title: Case C-467/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/01 to T-88/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/6

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/01 to T-88/01 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-467/09 P)
   2010/C 37/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Goberierno Vasco, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Commission of the European Communities and Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               uphold the application at first instance;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The CFI erred in law in its reasoning in the judgment under appeal relating to the fact that Case T-31/01 has become devoid of subject-matter.

               2.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that the conclusion of the preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), required the existence of an express decision by Commission decision to that effect (addressed to the Member State).

               3.

               The CFI misinterpreted the decision of 28 November 2000 by holding that that decision put an end to the preliminary examination procedure of the tax measure at issue which arose out of a complaint lodged in April 1994. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 was to be carried out within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               4.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules concerning the burden of proof and the assessment of evidence, in particular with respect to the documentary evidence consisting of the decision of 28 November 2000 (its credibility and probative force). The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial.

               5.

               The CFI erred in law by infringing the procedural rules relating to the assessment of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the objective, relevant, corroborative and conclusive evidence in the case-file and which proves that, prior to the decision of 28 November 2000, the Commission had conducted a preliminary examination of the tax measure at issue and had closed that examination. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 had to be conducted within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               6.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Georges Martins against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-45/97)

text:
No C 142/20           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 5 . 97
Servatius van Thiel, residing in Nyon ( Switzerland), Ettore       retroactively from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July
Zamproni, residing in Bellevue ( Switzerland ), Leo Geboers        1995 , thus severely curtailing the applicants' remuneration
and David Hollister, residing in New York, and Monique             ( by about 15% ). Article 13 of Annex X to the Staff
Weygandt, residing in Larchmont ( USA), represented by             Regulations requires that, where the variation in the cost
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel,              of living is found to exceed 5 % since the last adjustment
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                for a given country, interim measures be adopted to adjust
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30              the weighting. In this case no such measures were
Rue de Cessange.                                                   adopted.
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance              The applicants also refer to the fact that in this case the
should :
                                                                   Council received in due time proposals from the
                                                                   Commission for the adjustment of remuneration with
— annul the applicants' salary statements for May 1996,            effect from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July 1995
    in that they apply for the first time Council                  for officials assigned to non-member countries but, for
    Regulations (Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 577/96,                    what are in their view political reasons, the Council did
     ( Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 578/96 and ( Euratom,                not adopt the contested regulations until 25 March 1996 .
    ECSC, EC ) No 579/96 of 25 March 1996 laying down              According to the applicants, that delay shows that the aim
    the weightings applicable to the remuneration of               pursued by those regulations certainly did not make it
    officials of the European Communities serving in third         necessary for them to take effect prior to their publication.
    countries as from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and              In any event, the applicants state that they were not
     1 July 1995 respectively,                                     aware, and had no opportunity to learn, of the alleged
                                                                   irregularity of the remuneration paid before the date of
                                                                   publication of the regulations in question .
— annul the applicants' salary statements for June 1996,
     in that they incorporate deductions by way of recovery
     of salary overpaid, pursuant to the abovementioned            Lastly, the applicants claim that the fact that they were
     regulations,                                                  deprived of their right to consider whether or not it was
                                                                   appropriate to ask the appointing authority to arrange for
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                            all or part of their remuneration to be paid at their places
                                                                   of employment, subject to the weightings laid down for
                                                                   such places and after conversion at the corresponding rate
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                of exchange, constituted an infringement of Article 12 of
                                                                   Annex X to the Staff Regulations.
The applicants, who are officials employed outside the
territory of the Community, object to the procedures for           (') OJ No L 83 , 2 . 4 . 1996 , pp . 1 , 4 and 7 .
calculation of the weightings applicable, as from specified
dates, to their remuneration; they also object to the
deductions made to recover amounts allegedly overpaid .
On 25 March 1996, the Council adopted Regulations
( Euratom, ECSC , EC ) No 577/96 , ( Euratom, ECSC, EC )
No 578/96 and ( Euratom, ECSC, EC ) No 579196 laying               Action brought on 3 March 1997 by Georges Martins
down the weightings applicable to the remuneration of                 against the Commission of the European Communities
officials of the European Communities serving in third                                        ( Case T-45/97 )
countries as from 1 July 1994, 1 January 1995 and 1 July
 1995 respectively. (')                                                                         97/C 142/44 )
In support of their action, the applicants allege first                            (Language of the case: French)
breach of the principles of legal certainty, acquired rights
and non-retroactivity of provisions of regulations, and
breach of the obligation to state the reasons on which a           An action against the Commission of the European
measure is based. They state that the institution employing         Communities was brought before the Court of First
them drew up, under the regulations in force at the                Instance of the European Communities on 3 March 1997
material time, salary statements for the period of six              by Georges Martins, residing in Brussels, represented by
months prior to the adoption of the three contested                Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
regulations and that consequently those statements                  service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
constitute 'legal acts' which conferred subjective rights           Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
which ought to be protected. The principle is consistently
expressed in legal literature and in the case-law, they say,
that a legal act which has created such rights cannot be           The applicant claims that the Court should:
withdrawn .
                                                                   — annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
They also consider that it was unlawful for the Council to              22 November 1996 expressly rejecting the applicant's
 decide to make the contested regulations take effect                   complaint,
 ---pagebreak---  10 . 5 . 97             EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/21
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   SIC's complaints concern essentially two major separate
      adopted by the Commission implicitly rejecting the               matters arising from the relationship between the
      applicant's request,                                             Portuguese State and RTP. First, the matter of granting the
                                                                       concession for the public television service to RTP and, in
                                                                       particular, the question of compensation which the State
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                       makes annually to RTP under that concession . In that
                                                                       regard, SIC calls in question, in the first place, that certain
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   amounts paid by way of compensation should be
                                                                       described as remuneration for a public service; it disputes,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 secondly, the criteria on which the calculation of said
 Case T- 16/97 ( M.                                                    compensation is based, and the amounts; and, thirdly, on
                                                                       the basis of the foregoing, it disputes the amounts of the
                                                                       compensation which the Portuguese State paid to RTP in
 (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                 the period from 1992 to 1996 . Secondly, SIC's complaints
                                                                       also concern other ways in which the Portuguese State has
                                                                       been financing RTP in recent years directly and indirectly,
                                                                       in particular the exemption from certain charges, the
                                                                       agreement with Portugal Telecom, the system of payment
                                                                       of certain contributions to social insurance, capital
Action brought on 3 March 1997 by SIC — Sociedade In                  contributions and debenture loans .
dependente de Comunica?ao SA — against Commission of
                   the European Communities                            In support of its application, the applicant alleges:
                           ( Case T-46/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/45                             — breach of the principle of the right of interested parties
                                                                           to be heard beforehand, inasmuch as they were
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                          adopted without the applicant having been given the
                                                                           opportunity to comment on their content or on the
                                                                           main procedural documents, in particular the detailed
An action against the Commission of the European                           study commissioned by the Commission on the matter
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          and the observations and documents submitted by the
Instance of the European Communities on 3 March 1997                       Portuguese State,
by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunica^ao, SA,
whose registered office is at 119 Estrada da Outurela,
Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha, representend by Carlos Botelho               — breach of the obligation to provide a statement of
Moniz and Ana Santos Reis, Advogados, with chambers at                     reasons, under Article 190 of the EC Treaty and the
63 6 ? Rua Castilho, Lisbon, with an address for service in                procedural rules relating to the preliminary stage of
Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                        assessment of complaints lodged pursuant to and for
Rue .                                                                      the purposes of Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            — breach of Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as
                                                                           it considered to be compatible with that provision
                                                                           certain measures adopted by the Portuguese State
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European                     contrary thereto,
      Communities of 7 November 1996 SG(96 ) D/9555,
      under the heading 'State Aid NN 141 /95 — Financing
      of public television channels', notified to the applicant        — lack of a statement of reasons for the contested
      by letter No 54333 of 20 December 1996,                              decisions as a result of the failure to carry out a
                                                                           detailed and impartial inquiry into the case.
— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
      Communities, with the heading 'Plainte de SIC contre             As regards specifically the compensatory payments, it
      RTP', notified to the applicant by a letter from the             should be borne in mind, according to the applicant, that
      Commission No 54365 of 20 December 1996,
                                                                      — the Commission does not make clear the definition of
— order the defendant to pay the costs in their entirety.                  'public service' which it adopted,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — the Commission does not analyze the criteria
                                                                           employed to determine the compensation paid by the
                                                                           Portuguese State to RTP in return for provision of the
The applicant, the same party as the applicant in Case
                                                                           public service,
T-231 /95 SIC v. Commission ( ] ), contests two decisions
concerning a set of measures adopted by the Government
in favour of RTP, a public operator holding the concession            — the Commission, in particular, has not replied to the
for public service television which, in that capacity,                     arguments expressly put forward by SIC in so far as
operates Portuguese television channels 1 and 2 .                          they concern failure to consider actual cost,


title: Case C-669/15: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS (Preliminary ruling — Absence of legal framework — Manifest inadmissibility — Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/16

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Versailles — France) — Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF) v Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS
   (Case C-669/15) (1)

   ((Preliminary ruling - Absence of legal framework - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
   (2016/C 343/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d'appel de Versailles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Electricité Réseau Distribution France SA (ERDF)

      Defendant: Axa Corporate Solutions SA, Ombrière Le Bosc SAS

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Cour d'appel de Versailles (France), by decision of 8 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case F-74/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2010 — Gowitzke v Europol (Civil service — Europol staff — Article 27 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees — Article 4 of the policy for determining grades and steps of Europol staff — Reassessment of a post to the next grade — Classification by step)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/60

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2010 — Gowitzke v Europol
   (Case F-74/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Europol staff - Article 27 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees - Article 4 of the policy for determining grades and steps of Europol staff - Reassessment of a post to the next grade - Classification by step)
   2011/C 30/115
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Werner Siegrfried Gowitzke (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: D. Neumann and D. El Khoury, agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Europol’s decision of 5 June 2009 rejecting the applicant’s claim to have his classification changed to grade 5, step 1.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009, p. 85.


title: Case T-242/10: Order of the General Court of 27 May 2011 — Danzeisen v Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation No 271/2010 — Action rendered devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/16

         Order of the General Court of 27 May 2011 — Danzeisen v Commission
   (Case T-242/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation No 271/2010 - Action rendered devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 219/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Werner Danzeisen (Eichstetten, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen, F.W. Bulst and M. Vollkommer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EU) No 271/2010 of 24 March 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007, as regards the organic production logo of the European Union (OJ 2010 L 84, p. 19)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 May 1996 in Case T-19/95: Adia Interim SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Public service contract - Agency staff - Tender vitiated by a calculation error - Statement of reasons of the decision rejecting the tender - No obligation for the contracting authority to contact the tenderer)

text:
No C 180/28            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                         of 8 May 1996                               in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
in Case T-19/95 : Adia Interim SA v . Commission of the
                                                                     Fort Rheinsheim, v. European Parliament (Agents : Gregorio
                                                                     Garzón Clariana and Manfred Peter) — application for
                   European Communities ( J )                        annulment of the decision, based on Article 50 of the Staff
 (Public service contract — Agency staff — Tender vitiated           Regulations of officials of the European Communities,
 by a calculation error — Statement ofreasons ofthe decision         retiring the applicant from service — the Court of First
rejecting the tender — No obligation for the contracting             Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
              authority to contact the tenderer)                     President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki, Judges; H.
                          ( 96/C 180/73 )                            Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1996 , in
                                                                     which it :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it
In Case T-19/95 : Adia Interim SA, having its registered                  requests the Court to issue directions to the European
office in Brussels, represented by Vincent Thiry, of the Liège            Parliament.
Bar , Christian Jacobs, Rechtsanwalt, Bremen, Hans
Joachim Prieß and Klaus Heinemann, Rechtsanwälte,
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            2 . Annuls the decision retiring the applicant from service,
Chambers of Tom M. Gilliams, 47 Grand-Rue, v.                             which was communicated to the applicant by letters
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:                          from the President of the Parliament of 30 November
Xénophon A. Yataganas and Hendrik van Lier ) —                            1994 and 19 December 1994 .
application for annulment of the Commission decision,
communicated to the applicant on 5 December 1994,
informing it that the tender which it submitted in response          3 . Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
to invitation to tender No 94/21/IX.C.1 on the supply of
agency staff had been rejected, and for annulment of the
Commission's decision, communicated to the applicant on              P ) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
21 December 1994 , awarding the contracts in question to
the companies Ecco , Gregg and Manpower — the Court of
First Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges, Registrar: B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
8 May 1996 , in which it:
 1 . Dismisses the application.                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 May 1996
2 . Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                           in Case T-326/94 : Konstantinos Dimitriadis v. Court of
                                                                              Auditors of the European Communities (^
(') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Official — Staff report — Damages)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/75 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 14 May 1996                              In Case T-326/94 : Konstantinos Dimitriadis, an official of
in Case T-82/95 : Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sánchez v.             the Court of Justice of the European Communities and
                    European Parliament ( 1 )                       formerly an official of the Court of Auditors of the
(Officials  — Retirement — Article 50 of the Staff                  European Communities, residing in Luxembourg,
Regulations — Protection of the interests of the official           represented by Markos Papazisis of the Salonika Bar, with
                             concerned)                             an address for service in Luxembourg at the applicant's
                         ( 96/C 180/74 )                            residence, 4A Boulevard Grand-Duchesse Charlotte, against
                                                                    the Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                    ( Agents : Jean-Marie Stenier, Christos Komninos and Paolo
                (Language of the case: French)                      Giusta ) — application for the annulment of the applicant's
                                                                    staff report of 13 July 1994 and compensation for the
In Case T-82/95 : Carmen Gomez de Enterría y Sanchez, a             damage allegedly suffered — the Court of First Instance
former official of the European Parliament, represented by          ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the


27.10.2001            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 303/15
       Removal from the register of Case C-431/00 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-195/01 (1)
                       (2001/C 303/24)                                                     (2001/C 303/25)
By order of 4 September 2001 the President of the Court of         By order of 4 September 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-431/00: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-195/01: (reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        ruling from the House of Lords): Scandecor Development AB,
                                                                   Panther + Scandecor Ltd v Scandecor Marketing AB, Scandecor
                                                                   Ltd.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.


title: Case C-237/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Provision of assistance services to farmers for the year 2001 — Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 — Implementation in Greek of the integrated administration and control system (IACS) — Absence of call for tenders — Application inadmissible)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-237/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Provision of assistance services to farmers for the year 2001 - Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 - Implementation in Greek of the integrated administration and control system (IACS) - Absence of call for tenders - Application inadmissible)
   (2007/C 297/06)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos and S. Charitaki, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 3(2), 7, 11(1) and 15(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-240/16 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Vedran Vidmar and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform — Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff — Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs — Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission — Appeal dismissed — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/3

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Vedran Vidmar and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-240/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))
   (2017/C 129/03)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Appellants: Vedran Vidmar, Saša Čaldarević, Irena Glogovšek, Gordana Grancarić, Martina Grgec, Ines Grubišić, Sunčica Horvat Peris, Zlatko Ilak, Mirjana Jelavić, Romuald Kantoci, Svjetlana Klobučar, Ivan Kobaš, Tihana Kušeta Šerić, Damir Lemaić, Željko Ljubičić, Gordana Mahovac, Martina Majcen, Višnja Merdžo, Tomislav Perić, Darko Radić, Damjan Saridžić (represented by: D. Graf, odvjetnik)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Vedran Vidmar, Mr Saša Čaldarević, Ms Irena Glogovšek, Ms Gordana Grancarić, Ms Martina Grgec, Ms Ines Grubišić, Ms Sunčica Horvat Peris, Mr Zlatko Ilak, Ms Mirjana Jelavić, Mr Romuald Kantoci, Ms Svjetlana Klobučar, Mr Ivan Kobaš, Ms Tihana Ms Kušeta Šerić, Mr Damir Lemaić, Mr Željko Ljubičić, Ms Gordana Mahovac, Ms Martina Majcen, Ms Višnja Merdžo, Mr Tomislav Perić, Mr Darko Radić and Mr Damjan Saridžić are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case C-350/09 P: Appeal brought on 2 September 2009 by Centre de Promotion de l’Emploi par la Micro-Entreprise (CPEM) against the judgment delivered on 30 June 2009 in Case T-444/07 Centre de Promotion de l’Emploi par la Micro-Entreprise (CPEM) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/11

         Appeal brought on 2 September 2009 by Centre de Promotion de l’Emploi par la Micro-Entreprise (CPEM) against the judgment delivered on 30 June 2009 in Case T-444/07 Centre de Promotion de l’Emploi par la Micro-Entreprise (CPEM) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-350/09 P)
   2009/C 312/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Centre de Promotion de l’Emploi par la Micro-Entreprise (CPEM) (represented by C. Bonnefoi, avocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               grant, in whole or in part, the form of order sought at first instance;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward thirteen grounds of appeal relating to the dismissal by the Court of First Instance of its action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 October 2007 cancelling the assistance granted by the European Social Fund (ESF) by Decision C(1999) 2645 of 17 August 1999.
   By its first ground of appeal, CPEM submits that the Court of First Instance breached the principle of equal treatment in that it did not comply with the requirements of a fair balance between the arguments of the parties. By confining itself to stating, on several occasions, that the Commission rejected or rebutted CPEM’s arguments, the Court of First Instance did not specify the Commission’s arguments or the way in which they rejected or rebutted those of CPEM, which created an imbalance in the presentation of the arguments and consequently in their treatment in the judgment.
   By its second ground of appeal, CPEM submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by refusing to acknowledge the ‘co-responsibility’ of the Commission, in that the Commission was aware of the acts complained of but took no steps, in its periodic checks on the implementation of the subsidised project, to block the payments of the advances and the balance of the subsidy. The obligation on CPEM to repay the whole of the financial assistance granted is therefore unfounded, having regard to the arguments put forward by CEPM, which establish at the very least the co-responsibility of the Commission in the detrimental situation created.
   By its third ground of appeal, CPEM submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly failed to examine its arguments concerning the choice of the legal bases of the check, which is vitiated by unlawfulness in that it was performed on the basis of a different regulation from that on the basis of which the check is officially carried out.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, CPEM states that the Court of First Instance erred in law in declaring inadmissible the form of order sought in respect of obtaining compensation for public damage to its reputation. Information was given to the local press by OLAF even though CEPM had not yet been notified of the adjustment decision. In such circumstances, to make that information public causes serious damage to the reputation of an organisation which acts in the public interest, does not have its own resources or customers, and derives its funding solely from public and private contributors.
   By its fifth ground of appeal, CPEM submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law and disregarded the principle of proportionality by dismissing the application for symbolic compensation for its staff on the ground of lack of specific authority conferred on the lawyer, whereas the errors pointed out by CPEM as regards the authority given to the OLAF investigators and the Commission staff were not examined by the Court of First Instance.
   By its sixth ground of appeal, CPEM criticises the Court of First Instance for erring in law by reducing the scope of the complaint and the examination of the first plea in law to the sole question of respect of the rights of the defence, even though it referred expressly to the fundamental rights of the defence and the general principles of law.
   By its seventh ground of appeal, CPEM submits that the Court of First Instance further erred in law by reducing the scope of respect of the rights of the defence solely to the possibility for the addressees of a decision substantially affecting their interests to be placed in a position in which they can effectively put forward their point of view. Respect of the rights of the defence is much wider in scope. Moreover, the ‘effectiveness’ of the discussion with OLAF and the Commission and the ‘careful and impartial’ examination of all the elements of the case are highly debatable in the present case, as is the failure of OLAF to communicate the subject of the complaints made against CPEM.
   By its eighth ground of appeal, CPEM criticises the Court of First Instance more particularly for erring in law in that it considered that informing the press of the content of an administrative decision imposing a penalty even before the recipient has been notified of it does not constitute an infringement of the rights of the defence.
   By its ninth ground of appeal, CPEM complains that the Court of First Instance wrongly rejected its plea in law concerning the failure by the Commission, in the procedure leading to the adoption of the contested decision, to respect the rights of the defence and the principles of the presumption of innocence, legal certainty, balance and the neutrality of checks. Respect for those general principles of law should be guaranteed not only in administrative procedures liable to lead to the imposition penalties but also in preliminary investigation procedures.
   By its tenth ground of appeal, CPEM submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in disregarding the French concept of a non-profit-making organisation and the relations such an organisation may and must have with the various local authorities. It thus repeated the original mistake by the Commission and OLAF, which regarded the links between CPEM and local authorities, including the city of Marseille, as a serious irregularity.
   By its eleventh ground of appeal, CPEM complains that the Court of First Instance erred in law in stating that CPEM considered the ‘promoter’s guide’ as not capable of being relied on and dismissing its arguments in this respect, when in fact it did not regard the guide as incapable of being relied on but merely complained of the existence of several different versions leading to judicial uncertainty and failure to respect the right to an inter partes hearing.
   By its twelfth ground of appeal, CPEM submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly interpreted the concept of ‘valorisation’ by adopting a legally incorrect argument of the Commission, namely that that technique of allocating expenditure was authorised in ‘classic’ projects covered by the ESF but prohibited in pilot projects under Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation No 4255/88. (1)

   By its thirteenth and last ground of appeal, CPEM complains, finally, of the failure of the Court of First Instance to observe the principle of legal certainty, in that it failed to address the plea concerning the non-applicability of Regulation No 1605/2002, (2) on which the decision of OLAF and the Commission was based, although at the material time it was the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (3) which was in force. In addition, CPEM requests, pursuant to the second and third subparagraphs of Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, that the facts be ascertained by calling witnesses.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4255/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards the European Social Fund, OJ 1988 L 374, p. 21.

      (2)  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.

      (3)  Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 1977 L 356, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2779/98 of 17 December 1998 amending the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, OJ 1998 L 347, p. 3.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 5 February 1997 in Case T-211/95: Claudine Petit-Laurent v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Internal competitions - Notice of vacancy - Condition of being a temporary member of the temporary staff on the closing date for applications - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Action for damages)

text:
No C 131 / 12          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 4 . 97
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc
                        (Fourth Chamber)                               Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue
                       of 5 February 1997                              de Nassau, against the Commission of the European
in Case T-207/95 : Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil v.                  Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
       Commission of the European Communities (')                      application for, first, the annulment of the decision of the
(Officials — Internal competitions — Notice of vacancy                 selection board for competition COM/T/A/95 of
— Condition of being a temporary member of the                         15 November 1994 refusing to admit the applicant to the
temporary staff on the closing date for applications —                 written tests of the competition and of the decision of the
Principle of protection of legitimate expectations —                   Commission of 27 July 1995 not to allow the applicant to
Principle of equal treatment — Duty to have regard for                 take part in an additional internal competition other than
       the welfare of officials — Action for damages)                  competition COM/T/A/95 and, secondly, damages in
                                                                       compensation for the material and non-material damage
                           ( 97IC 131 /29                              suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance
                                                                       ( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
               (Language of the case: French)                          Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                       Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
In Case T-207/95 : Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil, former             5 February 1997, in which it:
member of the temporary staff of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented                1 . dismisses the application as unfounded;
by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne                   2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira )                  (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
— application for, first, the annulment of the decision of
the selection board for competition COM/T/B/95 of
7 November 1994 refusing to admit the applicant to the
written tests of the competition and of the decision of the
Commission of 27 July 1995 not to allow the applicant to
take part in an additional internal competition other than               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
competition COM/T/B/95 and, secondly, damages in                                             of 27 February 1997
compensation for the material and non-material damage
suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance                in Case T-106/95 : Fédération Française des Sociétés
( Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.              d'Assurances ( FFSA) and Others v. Commission of the
Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,                                      European Communities ( 1 )
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                   (State aid — Public undertaking — Combined application
5 February 1997, in which it:                                          of Article 92 and Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty —
                                                                       Additional costs arising from performance of particular
1 . dismisses the application as unfounded;                            tasks assigned to the public undertaking — Competitive
                                                                                activities)
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 /31 )
(') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       In Case T-106/95 : Fédération Française des Sociétés d'As
                                                                       surances ( FFSA ), established in Paris, Union des Sociétés
                                                                       Etrangères d'Assurances (USEA), established in Paris,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles Agricoles ( Groupama ),
                                                                       established in Noisy-le-Grand ( France ), Fédération Natio
                        (Fourth Chamber)                               nale des Syndicats d'Agents Généraux d'Assurances
                       of 5 February 1997                              ( FNSAGA ), established in Paris, Fédération Française des
in Case T-211 /95 : Claudine Petit-Laurent v. Commission
                                                                       Courtiers d'Assurances et de Réassurances ( FCA ),
                                                                       established in Paris, Bureau International des Producteurs
              of the European Communities (')
                                                                       d'Assurances et de Réassurances ( BIPAR ), established in
(Officials — Internal competitions — Notice of vacancy                 Paris, represented by Dominique Voillemot and Marie-Pia
— Condition of being a temporary member of the                         Hutin, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
temporary staff on the closing date for applications —                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue
Principle of protection of legitimate expectations —                   Goethe, against Commission of the European
Principle of equal treatment — Duty to have regard for                 Communities (Agent: Gérard Rozet), supported by the
       the welfare of officials — Action for damages)                  French Republic ( Agents: Catherine de Salins and Jean
                           ( 97/C 131 /30 )                            Marc Belorgey ) and La Poste, established in Boulogne
                                                                       Billancourt (France ), represented by Hervé Lehman, of the
               (Language of the case: French)                          Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue —
In Case T-211 /95 : Claudine Petit-Laurent, former member              application for annulment of the Commission Decision of
of the temporary staff of the Commission of the European                8 February 1 995 , notified to the applicants by letter of


title: Case T-332/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Christodoulou and Stavrinou v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/35

         Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Christodoulou and Stavrinou v Commission and European Central Bank
   (Case T-332/13)
   2013/C 252/59
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Chrisanthi Christodoulou (Paphos, Cyprus) and Maria Stavrinou (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Εfstathiou, K. Εfstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013, which took its final form through the decision of the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus as the representative and/or agent of the European System of Central Banks dated 29 Μarch 2013, K.D.P [Regulatory Administrative Act] 104/2013, whereby the ‘sale of certain operations’ of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd was decided and which in essence constitutes a joint decision of not only the European Central Bank but also of the European Commission;

               —

               in addition, declare that the abovementioned decision of the Eurogroup in essence constitutes a decision of the European Central Bank and/or of the European Commission jointly irrespective of the shape or form in which it was dressed;

               —

               order the European Central Bank and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicants put forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               By the first plea for annulment the applicants maintain that the contested decision is null and void, since the decision exceeds the powers conferred by the Treaty on European Union on not only the European Central Bank but also the European Commission, that is to say, it is an act which was ultra vires of those two institutions.

               2.

               By the second plea for annulment, the applicants maintain that the contested decision is in breach of the right to respect for property, which is protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as confirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               By the third plea for annulment, the applicants maintain that the contested decision is manifestly unfounded and lacking any legal basis and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicants maintain that the contested decision is also contrary to the generally recognised legal principles which have been disseminated in European Union law and in particular to the principle that no-one may rely on his own failures to obtain an advantage and/or to justify wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.


title: Case C-461/09 P: Appeal brought on 23 November 2009 by The Wellcome Foundation Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-493/07: The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/4

         Appeal brought on 23 November 2009 by The Wellcome Foundation Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 23 September 2009 in Case T-493/07: The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-461/09 P)
   2010/C 37/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Wellcome Foundation Ltd (represented by: R. Gilbey, avocat)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Find that, on confirming the contested decision of the Board of appeal, the Court of First Instance violated the legal requirements of Article 8-1-b CTMR (1) and 52-1-a CTMR

               —

               Annul the contested judgment confriming the Board of Appeal decision in that it rejected to annul all of OHIM's and the CFI's decisions on costs, and to order OHIM to pay costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that, based on the facts of the case as appear on the trade mark registers and as produced before OHIM, the CFI considered, without legal basis, the relevant public as having a high level of attentiveness.
   The appellant submits that the CFI refused to take into account evidence produced by the appellant, which evidence, being mere amplification of arguments and evidence already produced before OHIM, should have been admissible.
   The appellant submits that in describing the degree of similarity between the goods, the CFI used terminology that is vague and inconsistent, thus failing to provide precise, accurate and consistent reasons for the judgment n this issue.
   The appellant submits that, on the basis of the facts before it, the CFI applied incorrect, incomplete and flawed legal tests to reach the conclusion that the Board of Appeal was correct in its finding that the level of similarity between the goods was low.
   The appellant submits that the CFI, on the basis of the facts before it, failed to apply the correct test for global comparison of the signs, in reaching the conclusion that the level of similarity between the signs is low.
   Finally the appellant submits that, having applied legally incorrect, incomplete or flawed tests for defining the relevant public, evaluating the degree of similarity of goods, and evaluating the degree of similarity between the signs, the CFI based its finding on likelihood of confusion, on incorrect, incomplete or flawed legal criteria.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
   OJ L 11, p. 1


title: Case C-144/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(b) — Refusal to register — Figurative mark — Representation of a red and white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre — Distinctive character)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 4 October 2007 — Henkel KGaA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-144/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(b) - Refusal to register - Figurative mark - Representation of a red and white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre - Distinctive character)
   (2007/C 297/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Henkel KGaA (represented by: C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 17 January 2006 in Case T-398/04 Henkel KGaA v OHIM, in which the Court of First Instance rejected the application for annulment of the decision to refuse the registration of a three-dimensional mark for detergent products in the form of a red and white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre — Three-dimensional mark consisting of the shape of the product — Distinctive character of the mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Henkel KGaA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-451/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt Waldviertel

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/39

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien (Austria) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Gabriele Walderdorff v Finanzamt Waldviertel
   (Case C-451/06)
   (2006/C 326/83)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Auβenstelle Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gabriele Walderdorff

      Defendant: Finanzamt Waldviertel
   Questions referred
   Is Article 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) (as last amended by Council Directive 2006/69/EC of 24 July 2006 (2)), hereinafter referred to as ‘the Sixth Directive’, to be interpreted as meaning that the grant of the entitlement to fish, for consideration, in the form of a lease concluded for a period of 10 years

               1.

               by the owner of the property on which the body of water in respect of which the entitlement was granted is located,

               2.

               by the holder of fishing rights in respect of a body of water located on public land

         constitutes ‘the leasing or letting of immovable property’?

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 221, p. 9.


title: Case C-501/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators — Liability of the parent company for infringements of the law on cartels committed by its subsidiary — Holding company — Internal compliance programme — Fundamental rights — Principles of the rule of law in the context of determination of the fines imposed — Separation of powers, and principles of legality, of non-retroactivity, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of fault — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Validity — Legality of the 1998 Commission guidelines)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 — Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH v European Commission, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-501/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators - Liability of the parent company for infringements of the law on cartels committed by its subsidiary - Holding company - Internal compliance programme - Fundamental rights - Principles of the rule of law in the context of determination of the fines imposed - Separation of powers, and principles of legality, of non-retroactivity, of the protection of legitimate expectations and of fault - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Validity - Legality of the 1998 Commission guidelines)
   2013/C 260/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV, Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH (represented by: R. Bechtold and W. Bosch, Rechtsanwälte, and J. Schwarze, Prozessbevollmächtigter)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer and C. Hödlmayr, acting as Agents, and A. Böhlke, Rechtsanwalt), Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Simm, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07 Schindler Holding and Others v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 — Elevators and Escalators), concerning a cartel on the market for the installation and maintenance of elevators and escalators in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands relating to bid-rigging, the sharing of markets, the fixing of prices, the award of projects and of the related contracts and the exchange of information, and, in the alternative, seeking the reduction of the fine imposed upon the appellants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Schindler Holding Ltd, Schindler Management AG, Schindler SA, Schindler Sàrl, Schindler Liften BV and Schindler Deutschland Holding GmbH to bear their own costs and, in addition, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-215/13: Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll/OHIM — Recticel (Lambda)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/12

         Action brought on 15 April 2013 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll/OHIM — Recticel (Lambda)
   (Case T-215/13)
   2013/C 178/23
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH & Co. OHG (Gladbeck, Germany) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Recticel SA (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the defendant, R 112/2012-5, and

               —

               Impose the costs on the defendant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The figurative mark representing the Greek letter lambda in red and white colours, Community trade mark registration No 2 960 789

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2003 in Case C-422/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Capespan International plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Community Customs Code — Fruit and vegetables — Calculation of customs value)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 44/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     3.    On a proper construction of Article 5 of Regulation No 3223/
                                                                                94, an importer who is not in a position to make a definitive
                                                                                declaration of customs value at the time of customs clearance of
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                          fruit and vegetables coming under the scope of that regulation
                                                                                may give a provisional indication of that value under
                                                                                Article 254 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of
                        of 16 January 2003                                        2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                                Community Customs Code only where the value of the
in Case C-422/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                              abovementioned products is determined according to the method
from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Capespan                               provided for in Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 3223/94.
International plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (1)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(Community Customs Code — Fruit and vegetables —
                   Calculation of customs value)
                          (2003/C 44/12)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 January 2003
In Case C-422/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  in Case C-205/01: Commission of the European Communi-
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom)                               ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Capespan International plc and Commissioners
of Customs & Excise, first, on the interpretation of Articles 28            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
to 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October                  Directive 86/609/EEC — Protection of animals used for
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992                       experimental and other scientific purposes — Incomplete
L 302, p. 1), Articles 141 to 181a of Commission Regulation                                              transposition)
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for
the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993                                                    (2003/C 44/13)
L 253, p. 1), and Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables
(OJ 1994 L 337, p. 66), and, secondly, on the validity of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 of 14 July 1998                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
amending Regulation No 3223/94 (OJ 1998 L 198, p. 4), the                                       in the European Court Reports)
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rappor-
teur), President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Regis-               In Case C-205/01, Commission of the European Communities
trar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003, in which it                  (Agent: R. Wainwright, assisted by J. Stuyck, avocat) v Kingdom
has ruled:                                                                  of the Netherlands (Agent: H.G. Sevenster): Application for a
                                                                            declaration that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
                                                                            communicate to the Commission, all the laws, regulations and
1.    The customs value of fruit and vegetables coming within               administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose into
      the scope of Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of                 national law Articles 8(2), 11, 18(1) and 22(1) of Council
      21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the         Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the approxi-
      import arrangements for fruit and vegetables must, in respect of      mation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of
      the period between 18 March 1997 and 17 July 1998                     the Member States regarding the protection of animals used
      inclusive, be determined in accordance with the rules for             for experimental and other scientific purposes (OJ 1986 L 358,
      calculating entry price provided for in Article 5 of that             p. 1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
      regulation.                                                           obligations under that directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                            composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
2.    Consideration of the third question referred has disclosed no         D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von
      factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Regu-          Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
      lation (EC) No 1498/98 of 14 July 1998 amending Regu-                 Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 January 2003,
      lation No 3223/94.                                                    in which it:


title: Case C-324/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 12 August 2009 — L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L'Oréal (UK) Limited v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL, eBay (UK) Limited, Stephan Potts, Tracy Ratchford, Marie Ormsby, James Clarke, Joanna Clarke, Glen Fox, Rukhsana Bi

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/40

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division, made on 12 August 2009 — L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L'Oréal (UK) Limited v eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL, eBay (UK) Limited, Stephan Potts, Tracy Ratchford, Marie Ormsby, James Clarke, Joanna Clarke, Glen Fox, Rukhsana Bi
   (Case C-324/09)
   2009/C 267/71
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: L'Oréal SA, Lancôme parfums et beauté & Cie SNC, Laboratoire Garnier & Cie, L'Oréal (UK) Limited

      Defendants: eBay International AG, eBay Europe SARL, eBay (UK) Limited, Stephan Potts, Tracy Ratchford, Marie Ormsby, James Clarke, Joanna Clarke, Glen Fox, Rukhsana Bi

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where perfume and cosmetic testers (i.e. samples for use in demonstrating products to consumers in retail outlets) and dramming bottles (i.e. containers from which small aliquots can be taken for supply to consumers as free samples) which are not intended for sale to consumers (and are often marked ‘not for sale’ or ‘not for individual sale’) are supplied without charge to the trade mark proprietor's authorised distributors, are such goods ‘put on the market’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 (‘the Trade Marks Directive’) and Article 13(1) of Council Regulation 40/94 (2) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (‘the CTM Regulation’)?

               2.

               Where the boxes (or other outer packaging) have been removed from perfumes and cosmetics without the consent of the trade mark proprietor, does this constitute a ‘legitimate reason’ for the trade mark proprietor to oppose further commercialization of the unboxed products within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 13(2) of the CTM Regulation?

               3.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to question to 2 above if:

                           (a)

                           as a result of the removal of the boxes (or other outer packaging), the unboxed products do not bear the information required by Article 6(1) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC (3) of 27 July 1976 (‘the Cosmetics Products Directive’), and in particular do not bear a list of ingredients or a ‘best before date’?

                           (b)

                           as a result of the absence of such information, the offer for sale or sale of the unboxed products constitutes a criminal offence according to the law of the member state of the Community in which they are offered for sale or sold by third parties?

               4.

               Does it make a difference to the answer to question 2 above if the further commercialization damages, or is likely to damage, the image of the goods and hence the reputation of the trademark? If so, is that effect to be presumed, or is it required to be proved by the trade mark proprietor?

               5.

               Where a trader which operates an online marketplace purchases the use of a sign which is identical to a registered trade mark as a keyword from a search engine operator so that the sign is displayed to a user by the search engine in a sponsored link to the website of the operator of the online marketplace, does the display of the sign in the sponsored link constitute ‘use’ of the sign within the meaning of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation?

               6.

               Where clicking on the sponsored link referred to in question 5 above leads the user directly to advertisements or offers for sale of goods identical to those for which the trade mark is registered under the sign placed on the website by other parties, some of which infringe the trade mark and some which do not infringe the trade mark by virtue of the differing statuses of the respective goods, does that constitute use of the sign by the operator of the online marketplace ‘in relation to’ the infringing goods within the meaning of 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation?

               7.

               Where the goods advertised and offered for sale on the website referred to in question 6 above include goods which have not been put on the market within the EEA by or with the consent of the trade mark proprietor, is it sufficient for such use to fall within the scope of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation and outside Article 7(1) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 13(1) of the CTM Regulation that the advertisement or offer for sale is targeted at consumers in the territory covered by the trade mark or must the trade mark proprietor show that the advertisement or offer for sale necessarily entails putting the goods in question on the market within the territory covered by the trade mark?

               8.

               Does it make any difference to the answers to questions 5-7 above if the use complained of by the trade mark proprietor consists of the display of the sign on the website of the operator of the online marketplace itself rather than in a sponsored link?

               9.

               If it is sufficient for such use to fall within the scope of Article 5(l)(a) of the Trade Marks Directive and Article 9(l)(a) of the CTM Regulation and outside Article 7(1) of the Trade Mark Directive and Article 13(1) of the CTM Regulation that the advertisement or offer for sale is targeted at consumers in the territory covered by the trade mark:

                           (a)

                           does such use consist of or include ‘the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive?

                           (b)

                           if the use does not consist exclusively of activities falling within the scope of Article 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive, but includes such activities, is the operator of the online marketplace exempted from liability to the extent that the use consists of such activities and if so may damages or other financial remedies be granted in respect of such use to the extent that it is not exempted from liability?

                           (c)

                           in circumstances where the operator of the online marketplace has knowledge that goods have been advertised, offered for sale and sold on its website in infringement of registered trade marks, and that infringements of such registered trade marks are likely to continue to occur through the advertisement, offer for sale and sale of the same or similar goods by the same or different users of the website, does this constitute ‘actual knowledge’ or ‘awareness’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of the E-Commerce Directive?

               10.

               Where the services of an intermediary such as an operator of a website have been used by a third party to infringe a registered trade mark, does Article 11 of European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/48 (4) of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (‘the Enforcement Directive’) require Member States to ensure that the trade mark proprietor can obtain an injunction against the intermediary to prevent further infringements of the said trade mark, as opposed to continuation of that specific act of infringement, and if so what is the scope of the injunction that shall be made available?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks
   OJ L 40, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 11, p. 1

      (3)  Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products
   OJ L 262, p. 169

      (4)  OJ L 157, p. 45


title: Action brought on 13 March 1997 by J. T. F. J. Op 't Veld against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-66/97)

text:
 10 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/29
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant the sum of F1 386 439 , together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
       1992 until the date of payment in full;                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                     Case T- 50197 (>).
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall            O Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      think fit, amounting to not less than F1 39 954
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
       1992 until the date of the payment in full;
                                                                     Action brought on 13 March 1997 by J. T. F. J. Op 't
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                         Veld against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            ( Case T-66/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/63
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
O Page 24 of this Official Journal.
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 13 March 1997 by J. T. F. J. Op 't Veld,
                                                                     of Vlodrop (Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
Action brought on 13 March 1997 by T. H. P. Neelen                   Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
against the Council of the European Union and the                    of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
           Commission of the European Communities                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                     Guillaume .
                          Case T-65/97
                          ( 97/C 142/62 )
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
An action against the Council of the European Union and                     applicant the sum of Fl 280 097, together with interest
the Commission of the European Communities was                              thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                  1992 until the date of payment in full;
Communities on 13 March 1997 by T. H. P. Neelen, of
Nunhem ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker                      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,                    applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in                            think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 116 957
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue                         ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
Guillaume .
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
                                                                            thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 1992 until the date of the payment in full ;
( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the                   ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
      applicant the sum of Fl 323 980, together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of payment in full;                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      in the alternative: order the Community to pay the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall            Case T-50/97 ( 1 ).
      think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 133 491
      ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of         (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
      thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
      1992 until the date of the payment in full;


title: Judgment of the Court of 18 January 2001 in Case C-361/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Application for annulment of Commission Decision 98/710/EC — Distribution of air traffic between the airports of Milan — "Malpensa 2000")

text:
C 150/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.5.2001
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)                                                          of 18 January 2001
                          of 11 January 2001                                 in Case C-361/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-370/99: Commission of the European Communi-                        (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Application for
                             ties v Ireland (1)                              annulment of Commission Decision 98/710/EC — Distri-
                                                                             bution of air traffic between the airports of Milan —
                                                                                ‘Malpensa 2000’)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 96/9/EC — Failure to implement within the
                           prescribed period)                                                          (2001/C 150/07)
                            (2001/C 150/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-370/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K. Banks and M. Desantes) v Ireland (Agents:
M.A. Buckley) — application for a declaration that, by failing               In Case C-361/98: Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza, assisted
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 by I.M. Braguglia and P.G. Ferri) v Commission of the
necessary to comply with Directive 96/9/EC of the European                   European Communities (Agents: F. Benyon and L. Pignataro)
Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal                  — application for annulment of Commission Decision
protection of databases (OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20), Ireland has                   98/710/EC of 16 September 1998 on a procedure relating to
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court            the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                  (Case VII/AMA/11/98 — Italian traffic distribution rules for
Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,               the airport system of Milan) (OJ 1998 L 337, p. 42) —
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
on 11 January 2001, in which it:                                             C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris
                                                                             (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                             P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and           Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive           Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January
      96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of               2001, in which it:
      11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, Ireland
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                                   (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.


title: Case C-27/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) — Elfering Export GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Material condition — Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 — Beef and veal — Absence of proof as to the origin of the products — Applicability of penalties)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/18

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) — Elfering Export GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-27/05) (1)

   (Export refunds - Material condition - Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 - Beef and veal - Absence of proof as to the origin of the products - Applicability of penalties)
   (2006/C 143/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elfering Export GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 5(4) and 51(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11) — Indication, in the export declaration, that the products are of Community origin — Lack of proof of the products' origin — Applicability of penalties
   Operative part of the judgment
   The declaration made in an export declaration that the product in respect of which a refund is sought is of Community origin is information to which a penalty may attach under Article 51(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products in conjunction with Article 5(4) thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 02.04.2005.


C 289/22              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 13.10.2001
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance           b)  to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          to Chambers as follows:
                        (2001/C 289/56)
                                                                           to the First Chamber:
The Judges of the Court of First Instance, meeting on 19 Sep-
tember 2001, elected Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President of the
Court of First Instance, pursuant to Article 7 of the Rules of             Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Forwood and Mr Legal,
Procedure, for the period from 19 September 2001 to                        Judges;
31 August 2004.
                                                                           to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
                                                                           Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Lenaerts, Mr Azizi, Mr For-
                                                                           wood and Mr Legal, Judges;
                                                                           to the Second Chamber:
Appointment of the Registrar of the Court of First
                            Instance                                       Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Mr Pirrung and
                                                                           Mr Meij, Judges;
                        (2001/C 289/57)
                                                                           to the Second Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 19 September 2001 the Court of First
Instance appointed Hans Jung as Registrar of the Court of                  Mr Moura Ramos (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili,
First Instance, pursuant to Article 20 in conjunction with                 Mr Pirrung, Mr Mengozzi and Mr Meij, Judges;
Article 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from
27 September 2001 to 26 September 2007.                                    to the Third Chamber:
                                                                           Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Lenaerts and
                                                                           Mr Azizi, Judges;
                                                                           to the Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
Designation of Presidents of Chambers and assignment of                    Mr Jaeger (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     Judges to Chambers                                    Mr Lenaerts, Ms Lindh and Mr Azizi, Judges;
                        (2001/C 289/58)                                    to the Fourth Chamber:
                                                                           Mr Vilaras (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili and Mr Men-
At its plenary conference held on 20 September 2001 the                    gozzi, Judges;
Court of First Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the
Council Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in               to the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition:
respect of the period from 20 September 2001 to 30 Septem-
ber 2002:                                                                  Mr Vilaras (President of Chamber), Ms Tiili, Mr Pirrung,
                                                                           Mr Mengozzi and Mr Meij, Judges;
a)    to designate as Presidents of Chambers:                              to the Fifth Chamber:
      —    Judge Moura Ramos                                               Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas
                                                                           and Ms Lindh, Judges;
      —    Judge Cooke
                                                                           to the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition:
      —    Judge Jaeger
                                                                           Mr Cooke (President of Chamber), Mr Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
      —    Judge Vilaras                                                   Ms Lindh, Mr Forwood and Mr Legal, Judges.