik, is a national of a Member State, in which he resides and in which his income is subject to tax, is employed on a pipe-laying vessel flying the flag of a third State and operating in various parts of the world, in particular above the part of the continental shelf adjacent to certain Member States, was previously employed by an undertaking established in his Member State of residence, changes employer and thereafter is employed by an undertaking established in Switzerland, whilst continuing to reside in the same Member State and to sail on the same vessel.

               2.

               The provisions determining the national legislation applicable, which are contained in Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, must be interpreted as meaning that a national of a Member State, or of the Swiss Confederation (a State treated as a Member State for the purposes of applying the regulation), who is employed on board a vessel flying the flag of a third State and carries out his activities outside the territory of the European Union — including above the continental shelf of a Member State — but who is employed by an undertaking established in the Swiss Confederation, is subject to the legislation of the State in which his employer is established. However, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, if, pursuant to Regulation No 1408/71, that legislation entails him being insured under a voluntary insurance scheme or not being insured under any social security scheme, that national will be subject to the legislation of his Member State of residence.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-349/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre délégué, chargé du budget v Marlène Pazdziej (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union — Article 12, second paragraph — Tax levied for the benefit of local authorities on persons having the use of or having at their disposal residential premises in their area — Upper limit — Social policy measure — Taking into account salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the European Union to its officials and other servants)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Ministre délégué, chargé du budget v Marlène Pazdziej
   (Case C-349/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union - Article 12, second paragraph - Tax levied for the benefit of local authorities on persons having the use of or having at their disposal residential premises in their area - Upper limit - Social policy measure - Taking into account salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the European Union to its officials and other servants))
   (2015/C 236/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministre délégué, chargé du budget

      Defendant: Marlène Pazdziej

      Operative part of the judgment

   The second paragraph of Article 12 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which takes into consideration salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Union to its officials and other servants in order to determine the upper limit on liability with respect to a residence tax levied for the benefit of local communities, with a view to the possible granting of relief from it.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case C-181/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2016 — Sadikou Gnandi v État belge

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 31 March 2016 — Sadikou Gnandi v État belge
   (Case C-181/16)
   (2016/C 191/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sadikou Gnandi

      Respondent: État belge

      Question referred

   Must Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, (1) which requires Member States to respect the principle of non-refoulement when they are implementing that directive, and the right to an effective remedy provided for under Article 13(1) of that directive and under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as precluding the adoption of a return decision, as provided for under Article 6 of the aforementioned Directive 2008/115/EC and under Article 52/3(1) of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to the national territory, settlement, residence and removal of foreign nationals and Article 75(2) of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on entry to the national territory, residence, settlement and removal of foreign nationals, after the rejection of the asylum application by the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and therefore before the legal remedies available against that rejection decision can be exhausted and before the asylum procedure can be definitively concluded?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-173/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 9 April 2013 — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon (France) lodged on 9 April 2013 — Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone v Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locales
   (Case C-173/13)
   2013/C 171/40
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Lyon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maurice Leone, Blandine Leone

      Defendants: Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice, Caisse nationale de retraite des agents des collectivités locale

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article L. 24 and Article R. 37, read in conjunction, of the Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code, as amended by the Finance (Amendment) Law No 2004-1485 of 30 December 2004 and by Decree No 2005-449 of 10 May 2005, indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?

               2.

               Does Article 15 of Decree 2003-1306 of 26 December 2003 on the retirement scheme for civil servants affiliated to the Caisse nationale de retraites des agents des collectivités locales indirectly discriminate between men and women, within the meaning of Article 157 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union?

               3.

               In the event that one of the first two questions is answered in the affirmative, can such indirect discrimination be justified on the basis of Article 157(4) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?


title: Case T-108/08: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Kleinakis kai SIA (GOOD LIFE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GOOD LIFE — Earlier national word mark GOOD LIFE — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Duty of diligence — Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2011 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Kleinakis kai SIA (GOOD LIFE)
   (Case T-108/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOOD LIFE - Earlier national word mark GOOD LIFE - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Duty of diligence - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 269/100
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Pethke and J. Laporta Insa, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: K. Siotou, lawyer)

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 November 2007 (Case R 298/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE and Zino Davidoff SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 November 2007 (Case R 298/2007-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Zino Davidoff SA;

               3.

               Orders I. Kleinakis kai SIA OE to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 January 2005 in Case C-325/03 P: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility because out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/11

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 18 January 2005
   in Case C-325/03 P: José Luis Zuazaga Meabe v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility because out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2005/C 106/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-325/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged at the Court on 21 July 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, residing in Bilbao (Spain), (lawyers: J.A. Calderón Chavero and N. Moya Fernández), the other parties to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto and I. de Medrano Caballero) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 18 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Zuazaga Meabe shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA.

               3.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 04.10.2003.


title: Case C-95/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel) v FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU — Measures having equivalent effect — Directive 94/11/EC — Articles 3 and 5 — Exhaustive harmonisation — Bar on impeding the placing on the market of footwear which complies with the labelling requirements of Directive 94/11 — National legislation requiring the country of origin to be shown on the labelling of products manufactured abroad which use the Italian term ‘pelle’ — Products in free circulation)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy)) — Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel) v FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl
   (Case C-95/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Articles 34, 35 and 36 TFEU - Measures having equivalent effect - Directive 94/11/EC - Articles 3 and 5 - Exhaustive harmonisation - Bar on impeding the placing on the market of footwear which complies with the labelling requirements of Directive 94/11 - National legislation requiring the country of origin to be shown on the labelling of products manufactured abroad which use the Italian term ‘pelle’ - Products in free circulation))
   (2015/C 302/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel)

      Defendants: FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 94/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 March 1994 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to labelling of the materials used in the main components of footwear for sale to the consumer must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, prohibiting, inter alia, the marketing of leather components of footwear coming from other Member States, or coming from non-member countries and already marketed in another Member State or in the Member State concerned, when those products do not bear a label indicating their country of origin.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case C-165/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig (Taxation — Directive 92/12/EEC — Articles 7, 8 and 9 — General arrangements for products subject to excise duty — Products released for consumption in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State — Whether excise duty is chargeable to a person holding those products who has acquired them in the Member State of destination — Acquisition at the end of the entry process)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Stanislav Gross v Hauptzollamt Braunschweig
   (Case C-165/13) (1)

   ((Taxation - Directive 92/12/EEC - Articles 7, 8 and 9 - General arrangements for products subject to excise duty - Products released for consumption in one Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State - Whether excise duty is chargeable to a person holding those products who has acquired them in the Member State of destination - Acquisition at the end of the entry process))
   2014/C 292/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stanislav Gross

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Braunschweig

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 9(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, read in conjunction with Article 7 of that directive, must be interpreted as allowing a Member State to designate as liable to excise duty a person who holds for commercial purposes, on the fiscal territory of that State, products subject to excise duty that have been released for consumption in another Member State, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, even though that person was not the first holder of those products in the Member State of destination.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-170/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Internal taxation — Requirement for imported second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directive 96/96/EC — Recognition of roadworthiness tests carried out in other Member States)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-170/07) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Internal taxation - Requirement for imported second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Directive 96/96/EC - Recognition of roadworthiness tests carried out in other Member States)
   (2008/C 183/06)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: E. Osniecka-Tamecka, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 28 EC — National legislation requiring imported second-hand vehicles to undergo a roadworthiness test prior to their registration, whereas domestic vehicles with the same characteristics are not subject to such a requirement
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by subjecting imported second-hand vehicles registered in other Member States to a roadworthiness test prior to their registration in Poland, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-96/02: Action brought on 29 March 2002 by Hugh McBryan against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/23
Action brought on 28 March 2002 by Confédération                         In the alternative, the applicant claims that, assuming that aid
Nationale du Crédit Mutuel against Commission of the                     was granted, it cannot be deemed to be existing aid pursuant
                    European Communities                                 to Article 15(3) of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)
                          (Case T-93/02)
                                                                         Pursuant to Article 15 of that regulation, the Commission
                                                                         has been barred from recovering aid since 1985 and the
                         (2002/C 131/43)                                 Commission has infringed the general principle of Community
                                                                         law which requires it to adopt a decision within a reasonable
                                                                         period. Moreover, the contested decision does not contain any
                   (Language of the case: French)                        evidence that the aid was in existence when the Livret Bleu
                                                                         was set up, which is a logical and legal condition which must
                                                                         be met if aid is to be described as new.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed
European Communities on 28 March 2002 by Confédération                   Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999, Article 253 of the EC
Nationale du Crédit Mutuel, established in Paris, represented            Treaty and the principle of sound administration, impartiality
by Alexandre Carnelutti, lawyer.                                         and fairness.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
                                                                             down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
—     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of                Treaty (OJ L 83, 1999, p. 1).
      15 January 2002 declaring incompatible with the com-
      mon market state aid implemented by the French Repub-
      lic in favour of Crédit Mutuel;
—     in the alternative, annul Article 2 thereof in so far as it
      orders recovery of the aid identified;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Action brought on 29 March 2002 by Hugh McBryan
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
The Livret Bleu is a tax-free savings product intended for the                                     (Case T-96/02)
general public the tax advantage of which directly benefits
the consumer. The applicant was entrusted by the French
authorities in 1975 with the exclusive distribution of that                                       (2002/C 131/44)
savings book. In the contested decision, the Commission found
that the applicant benefited from an overcompensation by the
French State for the running costs of the Livret Bleu, which is
incompatible with the State aid rules of the EC Treaty.                                      (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Commission infringed
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty in finding that there was aid.
The Commission applied an unreasonable global method
which is unjustified in the present case and it wrongly identified       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
funding as State resources. Furthermore, it committed manifest           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
errors of assessment by refusing to take into consideration              European Communities on 29 March 2002 by Hugh McBryan,
the costs incurred, which were properly identified, and by               residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, lawyer,
endorsing the view taken by the Commission’s consultant.                 with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 131/24              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     annul the Commission’s decision establishing the calcu-
      lation of the pension rights acquired by the applicant
      prior to his entry into service and transferred to the            Pleas in law and main arguments
      Community pension scheme pursuant to Article 11(2) of
      Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                        In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                        Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        equal treatment and career progression. According to the
                                                                        applicant, his merits were not taken fully into consideration in
                                                                        the context of the 2001 promotions procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claim, the applicant pleads non-compliance
with the obligation to provide a statement of reasons and
infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff
Regulations and of the general provisions for the implemen-             Action brought on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A. against
tation thereof, as well as breach of the principle of equal                      Commission of the European Communities
treatment. According to the applicant, the calculation should
have been carried out on the basis of his situation at the time                                 (Case T-109/02)
of entering the service of the Communities as a member of the
temporary staff, and not on the basis of his situation at the
time of his being appointed as an established official, some                                    (2002/C 131/46)
nine years later.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 11 April 2002 by Bolloré S.A.,
                                                                        established in Puteaux (France), represented by Robert Saint-
Action brought on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos Mavridis                    Esteben and Hugues Calvet, lawyers, with an address for service
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    in Luxembourg.
                         (Case T-97/02)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2002/C 131/45)                                 —     Annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Commission decision of
                                                                              20 December 2001, reference COMP/E-1/36212 —
                                                                              Carbonless paper, relating to a proceeding pursuant to
                  (Language of the case: French)                              Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
                                                                              Agreement, in so far as they refer to Bolloré;
                                                                        —     In the alternative, reduce very substantially the amount
                                                                              of the fine imposed on Bolloré by Article 3 of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     decision;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 April 2002 by Prodromos
                                                                        —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Mavridis, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the                The applicant contests the Commission’s decision finding that
      applicant to grade A 5 in the context of the 2001                 it took part in an agreement contrary to Article 81(1) of the
      promotions procedure;                                             EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement.


title: Case T-393/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KENZO — Earlier Community word mark KENZO — Relative ground for refusal — Reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Late submission of documents — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)
   (Case T-393/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KENZO - Earlier Community word mark KENZO - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Late submission of documents - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 081/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kenzo (Paris, France) (represented by P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2012 (Case R 1659/2011-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Kenzo and Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Kenzo Tsujimoto to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-298/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Borta’ UAB v Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija VĮ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Contract not reaching the threshold laid down by that directive — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Limit on reliance on subcontracting — Submission of a common tender — Professional capacities of the tenderers — Changes to the tender specifications)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Borta’ UAB v Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija VĮ
   (Case C-298/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Contract not reaching the threshold laid down by that directive - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Limit on reliance on subcontracting - Submission of a common tender - Professional capacities of the tenderers - Changes to the tender specifications))
   (2017/C 168/06)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Borta’ UAB

      Defendant: Klaipėdos valstybinio jūrų uosto direkcija VĮ

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               As regards a public contract which is not covered by the scope of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1336/2013 of 13 December 2013, but which has a certain cross-border interest, Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 24(5) of the Lietuvos Respublikos viešųjų pirkimų įstatymas (Law on public procurement), which provides that, where subcontractors are relied on for the performance of a public works contract, the tenderer is required to perform itself the main works, as defined by the contracting entity.

               2.

               As regards such a public contract, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and the obligation of transparency which derive from Articles 49 and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude the contracting entity from making changes to a clause in the tender specifications, after publication of the tender notice, relating to the conditions and scheme for combining professional capacities, such as Clause 4.3 at issue in the main proceedings, provided, first, that the changes made are not so substantial that they have attracted potential tenderers which, in the absence of such changes, would not be in a position to submit a tender, second, they are adequately publicised and, third, they are made before the tenderers submit their bids, that the time limit for submitting those tenders is extended when the changes concerned are substantial, the length of that extension depending on the extent of those changes, and that the length of time is sufficient to allow the economic operators concerned to adapt their tender as a consequence, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

               3.

               Article 54(6) of Directive 2004/17, as amended by Regulation No 1336/2013, must be interpreted as precluding a clause in tender specifications, such as Clause 4.3 at issue in the main proceedings, which, in a case where a common tender is submitted by several tenderers, requires that the contribution of each of them in order to satisfy the requirements applicable with regard to professional capacities correspond, proportionally, to the share of the works that it will actually perform if that bid is successful.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-446/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 9 October 2008 — Société Solgar Vitamin's France, Valorimer SARL, Christian Fenioux, L'Arbre de Vie SARL, Société Source Claire, Nord Plantes EURL, Société RCS Distribution, Société Ponroy Santé — Intervener: Syndicat de la Diététique et des Compléments Alimentaires v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Emploi, Ministre de la Santé, de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 9 October 2008 — Société Solgar Vitamin's France, Valorimer SARL, Christian Fenioux, L'Arbre de Vie SARL, Société Source Claire, Nord Plantes EURL, Société RCS Distribution, Société Ponroy Santé — Intervener: Syndicat de la Diététique et des Compléments Alimentaires v Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Emploi, Ministre de la Santé, de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche
   (Case C-446/08)
   (2008/C 327/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Société Solgar Vitamin's France, Valorimer SARL, Christian Fenioux, L'Arbre de Vie SARL, Société Source Claire, Nord Plantes EURL, Société RCS Distribution, Société Ponroy Santé

      Defendants: Ministre de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Emploi, Ministre de la Santé, de la Jeunesse et des Sports, Ministre de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche
   Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Directive 2002/46/EC of 10 June 2002 (1), and in particular Articles 5(4) and 11(2) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, although in principle it is for the Commission to determine the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals present in food supplements, the Member States remain competent to adopt legislation in this field so long as the Commission has not adopted the necessary Community measure?

               (2)

               If that question is answered in the affirmative:

                           (a)

                           If the Member States are required, in order to set those maximum amounts, to comply with the provisions of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, must they also be guided by the criteria laid down in Article 5 of Directive 2002/46/EC, including the requirement for a risk assessment based on generally accepted scientific data, in an area in which there is still relative uncertainty?

                           (b)

                           May a Member State set maximum levels when it is impossible, as in the case of fluoride, to calculate precisely the intake of vitamins and minerals from other dietary sources, mains water in particular, for each consumer group and on a territory-by-territory basis? May it in that case set a zero level where risks are known to exist, without resorting to the safety procedure provided for in Article 12 of Directive 2002/46/EC?

                           (c)

                           When setting maximum levels, if it is possible to take into account differences in the degrees of sensitivity of different consumer groups, as provided for in Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 2002/46/EC, can a Member State also take into account the fact that a measure addressed solely to sections of the population who are particularly exposed to risk, appropriate labelling for example, might dissuade that group from using a nutrient that would be beneficial to it in small amounts? Might taking into account that difference in sensitivity result in the application to the entire population of the maximum level appropriate for sensitive sections of the population, in particular children?

                           (d)

                           To what extent may maximum levels be set in the case where no safe limits have been laid down because there is no established danger to health? More generally, to what extent and in what circumstances might the weighting of criteria to be taken into account lead to the setting of maximum levels that are significantly lower than the safe limits accepted for those nutrients?

      (1)  Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p. 51).


title: Case C-254/10 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2010 by Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 18 March 2010 in Case T-94/08 Centre de Coordination Carrefour v Commission

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/16

         Appeal brought on 21 May 2010 by Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 18 March 2010 in Case T-94/08 Centre de Coordination Carrefour v Commission
   (Case C-254/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 246/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC (represented by: X. Clarebout, C. Docclo and M. Pittie, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the appeal is admissible and well-founded,

               —

               consequently, set aside the judgment under appeal,

               —

               consequently:

                           —

                           either refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

                           —

                           or give final judgment by granting the form of order sought by Centre de Coordination Carrefour SNC at first instance and annulling the contested decision; (1)

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward five pleas in law in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court breached its obligation to state reasons in finding, first, that the appellant had no legal interest in bringing proceedings against the contested decision due to the lack of a valid authorisation under Belgian law and, second, that the admissibility of the action did not depend on its having valid authorisation. Such a statement of reasons is contradictory, since the General Court was not entitled to find at the same time that the appellant had no interest in bringing proceedings due to the lack of valid authorisation and that such authorisation was not material in assessing whether the action was admissible.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court distorted the facts submitted to it, by misconstruing the broad logic of the Belgian legislation on coordination centres, misinterpreting Royal Decree No 187 of 30 December 1982 concerning the establishment of coordination centres, (2) distorting its scope, and failing to apply the hierarchy of sources of Belgian law. The royal decree at issue is a special powers decree which, under Belgian law, has the same legal force as a law and is still applicable to the appellant, which therefore benefits from an authorisation for a period of 10 years.
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the General Court disregarded the principle of res judicata attaching to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03 Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission [2006] ECR I-5479, in so far as the General Court held that if it annulled the contested decision, the effect would be to prohibit renewal of the authorisations of the coordination centres as from the date of notification of the contested decision. However, the judgment of the Court of Justice annulled the contested decision in that case precisely because of the lack of adequate transitional periods for the coordination centres whose applications for renewal of authorisation were pending on the date of notification of the contested decision or whose authorisations expired on that date or shortly thereafter.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court misconstrued the notion of ‘interest in bringing proceedings’, in that it held that the action brought by the appellant was not likely, if successful, to procure an advantage for it, on the ground that it is not certain that the Belgian authorities would maintain the status of the appellant’s coordination centre beyond 31 December 2005 if the contested decision were annulled. First, the Belgian authorities did not have any discretion in the present case, since the authorisation had to be granted for 10 years if the criteria laid down by Royal Decree No 187 were satisfied. Second, the General Court itself observed, in the judgment under appeal, that the Belgian authorities had not ruled out allowing the appellant to benefit from the scheme at issue after 31 December 2005 and had decided not to apply any penalty to it as long as no definitive ruling has been given on its action.
   By its fifth and final ground of appeal, the appellant submits, lastly, that the General Court erred in law by finding that a transitional measure may not take effect retroactively. It is not unusual for a transitional period to start to run from an earlier point, in particular in tax matters.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 amending Decision 2003/757/EC on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium (OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7).

      (2)  Moniteur belge, 13 January 1983, p. 502.


title: Case C-172/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma, Italy) — Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio (Environment — Directive 1999/31/EC — Article 10 — Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills — Operator of a landfill subject to that levy — Operating costs of a landfill — Directive 2000/35/EC — Default interest)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/2

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 February 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma, Italy) — Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio
   (Case C-172/08) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 1999/31/EC - Article 10 - Special levy on the disposal of solid waste in landfills - Operator of a landfill subject to that levy - Operating costs of a landfill - Directive 2000/35/EC - Default interest)
   2010/C 100/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pontina Ambiente Srl

      Defendant: Regione Lazio

      Re:

   Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1), Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) and Articles 12 EC, 14 EC, 43 EC and 46 EC — National legislation imposing a special tax on the disposal of solid waste in landfills and obliging the operator of the waste disposal site to make advance payment of that tax, which is determined according to the amount of waste disposed of and for which the person responsible for the disposal is liable

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 10 of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the operator of a landfill site subject to a levy to be reimbursed by the local authority depositing the waste and which provides for financial penalties to be imposed on that operator for late payment of the levy, on condition that those rules are accompanied by measures to ensure that the levy is actually reimbursed within a short time and that all the costs of recovery, and in particular, the costs resulting from late payment of amounts which that authority owes to the site operator on that account, including costs incurred in order to avoid any financial penalty which might be imposed on the site operator, are passed on in the price to be paid by the authority to that operator. It is for the national court to ascertain whether those conditions have been satisfied;

               2.

               Articles 1, 2(1) and 3 of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions must be interpreted as meaning the sums owed to the operator of a landfill site by a local authority depositing waste in the landfill, such as the sums due by way of reimbursement of a levy, come within the scope of that Directive and that the Member States must ensure, in accordance with Article 3 thereof, that, in the case of late payment, the landfill operator may charge the local authority interest on those sums for which the local authority is liable.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case T-508/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA — Earlier unregistered figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA — Relative ground for refusal — Absence of rights to the earlier sign having been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State before the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Use of the earlier mark as a label — Common-law action for passing off — Lack of goodwill)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA)
   (Case T-508/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA - Earlier unregistered figurative mark HALAL MALAYSIA - Relative ground for refusal - Absence of rights to the earlier sign having been acquired in accordance with the law of the Member State before the date of application for registration of the Community trade mark - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Use of the earlier mark as a label - Common-law action for passing off - Lack of goodwill))
   (2016/C 007/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Government of Malaysia (represented by: initially R. Volterra, Solicitor, R. Miller, Barrister, V. von Bomhard and T. Heitmann, lawyers, then R. Volterra, R. Miller and V. von Bomhard)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock and N. Bambara, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Paola Vergamini (Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 June 2013 (Case R 326/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between the Government of Malaysia and Ms Paola Vergamini.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Government of Malaysia to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case C-226/09: Action brought on 19 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/18

         Action brought on 19 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-226/09)
   2009/C 220/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, A.-A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by attributing weightings to the award criteria following the closing date for the submission of the bids and by modifying them subsequent to an initial review of the submitted bids, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the principles of equal treatment and transparency as interpreted by the European court of Justice.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the case of the award procedure in question the contracting authority produced a tender document where it was reasonably assumed that the award criteria would be applied in descending order of importance. Following the closing date for the submission of the bids it then decided to attribute relative weightings to the award criteria. Subsequent to an initial review of the submitted bids the evaluation team of the contracting authority discussed the possibility of varying these weightings and eventually modified them.
   The relative weightings given to the award criteria after submission of the bids and the initial review modified the emphasis among the award criteria and attributed a materially different relative importance to that which a tenderer would have reasonably understood from the contract documents.
   The award procedure in question being for the provision of services which are not enumerated in Annex II A to directive 2004/18/EC (1), the detailed procedural rules of that directive are not applicable. Accordingly, article 40 of the directive, pursuant to which contracting authorities have to specify in the invitation to tender, at the latest, the relative weightings of the award criteria, or the descending order of their importance, was also not applicable. Nevertheless, on the basis of the case law of the European Court of Justice, the contracting authority is bound to comply with the fundamental principles of the Treaty, including the principles of equal treatment and transparency.
   The Commission submits that by modifying the award criteria during the award procedure the contracting authority, which was under the obligation to respect the fundamental rules and principles of the EC Treaty, infringed the principles of equal treatment and transparency as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts
   OJ L 134, p. 114