C 134/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.5.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Admin-                     Removal from the register of Case C-103/99 (1)
istrative d’Appel de Lyon (Second Chamber), France, by
judgment of that court of 13 March 2001 in the case of
Ministre de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v                                   (2001/C 134/22)
                           GEMO SA
                                                                     By order of 7 November 2000 the President of the Court of
                        (Case C-126/01)                              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-103/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 134/19)                               ruling from Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): P. Moskof
                                                                     AE v Idryma Koinonikon Asfaliseon.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Adminis-
trative d’Appel de Lyon (Administrative Court of Appeal,             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
Lyons) (Second Chamber) of 13 March 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de l’Économie, des
Finances et de l’Industrie v GEMO SA on the following
question:
‘Does the charge on meat purchases provided for under
Article 302 bis ZD of the Code Général des Impôts form part
of an arrangement which may be regarded as aid within the
meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957                        Removal from the register of Case C-84/99 (1)
establishing the European Community (now, after amendment,
Article 87 EC)?’                                                                            (2001/C 134/23)
                                                                     By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-84/99: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Amsterdamsche
                                                                     Football Club ‘AJAX’ and Langenberg Participaties BV, also
       Removal from the register of Case C-91/00 (1)                 trading under the name ‘Fan Promotions’ v S.C. Reule and
                                                                     Others.
                       (2001/C 134/20)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                     (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-91/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-163/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-90/00 (1)                                        (2001/C 134/24)
                       (2001/C 134/21)                               By order of 13 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of             from the register of Case C-163/00: Commission of the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal          European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
from the register of Case C-90/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case C-634/11: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd, formerly Anglo Irish Bank Corp. Ltd v Sean Quinn and Others

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 1 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland — Ireland) — Irish Bank Resolution Corp. Ltd, formerly Anglo Irish Bank Corp. Ltd v Sean Quinn and Others
   (Case C-634/11) (1)

   2013/C 129/21
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case T-200/99: Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Alberto Martinelli against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.11.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 333/31
Action brought on 8 September 1999 by Sgaravatti Medit-                    under Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88. Never-
erranea S.r.l. against the Commission of the European                      theless, the Commission does not have the power to withdraw
                            Communities                                    the contribution on merely being notified that there have been
                                                                           infringements — it must first examine any evidence brought
                          (Case T-199/99)                                  to light. In the present case, however, there is no mention
                                                                           whatsoever in the reasons for the contested decision of any
                                                                           independent examination of the information gleaned from the
                          (1999/C 333/70)                                  Guardia di Finanza report, in view also of the documents
                                                                           submitted by the applicant.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Finally, the applicant also claims that the principle that
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  legitimate expectations should be protected was breached and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 that the statement of reasons was inadequate.
European Communities on 8 September 1999 by Sgaravatti
Mediterranea S.r.l., represented by Massimo Merola and Piero
A.M. Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert
1er.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Alberto Marti-
— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 1502 of 4 June                        nelli against the Commission of the European Communi-
     1999, or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the                                              ties
     subsidy to be repaid to the Commission to as low an
     amount as the Court may deem appropriate;
                                                                                (Case T-200/99)
— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/71)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company in the present case contests Com-                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
mission Decision C (1999) 1502 of 4 June 1999 withdrawing
the financial contribution granted by way of Commission                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Decision No C(92) 2435 of 12 October 1992, on the granting                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
of EAGGF (Guidance Section) contribution within the meaning                European Communities on 9 September 1999 by Alberto
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88, in the context of                  Martinelli, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza
Project No 92.IT.06.015 entitled ‘Pilot project on techniques              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for returning areas to their natural state and nature-sensitive            Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
engineering in Mediterranean areas (Sardinia, Italy)’.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that the
following were infringed:
                                                                           — declare that the failure to draw up the applicant’s reports
— its right to a fair hearing, inasmuch as the defendant did                   for the periods 1993-1995 and 1995-1997 constitutes a
     not allow the applicant to submit its own comments on                     breach of administrative duty on the grounds set out in
     the evidence proving, in its view, that it had failed to fulfil           the application;
     its obligations under the decision to grant the contribution;
     and                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the official EUR 20 000 by
                                                                               way of making good the non-material damage suffered by
— the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains                    him as specified in the pre-litigation procedure;
     in this respect that it is clear from the applicable legislation
     that withdrawal of the contribution is justified only where           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
     a breach is of such seriousness that completion of the
     project is jeopardised or involves substantial changes
     regarding the nature itself of the project. However, in the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     present case, the irregularities concern essentially the costs
     relating to the staff employed in the relevant work. In any
     event, according to the applicant, the irregularities are of a        The official, a former official in the scientific and technical
     merely formal nature from which it may not be inferred                services of the Commission, has lodged a complaint in respect
     that fraud was intended.                                              of the failure to draw up and communicate reports for the
                                                                           periods 1993-1995 and 1995-1997.
The applicant states, inter alia, that the defendant has based
the contested decision to withdraw the subsidy mainly on the               In support of his arguments the applicant alleges infringement
finding by the Guardia di Finanza of evidence which ‘could                 of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of its implementing
amount to irregularities’, and withdrawn the contribution                  provisions.
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/32              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
So far as concerns specifically the report for 1995-1997, the            — breach of the principle of non-discrimination between
applicant is aware of the fact that the abovementioned                       officials, inasmuch as the appointing authority refuses to
implementing provisions provide that it is not mandatory to                  allow any travelling time linked to leave for trade union
draw up such a report where the official reaches retirement                  purposes, whereas officials who are granted special leave
age before expiry of the time-limit for the report to be                     other than leave for trade union purposes may, depending
communicated. He claims, however, that there are serious                     on the need therefor, be allowed travelling time by special
doubts as to their compatibility with the Staff Regulations on               decision;
which they are based.
                                                                         — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                             expectations, inasmuch as the appointing authority is
                                                                             required in any event to respect the legitimate expectations
                                                                             of applicants in its decision-making practices prior to the
                                                                             grant of travelling time linked to leave for trade union
                                                                             purposes, and should have adopted the appropriate tem-
                                                                             porary measures as regards the Congress in question,
Action brought on 13 September 1999 by Patrizia De                           assuming that it was entitled to refuse to grant the
Palma, Jacqueline Escale, Claudine Hamptaux and Harry                        travelling time in issue.
Wood against the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                         The applicants also maintain that the obligation to provide a
                                                                         statement of the reasons for those acts has been disregarded in
                        (Case T-203/99)                                  the present case.
                        (1999/C 333/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           Action brought on 23 September 1999 by Olli Mattila
Communities on 13 September 1999 by Patrizia De Palma,                   against the Council of the European Union and the
Jacqueline Escale, Claudine Hamptaux and Harry Wood,                              Commission of the European Communities
residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos Mourato, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the office of                                       (Case T-204/99)
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                (1999/C 333/73)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the express decisions made on 11 June 1999                                          (Language of the case: English)
    rejecting the complaints lodged by the applicants with the
    appointing authority on 8, 14, 18 and 10 December 1998
    respectively, by which they contested the appointing                 An action against the Council of the European Union and the
    authority’s decision of 23 September 1998 not to accede              Commission of the European Communities was brought
    to the request for leave for trade union purposes or                 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    travelling time in order to enable the applicants to attend          on 23 September 1999 by Olli Mattila, represented by Pro-
    the 13th UIECS Congress;                                             fessor Zacharias Sundström, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 28-10
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the letters of 14 July 1999 and 5 July 1999, in so
By their action, the applicants contest the refusal by the                   far as they contain or communicate any decision or act of
appointing authority to accede to the request for leave for                  the Council and the Commission in response to the
trade union purposes or travelling time for the dates of 25                  applicant’s request under Article 230;
and 28 September 1998 in order to enable trade union
representatives of the UIECS, including the applicants, to               — to order, in any event, the Council and the Commission
attend the 13th Congress of that trade union, held in Italy.                 jointly to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the
                                                                             present proceedings.
In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
— infringement of Article 24a and the second paragraph of                Pleas in law and main arguments
    Article 57 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 6 and 7 of
    Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 16 of the               The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
    framework agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning                  defendant institutions to grant it access to specific documents
    relations between the Commission and trade unions and                relating to EU cooperation with Russia and other States of the
    staff associations;                                                  former Soviet Union.


title: Case T-593/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Al-Chihabi v Council

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/62

      Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Al-Chihabi v Council
      (Case T-593/11)
      (2012/C 25/119)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Fares Al-Chihabi (Aleppo, Syria) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and W. Berg, lawyers)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 (2), as well as Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 (3) and Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 (4), and any later legislation to the extent they perpetuate and/or replace the restrictive measures, in so far as they relate to the applicant; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to good administration, in particular the obligation to state reasons, provided for in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 216 TFEU and Article 14 (2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 (5).

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, and the right to effective judicial review of those rights.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights in an unjustified and disproportionate manner, in particular the right to property, the right to respect for one’s good name and reputation, the right to engage in work and conduct a business, and the right to benefit from a presumption of innocence.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s right to privacy, in that the measures freezing funds and restricting the freedom of movement also constitute a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s fundamental right to privacy as well as an infringement of the general principle of proportionality.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 1011/2011 of 13 October 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 18).

         (3)  Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16).

         (4)  Council Decision 2011/684/CFSP of 13 October 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 269, p. 33).

         (5)  Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 of 9 May 2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 121, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 June 1998 in Case T-185/97: Philippe Godts v Commission of the European Communities (Member of the temporary staff - Contract for a limited period - Possibility of its being extended - Actual extension - Action for annulment - Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
15.8.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/35
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           of the European Communities (Agents: during the written
                        of 25 June 1998                             procedure, Fernando Castillo de la Torre and, in the oral
                                                                    procedure, Gianluigi Valsesia and Eric Gippini Fournier)
in Case T-185/97: Philippe Godts v Commission of the                Ð application, first, for the annulment of the
                  European Communities (1)                          Commission's decisions of 23 September 1996 not to
(Member of the temporary staff Ð Contract for a limited             increase the amount transferred to the applicant's building
period Ð Possibility of its being extended Ð Actual                 loan savings account and of 28 April 1997 rejecting his
extension Ð Action for annulment Ð Manifest                         complaint, second, for a declaration that the applicant is
                        inadmissibility)                            entitled to the transfer of DKR 20 000 and, third, for
                                                                    compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                         (98/C 258/61)                              Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
                                                                    A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
                (Language of the case: French)                      the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 July 1998, in which it:
In Case T-185/97: Philippe Godts, a member of the                   1. Dismisses the application;
temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence                (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 1 August 1996 expressly
rejecting the applicant's request for an extension of his
contract as a member of the temporary staff, alternatively
for annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 March
1997 expressly rejecting his complaint Ð the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                                   of 16 June 1998
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                        in Case T-238/97: Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1. The application is dismissed;                                    (State aid Ð Shipbuilding Ð Regulation laying down
                                                                    exceptions Ð Shipyards under restructuring states Ð
                                                                      Action brought by a regional authority Ð Admissibility)
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (98/C 258/63)
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                    In Case T-238/97: Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria,
                                                                    represented by Juan Ignacio SaÂez Bereciartu, of the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Cantabria Bar, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
                       (Third Chamber)                              Diego Canga Fano and Stephan Marquardt) Ð
                                                                    application for partial annulment of Council Regulation
                         of 2 July 1998                             (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain
in   Case T-236/97: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff                v      shipyards under restructuring states (OJ L 148 of
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                  6.6.1997, p. 1) Ð the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                    Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B.
(Officials Ð Transfers of part of pay in the currency of a          Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura
Member State other than the country where the institution           Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
                          has its seat)                             Registrar, made an order on 16 June 1998, the operative
                         (98/C 258/62)                              part of which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                      1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
In Case T-236/97: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, an
official working for the Commission of the European                 2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio
Creus Carreras, Alex Subirachs Amigó and Marta Ventura              (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas, 78
Avenue d'Auderghem, 1040 Brussels, against Commission


C 101/54               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     26.4.2003
        Removal from the register of Case T-244/02 (1)                             Removal from the register of Case T-345/02 (1)
                        (2003/C 101/95)                                                             (2003/C 101/96)
                   (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
By order of 27 January 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Second
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-244/02: G.D. Searle LLC v Office for Harmonisation in the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM).                           T-345/02: European Dynamics v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
( 1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.


title: Case T-634/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/17

         Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen v Commission
   (Case T-634/13)
   2014/C 31/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH (Wolpertswende, Germany) (represented by: S. Kobes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(1) of Decision 2013/448/EU of the defendant of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (C(2013) 5666, OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as it rejects the inscription of the installation listed in Annex I, Point A with the installation identification code DE000000000000563 on the list of installations covered by Directive 2003/87/EC submitted by Germany to the Commission pursuant to Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC and the corresponding preliminary annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge to these installations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               —

               The contested decision infringes Directive 2003/87/EC and Decision 2011/278/EU (2) in so far as it is contested by the applicant. The decision is also incompatible with the principle of proportionality and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               —

               The Decision 2011/278/EU does not preclude an additional preliminary allocation of free allowances as compensation for a case of hardship. In any event, the guarantees of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, particularly the fundamental rights to conduct a business and to property, as well as the principle of proportionality require a specific allocation in cases of hardship as compensation for undue burdens resulting from emissions trading.

               —

               Finally, the applicant alleges infringement of the requirements of a fair administrative practice pursuant to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Prior to the decision, the applicant was not given any opportunity to express an opinion.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (2)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case F-115/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — CG v EIB (Civil Service — Staff of the EIB — Appointment — Post of Head of division — Appointment of a candidate other than the applicant — Irregularities in the selection procedure — Duty of impartiality on the members of the selection board — Blameworthy conduct by the president of the selection board towards the applicant — Conflict of interests — Oral presentation made by all candidates — Documents provided for the oral presentation likely to favour one of the candidates — Candidate having taken part in the drafting of the documents provided — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment — Action for annulment — Claim for compensation)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — CG v EIB
   (Case F-115/11) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Staff of the EIB - Appointment - Post of Head of division - Appointment of a candidate other than the applicant - Irregularities in the selection procedure - Duty of impartiality on the members of the selection board - Blameworthy conduct by the president of the selection board towards the applicant - Conflict of interests - Oral presentation made by all candidates - Documents provided for the oral presentation likely to favour one of the candidates - Candidate having taken part in the drafting of the documents provided - Infringement of the principle of equal treatment - Action for annulment - Claim for compensation))
   2014/C 421/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CG (represented initially by: N. Thieltgen, lawyer, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the President of the EIB not to appoint the applicant but another candidate to the post of head of a division within the EIB and a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the President of the European Investment Bank of 28 July 2011 appointing Mr A. to the post of Head of the Risk Policy and Pricing Division;

               2.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to pay CG the sum of EUR 25  000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CG.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 28.


title: Case C-134/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that court of 17 March 1999, in the case of IGI-Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, and Fazenda Pública, both being both appellants and respondents

text:
3.7.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 188/15
     presented by the Member States in respect of the expendi-           (2) Must the operations referred to in Article 4(3) of Direc-
     ture for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European                   tive 69/335/EEC be regarded as covered by the prohibition
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (1) in so far as                laid down in Article 10 of the same Community measure,
     Article 2 thereof requires a contribution from Germany of                in such a way as to preclude the collection, under the
     DM 833 895.82 on account of non-compliance with                          directive, not only of the tax on the raising of capital but
     payment deadlines, rather than charging it to the EAGGF;                 also of any other levy, of whatever kind, in particular one
                                                                              that is a charge rather than a tax?
•    order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (3) Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of the same directive be
                                                                              interpreted as meaning that the fees payable for entry
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               (prescribed by law) on the National Register of Legal
                                                                              Persons of increases of capital may not vary according to
— Lack of legal basis for charging a contribution of                          the amount of such increases?
     DM 2 237 238.60 to Budget heading B01-2122-007
     rather than the contribution of DM 1 403 342.78 calcu-              (4) May such variables also be regarded as a function of the
     lated by the German authorities, which was the correct                   cost of the service provided?
     figure especially in view of a reserve remaining from 1994
     of DM 2 447 802.54. In clearing the accounts for 1995,
     the Commission did not apply, or did not correctly apply,           (5) Does that cost include the salary of officials, agents or
     the reserve regulations in its working paper VT/458/93 -                 other public employees, expenses incurred in respect of
     Rev.4 of 30 September 1994.                                              minor operations carried out free of charge, and a portion
                                                                              of overheads (rent of premises, data-processing and com-
                                                                              munications equipment, electricity, water and the like)
— Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate               attributable to registration operations?
     expectations: The Commission’s conduct is in contradic-
     tion to its own conduct in connection with the clearance
     of accounts for 1994, when it recognised an initially               (6) Is it permitted, having regard to the abovementioned
     disputed payment as having been paid on time. The unused                 articles of the said directive, to regard those variables
     residual reserve amount resulting therefrom cannot be left               deriving from increases of capital as a manifestation of
     out of account by the Commission in the clearance of                     standardised charges and, as such, authorised charges?
     accounts for 1995.
                                                                         (7) It is permitted, having regard to the same provisions of the
— Infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 190                 directive, for any fee to be charged in excess of the cost of
     of the EC Treaty.                                                        the service? And if so, to what extent? If the excess were to
                                                                              be manifest and unreasonable, could the amount of the
                                                                              fees be reduced on an equitable basis?
(1) Decision 1999/187/EC, OJ No L 61, 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
                                                                             indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English Special Edition,
                                                                             1969(II) p. 412).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
of that court of 17 March 1999, in the case of IGI-
Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, and Fazenda Pública, both
            being both appellants and respondents
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
                         (Case C-134/99)                                 gericht by order of that court of 24 February 1999 in the
                                                                         case of Ursula Elsen against Bundesversicherungsanstalt
                                                                                für Angestellte
                         (1999/C 188/34)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             (Case C-135/99)
European Communities by an judgment of the Second Chamb-
er of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-                                        (1999/C 188/35)
trative Court) of 17 March 1999, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of IGI-Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, and Fazenda             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Púiblica, on the following questions:                                   European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
                                                                         (Federal Social Court) of 24 February 1999, received at the
(1) May Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1)           Court Registry on 19 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
     be relied on by a private individual in dealings with the           the case of Ursula Elsen against Bundesversicherungsanstalt
     State, even if the latter has not transposed that directive         für Angestellte (Federal Insurance Office for Clerical Staff) on
     into national law?                                                  the following question:


title: Case T-149/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Imre Czigany, Isabel Alves, Georgette Henningsen and Michel Lucas against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/10

         Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Imre Czigany, Isabel Alves, Georgette Henningsen and Michel Lucas against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-149/04)
   (2004/C 168/18)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 April 2004 by Imre Czigany, residing in Rhode St. Genèse, Belgium, Isabel Alves, residing in Luxembourg, Georgette Henningsen, residing in Brussels and Michel Lucas, residing in Brussels, represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the appraisal exercise 2001-2002 in respect of the applicants;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the applicants' career development reports (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001- 31.12.2002;

               —

               Make an order as to the costs, expenses and fees and require the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and principal arguments relied on by the applicants in this case are identical to those put forward in Cases T-43/04 and T-47/04.


title: Case C-433/12 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12 Marcuccio v Court of Justice

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/13

         Appeal brought on 26 September 2012 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12 Marcuccio v Court of Justice
   (Case C-433/12 P)
   2012/C 355/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in its entirety and without any exception the order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 in Case T-27/12;

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the costs incurred by the appellant relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings and allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought in the main body of the application at first instance;

               —

               in the alterntive, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision on the substance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The order under appeal is clearly defective on account of a total failure to state reasons, unreasonableness, illogicality and distortion of the facts. The General Court erred in classifying certain letters sent by the appellant to the First Advocate General of the Court of Justice as requests for review within the meaning of Article 256(2) TFEU.


title: Case T-20/01: Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli and 5 other employees of the European Central Bank against the European Central Bank

text:
C 108/24                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.4.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Furthermore, the applicants allege that the measures intro-
                                                                        duced via the regulation violate the limits of the Commission’s
                                                                        implementing powers as to the WTO-compatibility of the
—      Order the defendant to pay damages pursuant to Article           licensing regime and the division into ‘country allocations’,
       288 EC for the losses suffered by it through the unlawful        and that the Commission has acted in breach of its clear
       measures introduced by Commission Regulation                     mandate from the Council.
       2362/98 (1), all sums to be increased with compensatory
       interest at a rate of 8 % to be applied from the day on
       which the damage materialised.                                   Finally, the applicants contend that the measures introduced
                                                                        by Regulation No 2362/98 infringe the principle of non-
                                                                        discrimination, the freedom to pursue trade or business as well
                                                                        as the principle of good faith in international law and the
—      Order the defendant to pay legal interest on such sums as
                                                                        legitimate expectations traders can derive from that.
       are found to be due at a rate of 8 %
—      Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings        (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
                                                                            laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
                                                                            the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                        (2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        (3) OJ L 210, 28.7.1998, p. 28.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants operate their business in the EC as a single
economic entity, and the core of the their operations is the
marketing, distribution and sourcing of bananas.
As the factual and legal background for their claims, the               Action brought on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli
applicants have indicated that in 1993 the EC ‘banana                   and 5 other employees of the European Central Bank
regime’ was introduced through Council Regulation 404/93 (2).                         against the European Central Bank
Following a dispute settlement procedure in the WTO finding
aspects of this regime to be WTO-incompatible, the EC agreed                                      (Case T-20/01)
to make its banana regime compatible by 1 January 1999.
This was purportedly done by Council Regulation No
1637/98 (3) and Commission Regulation No 2362/98. How-                                           (2001/C 108/45)
ever, the EC’s amended banana regime was also found to be
WTO-incompatible in two supplemental WTO rulings issued
in April 1999 which related inter alia to the system for                                   (Language of the case: German)
distribution of import licences and the division of a yearly
tariff rate quota of 2 553 000 tonnes opened for imports from
Latin America into ‘country allocations’. In spite of those             An action against the European Central Bank was brought
rulings, these allegedly unlawful measures remain in force.             before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        on 25 January 2001 by Concetta Cerafogli and 5 other
                                                                        employees of the European Central Bank, represented by
                                                                        Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsan-
The applicants state that as a result of the discriminatory             wälte, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
distribution of licences as introduced by Regulation No
2362/98, they have suffered a loss of market share and have
been forced to buy or lease the use of import licences and to           The applicants claim that the Court should:
accept unfavourable contract conditions. The applicants claim
to have sustained substantial damage and losses caused by the           (1) annul the rule laid down in Article 8.1.0 of the provisional
defendant’s breach of law, and under Articles 235 and 288 EC                  Staff Rules, as brought into force by the European Central
they claim compensation for a continuing loss of profit and                   Bank with effect from 16 August 2000, and the rule laid
for non-recurring costs which would not have been incurred                    down in Article 7.2.0 of the provisional Staff Rules, as
had the measures in the regulation not been introduced.                       brought into force with effect from 26 September 2000,
                                                                              alternatively annul those rules as regards the relationship
                                                                              between the defendant and the applicants;
The applicants submit that Regulation No 2362/98 is unlawful
in that it infringes superior rules of law, i.e. WTO rules              (2) annul Administrative Circular 01/2000 concerning the
and obligations, as well as the fundamental policy of the                     Rules for Business Travel, alternatively annul Administrat-
Community to amend the banana regime in order to make it                      ive Circular 01/2000 as between the defendant and the
WTO-compatible.                                                               applicants;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 108/25
(3) annul the contractual rules to be contained in the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
      applicants’ employment documentation whereby future
      amendments to the Conditions of Employment or to the
      provisional Staff Rules are to form the subject-matter of          —     annul the implied decision of the appointing authority
      contractual obligations;                                                 refusing to grant special leave for elections and the
                                                                               relevant travelling time from the afternoon of 10 June to
(4) annul the decision of the President of the defendant of                    the morning of 15 June 1999 and from the afternoon of
      27 November 2000 rejecting the applicant’s grievance;                    7 October to the morning of 12 October 1999;
(5) order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By their application, the applicants, who are in an employment
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
relationship of unlimited duration with the European Central
Bank, seek annulment of two rules contained in the defendant’s
provisional Staff Rules (‘SR’), which lay down a time-limit for
commencing the administrative review procedure. Until the
amendment of those rules, there was no time-limit. The
                                                                         I.     Lack of competence
applicants regard the amendment of the provisions of Articles
8.1.0 and 7.2.0 of the SR as an infringement of their
contractual rights.
                                                                         The decision of the appointing authority of 31 March 2000,
In addition, the applicants’ business travel was previously              signed by the Deputy Director-General for Competition, on
governed by Administrative Circular 07/1998. The rules                   the basis of which 6 days of annual leave were deducted,
applying to the applicants were altered, to the detriment of             amounting to an implied refusal of the applicant’s request for
the applicants, by Administrative Circular 01/2000. In the               special leave for elections and the relevant travelling time,
applicants’ view, those rules affect the essence of their employ-        infringes the provisions in force relating to the powers of the
ment relationships, and the amendment of them likewise                   appointing authority and to any decisions to delegate authority,
constitutes an infringement of their contractual rights.                 inasmuch as it was signed by someone who was not empow-
                                                                         ered to do so.
The applicants further claim that, upon concluding their
contracts, they were compelled to accept a rule whereby future
amendments to the Conditions of Employment or to the SR
are to form the subject-matter of contractual obligations.
However, the defendant is not empowered to lay down rules                II.    Infringement of the Staff Regulations
in the nature of employment legislation, and can therefore                      and the internal instruction of the
neither unilaterally alter substantive provisions for the reim-                 Commission of 21 February 1996
bursement of travel costs nor unilaterally change the contrac-
tual obligations by means of the new rules contained in
Articles 7.2.0 and 8.1.0 SR.                                             The implied refusal of the appointing authority infringes
                                                                         Article 57 of the Staff Regulations and Annex V respectively,
                                                                         as well as the internal instruction of the Commission of
                                                                         21 February 1996, which provides that travelling time is to be
                                                                         granted only upon submission of documentary evidence of
                                                                         participation in the elections. The requirement to submit any
                                                                         other documentary evidence other than that required for
Action brought on 31 January 2001 by Francisco Miguel                    special leave and the relevant travelling time for elections has
Viana França against Commission of the European Com-                     no legal basis.
                            munities
                         (Case T-25/01)
                        (2001/C 108/46)                                  III.   Breach of the duty to cooperate in good
                                                                                faith and of the principle of pro-
                                                                                portionality
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                First, the applicant was asked, in February 2000, to submit
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               documents relating to the events which took place in June and
European Communities on 31 January 2001 by Francisco                     October 1999, despite the fact that no provision of law obliged
Miguel Viana França, residing in Brussels, represented by                the applicant to keep such documents and that it was
Gonçalo Gentil Anastácio, advogado.                                     unreasonable to expect him to possess them.


title: Case T-460/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Commission v Acentro Turismo (Arbitration clause — Contract for the provision of services concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips — Non-performance of the contract — Admissibility — Payment of principal sums due — Late payment interest)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Commission v Acentro Turismo
   (Case T-460/08) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract for the provision of services concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips - Non-performance of the contract - Admissibility - Payment of principal sums due - Late payment interest)
   2011/C 38/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A. Aresu and A. Caeiros, Agents)

      Defendant: Acentro Turismo (represented by: A. Carta and G. Murdolo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application by the Commission under Article 153 EA for an order requiring the defendant to pay sums allegedly payable, plus late payment interest, by way of performance of the contract for provision of services 349-90-04 TL ISP I, concerning the organisation of journeys for official trips required by the Joint Research Centre

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Acentro Turismo SpA to pay the European Commission the principal sum of EUR 13 497,46, the sum of EUR 2 278,55 in late payment interest due at the date on which the application in the action was lodged and late payment interest on those amounts calculated in accordance with the rates in effect from 10 October 2008 until the date of full payment of the principal sum owing.

               2.

               Orders Acentro Turismo to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-308/13: Action brought on 7 June 2013 — Repsol v OHIM — Argiles (ELECTROLINERA)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/22

         Action brought on 7 June 2013 — Repsol v OHIM — Argiles (ELECTROLINERA)
   (Case T-308/13)
   (2013/C 226/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Repsol, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Devaureix and L. Montoya Terán, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Josep María Adell Argiles (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 March 2013 in Case R 1565/2012-1 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 9 548 884‘ELECTROLINERA’ for the goods in Classes 4, 37 and 39 in respect of which registration was refused in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ELECTROLINERA’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 35, 37 and 39 — Community trade mark application No 9 548 884

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Josep María Adell Argiles

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘ELECTROLINERA’ for goods in Classes 6, 9 and 12

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part, decision of the Opposition Division annulled in part and, therefore, more extensive refusal of the Community trade mark application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 1999 in Joined Cases C-338/97, C-344/97 and C-390/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Erna Pelzl and Others v Steiermärkische Landesregierung (C-338/97), Wiener Städtische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung (C-344/97) and STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v Kärntner Landesregierung (C-390/97) (Article 33 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Turnover taxes - Contributions to tourism associations and to a tourism development fund)

text:
C 226/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.8.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                            of 8 June 1999
                                                                                of 10 June 1999
in Joined Cases C-338/97, C-344/97 and C-390/97 (refer-
ences for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsge-
richtshof): Erna Pelzl and Others v Steiermärkische Lan-                   in Case C-172/97: Commission of the European Communi-
desregierung (C-338/97), Wiener Städtische Allgemeine                      ties v SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot and
Versicherungs AG and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung                                        Hydro-Réalisations SARL(1)
(C-344/97) and STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v Kärntner
                 Landesregierung (C-390/97) (1)
                                                                               (Arbitration clause — Non-performance of a contract)
(Article 33 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Turnover taxes
— Contributions to tourism associations and to a tourism
                          development fund)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/03)
                           (1999/C 226/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the cases: German)
(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 Joined Cases C-338/97, C-344/97 and C-390/97: references
to the Court under Article 234 EC (ex Article 177) by the                  In Case C-172/97: Commission of the European Communities
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) (Austria) for a              (Agents: initially Richard B. Wainwright and Jean-Francis Pas-
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  quier, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis and Stéphanie Ponsot,
court between Erna Pelzl and Others v Steiermärkische Landes-              subsequently Richard B. Wainwright and Olivier Couvert–Cas-
regierung (C-338/97), Wiener Städtische Allgemeine Versi-                  téra, assisted by Nicole Coutrelis) v SIVU du plan d’eau de la
cherungs AG and Others v Tiroler Landesregierung (C-344/97)                Vallée du Lot otherwise known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la
and STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v Kärntner Landesre-                      Vallée du Lot, a public enterprise established in La Canourgue,
gierung (C-390/97) — on the interpretation of Article 33 of                France, and Hydro-Réalisations SARL, a company established
the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on                 in Rodez, France — application by the Commission of the
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                European Communities under Article 238 EC (ex Article 181)
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                      seeking recovery of an advance of ECU 83 928 paid by the
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) —                        Commission for completion of a project entitled Plan d’eau
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet                   sur le Lot. Intégration d’une microcentrale hydroélectrique
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann,               basse chute dans le seuil, (Stretch of water on the River Lot
D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate Gen-               — Incorporation in the barrage weir of a small low-head
eral; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has           hydro-electric power station), together with interest as agreed
given a judgment on 8 June 1999, in which it held that:                    in the contract at the rate applied by the European Monetary
                                                                           Cooperation Fund for its transactions in ecus published on the
The Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the             first working day of each month as from 17 January 1991 and
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover        interest at the legal rate determined annually by decree
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                 published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française as
assessment, and in particular Article 33 thereof, does not preclude a      from 28 February 1993 — the Court (Third Chamber),
charge of the kind introduced by the Steiermärkische Tourismusgesetz,      composed of J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the
the Tiroler Tourismusgesetz and the Kärntner Fremdenverkehrsabga-          Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges;
begesetz, which is payable by traders in a federal Land who have an        S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judg-
economic interest in tourism, which is calculated, in principle, on the    ment on 10 June 1999, in which it:
basis of annual turnover and from which input tax is not deductible.
                                                                           1. Orders SIVU du plan d’eau de la Vallée du Lot, otherwise
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997; OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
                                                                                known as SIVU du pays d’accueil de la Vallée du Lot, and
                                                                                Hydro-Réalisations SARL jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities the sum of
                                                                                EUR 83 928, together with contractual interest with effect from
                                                                                31 May 1991 until discharge of the debt in full;


title: Case C-7/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Har Vaessen Douane Service BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Relief from import duties — Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Article 27 — Goods of a negligible individual value dispatched as a grouped consignment — Consignments dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 July 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Har Vaessen Douane Service BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-7/08) (1)

   (Relief from import duties - Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Article 27 - Goods of a negligible individual value dispatched as a grouped consignment - Consignments dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community)
   2009/C 205/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Har Vaessen Douane Service BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 (OJ 1991 L 105, p. 1) — Consignments dispatched direct from a third country to a consignee in the Community, each of negligible value but dispatched as a grouped consignment with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the maximum value prescribed by law

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 of 7 November 1991, does not preclude grouped consignments of goods, with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value threshold laid down in Article 27, but which are individually of negligible value, from being admitted free of import duties, provided that each parcel of the grouped consignment is addressed individually to a consignee within the European Community. In that respect, the fact that the contractual partner of those consignees is itself established in the European Community is not relevant where the goods are dispatched directly from a third country to those consignees.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.


title: Case F-69/13: Action brought on 9 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/31

         Action brought on 9 July 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-69/13)
   2013/C 274/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service on the basis of the new GIPs.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision to calculate the years of pensionable service recognised for the purposes of that transfer into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions (‘GIPs’) in Article 11(2) in Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-403/12: Action brought on 11 September 2012 — Intrasoft International v Commission

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/18

         Action brought on 11 September 2012 — Intrasoft International v Commission
   (Case T-403/12)
   2012/C 343/31
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intrasoft International SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Delegation of the European Union to the Republic of Serbia of 10 August 2012 (ref.: RH(2012)3471), as well as the implicit rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 10 August 2012 against such decision, so that the applicant will be allowed to participate in the subsequent stages of the tender;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the terms of reference and the principle of good administration. More specifically, the applicant sustains that the additional information-clarifications given by the contracting authority to all tenderers following the tender procedure completed the terms of reference, formed part of the legal framework that governs the tender in question and subsequently was binding on all parties, the contracting authority included. Such terms have in the case at hand been infringed by the defendant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 94 of the Financial Regulation (1), as:

                           —

                           The applicant was excluded from the tendering procedure on the ground of conflict of interest without having been given the opportunity to prove and support evidence that there was not such a case;

                           —

                           The administration failed to assess and substantiate that the previous involvement of the applicant in another tender could have an impact on the tender in question.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Case C-601/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — French Republic v European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — Action for annulment — Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 — Regulation authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those previously laid down — Precautionary principle — Level of protection of human health — New elements capable of altering the perception of the risk — Failure to state reasons — Distortion of the facts — Error of law)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 — French Republic v European Commission, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-601/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - Protection against transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 - Regulation authorising less restrictive measures of surveillance and eradication than those previously laid down - Precautionary principle - Level of protection of human health - New elements capable of altering the perception of the risk - Failure to state reasons - Distortion of the facts - Error of law)
   2013/C 252/17
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, C. Candat, R. Loosli-Surrans, G. de Bergues and S. Menez, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Bianchi, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-257/07 France v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2008 of 17 June 2008 amending Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 2008 L 202, p. 11) in so far as it authorises monitoring and eradication measures less restrictive than those previously prescribed for ovine and caprine flocks — Failure to state the reasons for the decision — Distortion of the facts — Incorrect legal classification of the facts — Breach of the precautionary principle

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Case T-63/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France v Commission
   (Case T-63/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société Air France SA (Roissy-en-France, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Giolito, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and B. Lebrun, lawyer, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón, M. Simm and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Société Air France SA;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Société Air France SA;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Case C-419/06: Action brought on 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/8

         Action brought on 13 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-419/06)
   (2006/C 310/14)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and E. Righini)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare, that, by failing to take the necessary measures, within the prescribed period,

                           —

                           to abolish aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision C(2005)2706 of 14 September 2005 relating to State aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines (notified on 15 September 2005 by document SG Greffe (2005) D/205062), and

                           —

                           to recover that aid from the recipients,

                     and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such specific measures, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the above decision and the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission decision requires Greece to recover the aid referred to in Article 1 from the recipients and to suspend without delay each payment of aid to Olympic Airways and Olympic Airlines. Greece was also required to inform the Commission, within two months of the date of the decision, of the measures it took to comply.
   The above period allowed for compliance expired on 15 November 2005.
   According to settled case law, the only justification that can be put forward by a Member State in the context of the Article 88(2) EC procedure is the absolute impossibility of proper implementation of the decision. The Commission would, moreover, point out that, in accordance with the above case-law, the Greek authorities could not rely on absolute impossibility without having attempted to recover the amount, and no such attempt has been made.
   The Greek authorities have not relied on extraordinary or unforeseeable difficulties rendering implementation of the decision impossible. Nor have they proposed alternative means of applying the decision which would enable the difficulties to be overcome. The Greek authorities have confined themselves to challenging the validity of the decision and of the quantitative calculation of the aid by the Commission, a fact which shows that they have not applied the slightest measure to suspend or recover the aid.


title: Case C-478/13: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/18/EC — Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — Placing on the market — Article 31(3)(b) — Locations of GMO crops — Obligation to inform the competent authorities — Obligation to establish a public register — Cooperation in good faith)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/15

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-478/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - Placing on the market - Article 31(3)(b) - Locations of GMO crops - Obligation to inform the competent authorities - Obligation to establish a public register - Cooperation in good faith))
   2014/C 421/21
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyba, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In not laying down an obligation to inform the competent Polish authorities of the locations at which genetically modified organism crops are being grown pursuant to Part C of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, and in not establishing a register of those locations and in not making public the information relating to them, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(3)(b) of that directive.

               2.

               The Republic of Poland is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case T-798/16: Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Hanso Holding v EUIPO (REAL)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/55

         Action brought on 14 November 2016 — Hanso Holding v EUIPO (REAL)
   (Case T-798/16)
   (2017/C 006/69)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hanso Holding AS (Tomasjord, Norway) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘REAL’ — Application for registration No 14 020 093

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 September 2016 in Case R 2405/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b)(c) and 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-666/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/79

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Bačelić v Parliament
   (Case T-666/15)
   (2016/C 048/87)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Matilda Bačelić (Zagreb, Croatia) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8672 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

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

               2.

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

               3.

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

               4.

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

               5.

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

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

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