title: Case C-314/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE (Requests for preliminary rulings — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Exceptions — Payment of professional fees associated with legal services — Discretion of the competent national authority — Right to effective judicial protection — Effect of unlawful origin of funds — None)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE
   (Case C-314/13) (1)

   ((Requests for preliminary rulings - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Exceptions - Payment of professional fees associated with legal services - Discretion of the competent national authority - Right to effective judicial protection - Effect of unlawful origin of funds - None))
   2014/C 282/18
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Užsienio reikalų ministerija, Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimo tarnyba

      Defendants: Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-Pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of January 2011 and by Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, when taking a decision on whether to grant a derogation requested under that provision with a view to bringing an action challenging the lawfulness of restrictive measures imposed by the European Union, the competent national authority does not enjoy an absolute discretion, but must exercise its powers in a manner which upholds the rights provided for in the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and observes the indispensable nature of legal representation in bringing such an action before the General Court of the European Union.
               The competent national authority may verify that the funds release of which is requested are intended exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services. It may also set the conditions it deems appropriate in order to guarantee, inter alia, that the objective of the sanction imposed is not frustrated and the derogation granted is not distorted.

               2.

               Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 765/2006, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 84/2011 and by Regulation No 588/2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that of the main proceedings, in which a freezing of funds and economic resources is based on that regulation, a derogation from the freezing of funds and economic resources in order to pay for legal services must be appraised in accordance with that provision, which makes no reference to the origin of the funds or possible unlawful acquisition thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


title: Case T-193/06: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — TF1 v European Commission (State aid — Aid schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual production — Decision not to raise objections — Actions for annulment — Absence of any significant effect on the competitive position — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — TF1 v European Commission
   (Case T-193/06) (1)

   (State aid - Aid schemes for cinematographic and audiovisual production - Decision not to raise objections - Actions for annulment - Absence of any significant effect on the competitive position - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 301/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: J. P. Hordies and C. Smits, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, T. Scharf and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and L. Butel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 832 Final of 22 March 2006 relating to support measures for the cinema and audiovisual industry in France (State aid NN 84/2004 and N 95/2004 — France, Aid schemes for the film and audiovisual industry)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Télévision française 1 SA (TF1) to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-396/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 27 August 2012 — A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren; other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland
   (Case C-396/12)
   2012/C 379/21
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: A.M. van der Ham, A.H. van der Ham-Reijersen van Buuren

      Other party: College van Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland

      Questions referred

               1.

               How should the term ‘intentional non-compliance’ in Article 51(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 (1) of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) …, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 74/2009 (2) of 19 January 2009, in Article 23 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1975/2006 (3) of 7 December 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 1698/2005 …, and in Article 67(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (4) of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers …, be understood? In order to assume that intentional non-compliance has occurred, is it sufficient that there is non-compliance with long-established, settled policy as described in Article 8(2)(c) of the national Beleidsregels normenkader randvoorwaarden Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid (Netherlands Policy Rules governing the Cross-Compliance Standards Framework for the Common Agricultural Policy)?

               2.

               Does European Union law preclude a ruling in a Member State that there is ‘intentional’ non-compliance with a scheme, within the terms of those regulations, on the ground that one or more of the following circumstances obtained:

                           (a)

                           intent has already been assumed in the cross-compliance requirement in respect of which there has been non-compliance;

                           (b)

                           the cross-compliance requirement concerned is complex;

                           (c)

                           long-established, settled policy exists;

                           (d)

                           there has been an active performance of an act, or a conscious omission of an act;

                           (e)

                           the farmer was previously informed of compliance deficiencies in respect of the cross-compliance requirement concerned; and

                           (f)

                           the extent of the non-compliance with the cross-compliance requirement points to intentional non-compliance?

               3.

               Can ‘intent’ with regard to the ‘non-compliance’ be attributed to the beneficiary of the subsidy if a third party carries out the work on the instructions of that beneficiary?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 30, p. 100.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 368, p. 74.

      (4)  OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18.


title: Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-245/96)

text:
No C 269/ 16           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         14 . 9 . 96
     ( a ) Commission Directive 93/63/EEC ( ) of 5 July 1993            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           setting out the implementing measures concerning
           the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and              Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
           establishments pursuant to Council Directive                 binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
           91 /682/EEC ( 2 ) on the marketing of ornamental             State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
           plant propagating material and ornamental plants             an obligation to comply with the time limits set by directives
           and/or failing to communicate them to the                    for their implementation. In the present case, when the time
           Commission ;                                                 limit expired on 1 January 1993 , the Italian Republic had
                                                                        not taken the steps necessary to comply with Directive
     ( b ) Commission Directive 93/78/EEC of 21 September               92/42/EEC .
           1993 setting out additional implementing
           provisions for lists of varieties of ornamental plant
                                                                        (') OJ No L 167, 22 . 6 . 1992 , p . 17.
           propagating material and ornamental plants, as
           kept by suppliers under Council Directive
           91 /682/EEC ( 3 ) and/or failing to communicate them
           to the Commission,
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 6 of Directive 93/63/EEC and
     Article 3 of Directive 93/68 /EEC and also under the EC            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Office of the
     Treaty,                                                            Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal, by
                                                                        reference of that court of 9 July 1996, in the Case of
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                       Mrs Mary Teresa Maggorian and Mrs Irene Patricia
                                                                        Cunningham against the Eastern Health and Social Services
                                                                         Board and the Department of Health and Social Services
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case C-246/96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put                                       ( 96/C 269/34 )
forward in Case C-236/96 (4 ); the time limit set by the
Directive expired on 30 June 1994 .
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(')  OJ No L 250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p. 31 .
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Office of the
(2)  OJ No L 276 , 31 . 10 . 1991 , p. 21 .                             Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal of
(?)  OJ No L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p. 19 .                             9 July 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
(4 ) See page 11 of this Official Journal .                             17 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Mrs Mary Teresa Maggorian and Mrs Irene Patricia
                                                                        Cunningham against the Eastern Health and Social Services
                                                                        Board and the Department of Health and Social Services, on
                                                                        the following questions :
Action brought on 12 July 1996 by the Commission of the                 In circumstances where :
     European Communities against the Italian Republic
                           Case C-245 /96 )                             ( a ) a worker has been employed by a health board which is
                            ( 96/C 269/33 )                                   part of the State, in employment concerned with the
                                                                              care of the mentally ill to which an occupational
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                     pension scheme applies;
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                          ( b ) the worker has at all material times either been a
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal                        member or been eligible to be a member of the pension
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                      scheme;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi .                                         ( c ) the pension scheme contains a term according to which
                                                                              those who work full time and devote all or substantially
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                  all their working hours to the care of the mentally ill
                                                                              ( who are described as ' Mental Health Officers ') are
— declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations                    entitled to additional benefits not available to those
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   doing the same work part time, as follows : 'where a
      Council Directive 92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                           person has reached or passed the age of 50 and has
     efficiency requirements for new hot-water boilers fired                  worked as a Mental Health Officer for 20 years ( here
     with liquid or gaseous fuels ('), or by not adopting the                 referred to as the 'qualifying service') and continues to
     necessary implementing measures, the Italian Republic                    work as a Mental Health Officer, then :
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive ,
                                                                                ( i ) their subsequent service is reckoned for pension
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the                                  purposes at twice its length ( here referred to as the
     proceedings .                                                                    'double-time service'); and


title: Case C-381/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014  — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank, S.A.

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 11 August 2014 — Jorge Sales Sinués v Caixabank, S.A.
   (Case C-381/14)
   2014/C 388/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil No 9 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jorge Sales Sinués

      Defendant: Caixabank, S.A.

      Questions referred

   Given that the Spanish system provides in Article 43 of the LEC (1) that, where an individual action is brought concurrently by a consumer, the effect is that that action must be stayed and treated as a preliminary issue pending final judgment in collective proceedings, and that the consumer is bound by the decision in those proceedings without having had the opportunity to put forward the appropriate pleas or adduce evidence with full equality of arms:

               1.

               Can it be considered [that the Spanish legal system provides for] an effective means or mechanism pursuant to Article 7(1) of Directive 93/13 (2)?

               2.

               To what extent does the effect of a stay of proceedings preclude a consumer from complaining that the unfair terms included in the contract concluded with him are void, and, therefore, infringe Article 7(1) of the directive?

               3.

               Does the fact that a consumer is unable to dissociate himself from collective proceedings constitute an infringement of Article 7(3) of Directive 93/13?

               4.

               Or, on the other hand, is the effect of a stay of proceedings provided for in Article 43 of the LEC compatible with Directive 93/13 on the grounds that the rights of consumers are fully safeguarded by a collective action, because the Spanish legal system provides for other equally effective procedural mechanisms for the protection of consumers’ rights and by the principle of legal certainty?

      (1)  Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Spanish Code of Civil Procedure).

      (2)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-493/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014  — Mayer v EFSA

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/19

         Action brought on 30 June 2014 — Mayer v EFSA
   (Case T-493/14)
   2014/C 329/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ingrid Alice Mayer (Ellwangen, Germany) (represented by: T. Mayer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               extend her secondment up to 30 June 2015;

               —

               declare unlawful the termination of her secondment agreement, more precisely the EFSA decision ‘Termination of the secondment’ of 16 April 2014;

               —

               order the defendant not to allow the ‘observer’ position of the seconded national expert on the staff committee to be re-selected;

               —

               declare unlawful the six-month suspension of her staff-committee activity;

               —

               order that she be granted access to all e-mails which were exchanged between the EFSA director and a private-law organisation active in the food sector;

               —

               in the alternative, order that that access to documents be granted to a third party, to be determined by the General Court, in order to examine a possible conflict of interests;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on the following submissions in support of her action.
   The applicant submits that she has a legal entitlement to an extension of her secondment as national expert as a result of the general principle of equality, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the prohibition of arbitrary action and Article 2 TEU.
   The applicant complains in this regard that the non-extension of the secondment is based on an erroneous selection decision, or even on no selection decision at all.
   The applicant also claims that her suspension from the staff committee is unlawful because no reasons were given, no hearing took place and no written decision was issued.
   In addition, the applicant asserts a claim to have access to certain e-mails under Article 2 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). In this connection, she argues that official e-mails do not fall under the protection of personal data.

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-357/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/15/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
No C 212/8             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 12 . 7. 97
     — Commission Directive 93/21 /EEC of 27 April                         15 April 1994 adapting to technical progress for the
         1993 adapting to technical progress for the 18th                  first time Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the
         time Directive 67/548/EEC, with the exception of                  deliberate release into the environment of genetically
         the provisions of that Directive applicable to                    modified organisms, the Kingdom of Belgium has
         mobile gas cylinders containing butane, propane or                failed to fulfil its obligations under the - first
         liquid petroleum gas, and                                         subparagraph of Article 2 of that Directive;
     — Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of 29 October                   2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
          1 993 concerning the list of substances referred to
         in Article 13 (1 ) (fifth indent) of Directive 67/548/
         EEC,                                                         (') OJ No C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 2 of each of those Directives .
2 . The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.               Action brought on 22 April 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(') OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .                                                              ( Case C-154/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/16 )
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 on 22 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                             Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                         of 29 May 1997                               Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
       in Case C-3 57/96: Commission of the European
             Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( J )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 94/15/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                        prescribed period)                            — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                           ( 97/C 212/15 )                                 period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                           provisions necessary to implement Commission
                                                                           Directive 93/106/EC of 29 November 1993 amending
                 (Language of the case: French)                            Directive 92/76/EEC recognizing protected zones
                                                                           exposed to particular plant health risks in the
                                                                           Community H , the Hellenic Republic has failed to
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
           published in the European Court Reports)                        Directive,
In Case C-357/96 : Commission of the European                         — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
Communities (Agent: Gotz zur Hausen ) against Kingdom
of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder ) — application for a
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
with Commission Directive 94/15/EC of 15 April 1994                   Pursuant to Article 2 of Directive 93/106/EC , the Member
adapting to technical progress for the first time Council             States were to adopt the measures needed to comply with
Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the               its provisions by 15 December 1993 and to inform the
environment of genetically modified organisms ( OJ No                  Commission thereof.
L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p. 20 ), the Kingdom of Belgium has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the
 Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of: G. F. Mancini ,                 The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,                yet brought its legislation into line with the Directive,
 P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges;              thereby failing to fulfil its obligations under the third
 D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass,                   paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of
 Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:               Article 5 of the Treaty.
                                                                       (') OJ No L 298 , 3 . 12 . 1993 , p . 34 .
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative measures necessary in order to
      comply with Commission Directive 94/15/EC of


title: Case T-192/05: Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Franky Callewaert and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/29

         Action brought on 4 May 2005 by Franky Callewaert and Others against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-192/05)
   (2005/C 193/49)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Franky Callewaert, residing in Roeselare (Belgium) and Others, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the classification in grade granted to the applicants in their recruitments decisions, in so far as that classification is based on Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations;

               —

               reconstitute the applicants' careers (including recognition of their experience in the grade thus amended, their rights to promotion and their pension entitlement), on the basis of the grade to which they should have been appointed on the basis of the competition notice following which they were placed on the reserve recruitment list, either in the grade appearing in that vacancy notice, or, corresponding to its equivalent according to the classification in the new Staff Regulations (and the appropriate step in accordance with the rules applicable before 1 May 2004), on the basis of the decision appointing them;

               —

               award the applicants default interest on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing arrangements applicable during the relevant period, plus two percentage points, on all sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to their classification in the recruitment decision and the classification to which they should have been entitled up to the date of the decision properly classifying them in grade;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same as those in Case T-58/05 and similar to those in Cases T-130/05, T-160/05, T-162/05, T-164/05, T-170/05 and T-183/05.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2002 in Case T-9/01: Michael Becker v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Invalidity pension)

text:
14.9.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 219/17
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    1.     dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it asks the
European Communities (Agents: K. Banks and M. Wolfcarius),                          Court to order the defendant to classify the applicant at a higher
supported by Council of the European Union (Agent: A. Lopes                         grade.
Sabino): Application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision, contained in a letter of 5 September 2000, refusing                2.     dismisses the remainder of the application as unfounded.
to grant the applicant financial support under the MEDIA II
programme and for damages to compensate for the harm
suffered as a result of that refusal, the Court of First Instance            3.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 2002,              (1 ) OJ No C 95 of 24.3.01.
in which it:
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the defendant
       in addition to its own;
3.     Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000                                                                              of 12 June 2002
                                                                             in Case T-9/01: Michael Becker v Court of Auditors of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Invalidity
                                                                                pension)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2002/C 219/44)
                            of 11 July 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-381/00: Franz-Martin Wasmeier v Commission
                 of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade —
                                                                             In Case T-9/01: Michael Becker, an official on leave on
             Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                             personal grounds from the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                             Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
                           (2002/C 219/43)                                   R. Nathan, lawyer, against Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                             Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, P. Giusta and B. Schäfers)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the decision of the Court of
                    (Language of the case: German)                           Auditors of 13 November 2000 rejecting a request to be
                                                                             retired on grounds of invalidity — the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
                                                                             and P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, for the Registrar,
                                                                             gave a judgment on 12 June 2002, in which it:
In Case T-381/00: Franz-Martin Wasmeier, an official at
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by G. Maier, lawyer, against Commission                1.     Dismisses the application.
of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser et
M. B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 24 September 2000 concerning the                    2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
applicant’s definitive classification in Grade A 7, step 3, and of
the Commission’s decision of 24 September 1999 rejecting
the applicant’s complaint — the Court of First Instance (Fifth               (1 ) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh , Judges; D. Christensen, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-233/13: Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Hartmann v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/38

         Action brought on 23 April 2013 — Hartmann v Commission
   (Case T-233/13)
   2013/C 171/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann SA (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission


title: Case C-276/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Firenze (Italy)) — Nancy Delay v Università degli studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Repubblica italiana (Freedom of movement for workers — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Category of exchange assistants — Former foreign-language assistants — Recognition of acquired rights)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Firenze (Italy)) — Nancy Delay v Università degli studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Repubblica italiana
   (Case C-276/07) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Category of ‘exchange assistants’ - Former foreign-language assistants - Recognition of acquired rights)
   (2008/C 171/17)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte d'appello di Firenze
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nancy Delay

      Defendant: Università degli studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Repubblica italiana
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Recognition of the acquired rights of foreign-language assistants — Assistants employed pursuant to a cultural exchange agreement with other Member States (‘exchange assistants’) — Applicability of the principles flowing from Cases C-21/99 and C-119/04
   Operative part of the judgment
   It is contrary to Article 39(2) EC that, when a fixed-term contract of employment as an exchange assistant is replaced by a contract of employment for an indefinite period as a linguistic associate, a person in the position of the applicant in the main proceedings should be refused recognition of the rights acquired since the date of her first recruitment, with consequences with regard to remuneration, the account to be taken of seniority and the payment, by the employer, of contributions to a social security scheme, inasmuch as a national worker placed in a comparable situation would have been entitled to such recognition. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is so in the case in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-504/14: Action brought on 2 July 2014  — Sertrans Catalunya v Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/55

         Action brought on 2 July 2014 — Sertrans Catalunya v Commission
   (Case T-504/14)
   2014/C 282/73
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sertrans Catalunya, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. De Juan Casadevall, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, if the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (STLS) is held to be unlawful State aid, order recovery only until the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of the decision initiating the formal investigation, namely, 21 September 2011; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-500/14 Derivados del Flúor v Commission.


C 161/26              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
      Removal from the Register of Case T-350/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-150/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/51)                                                           (2001/C 161/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 13 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-350/99,
                                                                          Register of Case T-150/00, Groupement Européen des Produc-
Bogoljub Karic and Others v Council of the European Union.
                                                                          teurs de Verre Plat (GEPV) v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-29/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-168/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/52)                                                           (2001/C 161/55)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the First                  By order of 7 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Case T-29/00, Deutsche Post AG v Commission of the                        Case T-168/00, Düsseldorfer Senfspezialitäten v Office for
European Communities.                                                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs).
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-91/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-189/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/53)                                                           (2001/C 161/56)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          By order of 22 February 2001, the President of the Second
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-189/00, ‘Invest’ Import und Export Gmbh et Invest
Case T-91/00, Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European
                                                                          Commerce SARL v Commission of the European Communi-
Communities.
                                                                          ties.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: Case T-50/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (Dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/22

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Fraas v OHIM (Dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern)
   (Case T-50/11)
   2011/C 89/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 November 2010 in Case R 1316/2010-4;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a dark grey, light grey, black, beige, dark red and light red coloured checked pattern for goods in Classes 18, 24, and 25

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Community trade mark at issue has distinctive character, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not examine the extensive factual and legal submissions of the applicant.

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


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005 in Case T-105/03 Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou v Council of the European Union (Officials — Staff report — Action for annulment — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate — Action for compensation)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/24

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 31 May 2005
   in Case T-105/03 Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Action for annulment - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate - Action for compensation)
   (2005/C 193/38)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-105/03: Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou, a former official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by F. Renard, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application, firstly, for annulment of the decision drawing up the applicant's final staff report for the 1999/2001 period and, secondly, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by her — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the claims for annulment;

               2.

               The claims for compensation are rejected as unfounded;

               3.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case T-406/15: Action brought on 26 July 2015 — Mahmoudian v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/26

         Action brought on 26 July 2015 — Mahmoudian v Council
   (Case T-406/15)
   (2015/C 337/26)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fereydoun Mahmoudian (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Bahrami and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the sum of EUR 2 2 27  000 in respect of material harm and the sum of EUR 6 00  000 in respect of non-material harm;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law which is in essence identical or similar to that raised in Case T-405/15 Fulmen v Council.


title: Case C-521/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Agreement on the European Economic Area — Article 40 — Free movement of capital — Discrimination in the treatment of dividends paid by Netherlands companies — Deduction at source — Exemption — Beneficiary companies established in Member States of the Community — Beneficiary companies established in Iceland or Norway)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-521/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Agreement on the European Economic Area - Article 40 - Free movement of capital - Discrimination in the treatment of dividends paid by Netherlands companies - Deduction at source - Exemption - Beneficiary companies established in Member States of the Community - Beneficiary companies established in Iceland or Norway)
   2009/C 180/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. van Nuffel and R. Lyal, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 40 EEA — Dividends paid to companies established in Norway or Iceland from withholding tax on dividends not exempted under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By not exempting dividends paid by Netherlands companies to companies established in Iceland or Norway from deduction at source of the tax on dividends under the same conditions as dividends paid to Netherlands companies or companies of other Member States of the Community, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

               2.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 09.02.2008.


title: Case C-291/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State by order of that court of  13 July 2005  in the proceedings between Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and R.N.G. Eind

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State by order of that court of 13 July 2005 in the proceedings between Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and R.N.G. Eind
   (Case C-291/05)
   (2005/C 296/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Raad van State (Council of State) of 13 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (Minister for Alien Affairs and Integration) and R.N.G. Eind on the following questions:

               Ia.

               If a national of a non-member country is regarded by a host Member State as a family member of a worker within the terms of Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, and if the validity of the residence permit granted by that Member State has not yet lapsed, does this mean that the Member State of which the worker is a national may not, for that very reason, deny the national of the non-member country the right of entry and residence on the return of the worker?

               Ib.

               If the previous question has to be answered in the negative, is the Member State itself permitted to determine whether the national of the non-member country satisfies the conditions for entry and residence based on national law on his or her entry, or should that Member State first determine whether the national of the non-member country may still derive rights from Community law as a family member of the worker?

               II.

               Does it make any difference to the answers to the questions under Ia and Ib if, prior to his or her stay in the host Member State, the national of the non-member country has had no right of residence based on national law in the Member State of which the worker is a national?

               IIIa.

               If the Member State of which a worker (the reference person) is a national is permitted, on the worker's return, itself to determine whether the conditions laid down in Community law for the issue of a residence permit as a family member are still fulfilled, does a national of a non-member country who is a family member of the reference person, who returns from the host Member State to the Member State of which he is a national in order to seek employment there, have a right of residence in the latter Member State and, if so, for how long?

               IIIb.

               Does that right also exist if the reference person does not perform any genuine and actual work in the latter Member State and cannot, or can no longer, be regarded as seeking employment, in the context of Council Directive 90/364/EEC (2) of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence, given inter alia that the reference person is in receipt of a welfare benefit by virtue of his Netherlands nationality?

               IV.

               What significance for the answers to the previous questions is to be attached to the fact that the national of the non-member country is a family member of a citizen of the Union who has exercised the right he enjoys under Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community and has returned to the Member State of which he is a national?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.

      (2)  OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26.


title: Case T-216/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — Astrim and Elyo Italia v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Maintenances services for air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems — Ispra Joint Research Centre — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Interpretation of a condition laid down in the contract specifications — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2012 — Astrim and Elyo Italia v Commission
   (Case T-216/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Maintenances services for air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems - Ispra Joint Research Centre - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Interpretation of a condition laid down in the contract specifications - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 379/36
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Astrim SpA (Rome, Italy) and Elyo Italia Srl (Sesto San Giovanni, Italy) (represented by: M. Brugnoletti and M. Civello, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by N. Bambara and E. Manhaeve, then E. Manhaeve and F. Moro, Agents, and D. Gullo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission Decision of 27 March 2009 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicants in connection with the call for tenders published on 25 October 2008 by the Commission for the award of routine and non-routine maintenance services for air conditioning, heating and ventilation systems at the Ispra Joint Research Centre (OJ 2008/S 208-274999), and, in the alternative, an application for partial annulment of point 17 of the invitation to tender.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Astrim SpA and Elyo Italia Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case C-229/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen: Crailsheimer Volksbank eG v Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Loan agreement linked to property purchase concluded in a doorstep-selling situation — Right of cancellation)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 25 October 2005
   in Case C-229/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen: Crailsheimer Volksbank eG v Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke (1)

   (Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Loan agreement linked to property purchase concluded in a doorstep-selling situation - Right of cancellation)
   (2006/C 86/12)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-229/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany), made by decision of 27 May 2004, received at the Court on 2 June 2004, in the proceedings between Crailsheimer Volksbank eG and Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kuris, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that when a third party intervenes in the name of or on behalf of a trader in the negotiation or conclusion of a contract, the application of the Directive cannot be made subject to the condition that the trader was or should have been aware that the contract was concluded in a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in Article 1 of the Directive.

               2.

               Directive 85/577, and Article 5(2) thereof in particular, does not preclude:

                           —

                           a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor thereof;

                           —

                           a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back immediately;

                           —

                           national legislation which provides for an obligation on the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the agreement but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate;

                     However, in a situation where, if the Bank had complied with its obligation to inform the consumer of his right of cancellation, the consumer would have been able to avoid exposure to the risks inherent in investments such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that their legislation protects consumers who have been unable to avoid exposure to such risks, by adopting suitable measures to allow them to avoid bearing the consequences of the materialisation of those risks.

      (1)  OJ C 201, of 7.8.2004.


title: Case T-676/14: Order of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Spain v Commission (Action for annulment — Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 — Effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area — Manipulation of statistics — Commission decision to initiate an investigation — Act not amenable to review — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/35

         Order of the General Court of 3 September 2015 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-676/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Article 8(3) of Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 - Effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area - Manipulation of statistics - Commission decision to initiate an investigation - Act not amenable to review - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Abogado del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne, J. Baquero Cruz and M. Clausen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 4856 final of 11 July 2014 on launching of an investigation related to the manipulation of statistics in Spain as referred to in Regulation (EU) No 1173/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the effective enforcement of budgetary surveillance in the euro area.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Spain shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case T-332/04: Action brought on 6 August 2004 by SEBIRAN, S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/20

         Action brought on 6 August 2004 by SEBIRAN, S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-332/04)
   (2004/C 284/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 2004 by SEBIRAN, S.L., represented by José Antonio Calderón Chavero, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the OHIM Second Board of Appeal of 15 June 2004 in Case R-550/2003-2;

               —

               Confirm decision 1472/2003 in opposition proceedings B348708 dismissing the opposition brought by the opponent in its entirety and allow the application for the contested mark for all the classes claimed;

               —

               Order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs of these proceedings in the event of the proceedings being defended and those parties' claims being rejected.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘COTO D'ARCIS’ — Application No 1 558 113 for products in Classes 32 and 33 (alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks and preparations for making beverages) and services in Class 39 (transport; packaging and storage of goods)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               El Coto de Rioja S.A.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               Community word marks ‘COTO DE IMAZ’ (No 339 333) and ‘EL COTO’ (No 339 408) for products in Classes 29, 32 and 33, international mark No 442 377 and Spanish marks No 877 219, No 907 966, No 907 967, No 907 985, No 907 989, No 907 993, No 907 994, No 907 995, No 983 888, No 1 290 986, No 1 614 514, No 1 758 975 and No 2 172 691).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition dismissed.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal partially upheld, the trade mark applied for being refused for products in Classes 32 and 33.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case T-396/13: Order of the General Court of 26 January 2015  — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad) (Community trade mark — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/20

         Order of the General Court of 26 January 2015 — Dosen v OHIM — Gramm (Nano-Pad)
   (Case T-396/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 096/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Franko Dosen (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: H. Losert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially A. Pohlmann and subsequently M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thomas Gramm (Wesel, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 May 2013 (Case R 1981/2011-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Thomas Gramm and Franko Dosen.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case T-402/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/51

         Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Berliner Stadtwerke v EUIPO (berlinGas)
   (Case T-402/16)
   (2016/C 335/67)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Berliner Stadtwerke GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: O. Spieker, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘berlinGas’ — application No 14 067 714

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 May 2016 in Case R 291/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), in conjunction with Article 7(2), of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-80/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 — de Bruin v EIT

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 December 2012 — de Bruin v EIT
   (Case F-80/12) (1)

   2013/C 46/72
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.12, p. 18.


title: Case T-75/16 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/39

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-128/11 De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-75/16 P)
   (2016/C 118/45)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, entirely reversing the order under appeal, annul points 1 and 2 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 1, 7 to 25, 51 to 52, 63 to 76, 80, 84, 87 to 88, 97 to 98 and 101 to 115 of the order itself;

               —

               Consequently, annul all the contested acts and order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-128/11).
   The grounds of appeal and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.
   The appellant emphasises, in particular, that the heads of claim seeking annulment of the messages of 4 July and 12 August 2011 and annulment of the decision of 6 September 2011 rejecting the request to launch a conciliation procedure are admissible.


title: Case T-213/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/39

         Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — toom Baumarkt (Super-Samstag)
   (Case T-213/15)
   (2015/C 205/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and A. Berger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: toom Baumarkt GmbH (Cologne, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Super-Samstag’ — Community trade mark No 10 304 178

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 February 2015 in Case R 657/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 37(b)(i) and (iv) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-59/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Copad SA v Christian Dior couture SA, Vincent Gladel, as liquidator of Société industrielle lingerie (SIL), Société industrielle lingerie (SIL) (Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade-mark law — Exhaustion of the rights of the proprietor of the trade mark — Licence agreement — Sale of goods bearing the trade mark in disregard of a clause in the licence agreement — No consent of the proprietor of the mark — Sale to discount stores — Damage to the reputation of the trade mark)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Copad SA v Christian Dior couture SA, Vincent Gladel, as liquidator of Société industrielle lingerie (SIL), Société industrielle lingerie (SIL)
   (Case C-59/08) (1)

   (Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade-mark law - Exhaustion of the rights of the proprietor of the trade mark - Licence agreement - Sale of goods bearing the trade mark in disregard of a clause in the licence agreement - No consent of the proprietor of the mark - Sale to discount stores - Damage to the reputation of the trade mark)
   2009/C 141/25
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Copad SA

      Defendants: Christian Dior couture SA, Vincent Gladel, as liquidator of Société industrielle lingerie (SIL), Société industrielle lingerie (SIL)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (France) — Interpretation of Articles 5, 7, and 8(2) of First Council Directive No 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Concept of the exhaustion of the rights of the trade mark proprietor — Sale, by the licensee, of goods bearing the trade mark in disregard of a provision of the licensing agreement prohibiting certain methods of marketing — Sale to wholesalers and discount stores — Damage to the trade mark’s prestige — No consent by the trade mark proprietor

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 8(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, is to be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of a trade mark can invoke the rights conferred by that trade mark against a licensee who contravenes a provision in a licence agreement prohibiting, on grounds of the trade mark’s prestige, sales to discount stores of goods such as the ones at issue in the main proceedings, provided it has been established that that contravention, by reason of the situation prevailing in the case in the main proceedings, damages the allure and prestigious image which bestows on those goods an aura of luxury.

               2.

               Article 7(1) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, is to be interpreted as meaning that a licensee who puts goods bearing a trade mark on the market in disregard of a provision in a licence agreement does so without the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark where it is established that the provision in question is included in those listed in Article 8(2) of that Directive.

               3.

               Where a licensee puts luxury goods on the market in contravention of a provision in a licence agreement but must nevertheless be considered to have done so with the consent of the proprietor of the trade mark, the proprietor of the trade mark can rely on such a provision to oppose a resale of those goods on the basis of Article 7(2) of Directive 89/104, as amended by the Agreement on the European Economic Area, only if it can be established that, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, such resale damages the reputation of the trade mark.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.04.2008.


title: Case C-234/08: Order of the President of the Court of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-234/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/64

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 April 2000 in Case T-361/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European Communities and European Investment Bank (Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 192/17
23 December 1997 (VI/51329) rejecting an application from                Socredo to comply with Community law and to apply Council
the applicant for the issue of import licences for sugar products        Decisions 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 and 91/482/EEC of
until the Court of First Instance has given judgment on the              25 July 1991 on the association of the overseas countries and
substance, and, second, for interim measures prohibiting the             territories with the European Economic Community (OJ 1986
Commission from applying, for the same period, the pro-                  L 175, p. 1, and OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1, respectively) — the Court
visions of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 of                      of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import licences for                President, and M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung,
certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702, 1703 and                Registrar, made an order on 10 April 2000, the operative part
1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating products (OJ                  of which is as follows:
1997 L 349, p. 26) and /or of Article 108b of Council Decision
91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the                     1. The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
overseas countries and territories with the European Economic
Community (OJ 1991 L 263 p. 1), as amended, in so far as
those provisions have the effect of limiting imports into the            2. The applicant is to bear his own costs and to pay the costs
Community of sugar originating in the overseas territories and               incurred by the European Investment Bank and the Commission.
countries — the President of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has made an order on 6 April 2000,
the operative part of which is as follows:                               (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
1. The application for the present proceedings for interim measures
    to be stayed until final judgment is delivered in the main
    proceedings (Case T-44/98) is rejected;
2. The security provided in accordance with the operative part of the
    orders of 30 April and 29 September 1999, in Case T-44/98
    R II Emesa Sugar v Commission, is released for the benefit of the
    Community;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
3. Costs are reserved.                                                                              INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 April 2000
                                                                         in Case T-11/00 R: Michel Hautem v European Investment
                                                                                Bank
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               (Proceedings for interim relief — Enforcement of a judgment
                                                                         — Jurisdiction of the judge hearing the application for
                        of 10 April 2000                                      interim measures — Interpretation of the judgment)
in Case T-361/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the                                              (2000/C 192/31)
European Communities and European Investment Bank (1)
                   (Manifest inadmissibility)                                               (Language of the case: French)
                         (2000/C 192/30)                                 In Case T-11/00 R: Michel Hautem, member of the staff of
                                                                         the European Investment Bank, represented by M. Karp and
                                                                         J. Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for
                   (Language of the case: French)                        service in Luxembourg at their Chambers, 84 Grand-Rue,
                                                                         v European Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and
                                                                         G. Vandersanden) — application for interim measures — the
In Case T-361/99: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (island of           President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
Raiatea, French Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis, of           7 April 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
the Papeete Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of H. Pakowski, Ambassador of the Federal Republic
of Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter, v Commission                      1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
of the European Communities (Agents: B. Martenczuk and
X. Lewis) and European Investment Bank (Agent: L. LaMarca)               2. The costs are reserved.
— application for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicant as a result of the failure on the part
of the Commission and the European Investment Bank to
require the local authorities in French Polynesia and Banque


title: Case T-131/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2010 — Farmeco v OHIM — Allergan (BOTUMAX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark BOTUMAX — Earlier Community word and figurative marks BOTOX — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Damage to reputation — Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 October 2010 — Farmeco v OHIM — Allergan (BOTUMAX)
   (Case T-131/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark BOTUMAX - Earlier Community word and figurative marks BOTOX - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Damage to reputation - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 346/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Farmeco AE Dermokallyntika (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Lymperis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Allergan Inc. (Irvine, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 February 2009 (Case R 60/2008-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Allergan Inc. and Farmeco AE Dermokallyntika.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Farmeco AE Dermokallyntika to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case C-447/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — Riccardo Nencini v European Parliament (Appeals — Member of the European Parliament — Allowances to cover costs incurred in the exercise of parliamentary duties — Recovery of undue payments — Recovery — Limitation — Reasonable time)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/7

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — Riccardo Nencini v European Parliament
      (Case C-447/13 P) (1)

      (Appeals - Member of the European Parliament - Allowances to cover costs incurred in the exercise of parliamentary duties - Recovery of undue payments - Recovery - Limitation - Reasonable time)
      (2015/C 016/09)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Riccardo Nencini (represented by: M. Chiti, avvocato)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and N. Lorenz, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Nencini v Parliament (T-431/10 and T-560/10, EU:T:2013:290) in so far as concerns Case T-560/10;

                  2.

                  Annuls the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 7 October 2010 regarding the recovery of certain expenses received by Mr Riccardo Nencini, a former Member of the European Parliament, in respect of travel and parliamentary assistance expenses and the debit note of the Director General of the European Parliament’s Directorate-General for Finances, No 315653 of 13 October 2010;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three-quarters of the costs incurred by Mr Riccardo Nencini in the present appeal;

                  4.

                  Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-560/10;

                  5.

                  Dismisses the remainder of the appeal.

         (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case C-518/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 November 2010 — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 2 November 2010 — Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc v Comptroller-General of Patents
   (Case C-518/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/39
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Yeda Research and Development Company Ltd, Aventis Holdings Inc

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents

      Question referred

   If the criteria for deciding whether a product is ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ under Article 3(a) o the Regulation (1) include or consist of an assessment of whether the supply of the product would infringe the basic patent, does it make any difference to the analysis if infringement is by way of indirect or contributory infringement based on Article 26 of the Community Patent Convention, enacted as s60(2) Patents Act 1977 in the UK, and the corresponding provisions in the laws of other Member States of the Community?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
   OJ L 152, p. 1


title: Case C-98/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Francesca Sorge v Poste Italiane SpA

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Trani (Italy) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Francesca Sorge v Poste Italiane SpA
   (Case C-98/09)
   2009/C 129/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Trani

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francesca Sorge

      Defendant: Poste Italiane SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Clause 8 of the Framework Agreement put into effect by Directive 1990/70/EEC (1) be interpreted as precluding domestic rules (such as those laid down by Articles 11 and 1 of Legislative Decree No 368/2001) which, in implementation of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, repealed Article 1(2)(b) of Law 230/1962, according to which it was ‘permitted to impose a time-limit on the duration of the contract … when the recruitment’ took ‘place in order to replace absent workers’ who ‘retained the right to their post, provided that in the fixed-term contract’‘an indication was given of the name of the replaced worker and the reasons for his replacement’, substituting for it a provision which no longer imposes that obligation to give details?

               2.

               If the answer to the foregoing question is yes, is the national court required to disapply the national legislation that conflicts with Community law?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Case F-138/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Polizzi v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action — Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/53

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — Polizzi v Commission
      (Case F-138/14) (1)

      ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action - Application for a decision not going to the substance of the case - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
      (2016/C 364/69)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Rosalba Polizzi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision to calculate the applicant’s pension rights in the context of the transfer of those rights to the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Ms Rosalba Polizzi shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 55.