title: Case T-363/04: Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Koipe Corporación 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 284/23

         Action brought on 31 August 2004 by Koipe Corporación S.L. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-363/04)
   (2004/C 284/46)
   Language in which the application was submitted: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 August 2004 by Koipe Corporación S.L., established in San Sebastián (Spain), represented by Marcos Fernández de Béthencourt, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 May 2004 in Case R-1109/2000-4;

               —

               declare the mark applied for to be invalid or, as the case may be, order refusal of the application for a Community trade mark, No 236.588, ‘LA ESPAÑOLA’, in respect of all the goods claimed; and

               —

               order OHIM, and any person intervening whose claims are not upheld, to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Aceites del Sur S.A.

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘LA ESPAÑOLA’ – Application No 236.588 for goods in classes 29 (edible oils and fats) and 30 (mayonnaise made with olive oil)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant, which is the successor to KOIPE S.A., the firm which appeared before the Board of Appeal, as regards ownership of the marks on the basis of which the opposition proceedings were brought.

               Mark or sign cited in opposition.

               The Community (No 338.681), international (Nos 244.428 and 528.369) and national (Spanish registrations Nos 1.238.745, 1.698.613, 28.270 and 252.738 and United Kingdom registrations Nos 730.990 and 2.043.818 inter alia) figurative marks ‘CARBONELL’, for goods in class 29 (olive oil and pure olive oil).

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed.

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b), (2)(c) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Action brought on 17 February 1995 by SA des Ciments Luxembourgeois against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-34/95)

text:
No C 101 /14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 4 . 95
      incomplete and fragmentary; (c ) it refused to hear the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      applicant in relation to certain allegations which have
      resulted in the imposition of a fine; ( d ) it called upon the   The applicant states that, prior to being recruited following
      applicant to submit a defence against incomplete and             an open competition, she was seconded to the Commission
      fragmentary objections; and (e) it included in the               as a national expert; she therefore established her residence
      decision fresh accusations against the applicant which           in Brussels for a period limited to the duration of her
      were not levelled as such against the applicant in the           secondment, whilst retaining her principal residence in
      statement of objections.                                         Madrid. She now contests the fixing of Brussels as her place
                                                                       of recruitment .
— Infringement of one or more higher-ranking rules of law,
      including Article 85 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty,           The action is based on infringements of Article 71 of the
      Regulation No 17/62 and general legal principles:                Staff Regulations, of Articles 5 , 7, 8 , 9 and 10 of Annex VII
                                                                       to the Staff Regulations and of Article 2 of the general
      The Commission has failed to show that the applicant             provisions implementing Article 7 of Annex VII, as well as a
      acted contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty. More              manifest error of assessment. The applicant complains that
      particularly, it has not demonstrated that the applicant         the Commission disregarded the fact that she did not have a
      'participated' in the Cembureau agreement or in any              fixed and settled residence in Brussels and that Madrid was
      concerted practice relating to the exchange of price             still the permanent centre of her interests.
      information .
      Lastly, the applicant contends that the fine imposed on it
      should be cancelled or reduced, since it is not consonant
      with all the charges made against it, those charges are
      not supported by sufficient evidence and the fine
      imposed on it is inadequately reasoned .                         Action brought on 17 February 1995 by SA des Ciments
                                                                       Luxembourgeois against the Commission of the European
I 1 ) OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994, p . 1 .                                                       Communities
                                                                                (Case T-34/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/32 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Action brought on 16 February 1995 by Maria Lidia
Lozano Palacios against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                An action against the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
                          (Case T-33/95 )                              Communities on 17 February 1995 by SA des Ciments
                           ( 95/C 101 /31 )                            Luxembourgeois of Esch-sur-Alzette ( Luxembourg),
                                                                       represented by Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,
                 (Language of the case: French)                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                       of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
Instance of the European Communities on 16 February
1995 by Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios, residing in Brussels,             1 , annul Articles 1 , Article 2 ( 1 ) and (2 ) and Article 9 of
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an                Commission Decision C(94 ) 3077 final of 30 November
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire               1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.                                                 Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement), in so
                                                                            far as they concern the applicant;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       2 , in the alternative, reduce the fine of ECU 1 052 000
— annul the decision of the Commission of 12 April 1994                     imposed on the applicant by Article d of the contested
      in so far as it fixes Brussels as the applicant place of              decision to a reasonable sum;
      recruitment,
                                                                       3 , order the Commission to pay the costs .
— order the defendant to pay the applicant the installation
      allowance and daily subsistence allowance with default
      interest at the annual rate of 8% from the date of               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      becoming due until the date of payment, together with
      repayment of her travel expenses and expenditure                 The applicant raises the following procedural objections :
      incurred or to be incurred in the removal of her effects to
      Brussels, and                                                    — the Commission prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair
                                                                            hearing, in that it communicated to it only certain parts
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                    of the statement of objections,
 ---pagebreak---  22 . 4 . 95        | EN                           Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 101 / 15
— the Commission infringed the applicant's right to a fair                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     hearing and the principle of fair procedure, in that it
     failed to make clear, either in the statement of objections                  ( 1 ) The applicant complains that, by reasons of procedural
     or in the decision, precisely which of the acts of the                             defects, the Commission has infringed the applicant's
     applicant were complained of.                                                      right to a fair hearing, in that it:
                                                                                — did not give the applicant any access whatever to
The applicant further pleads as follows regarding the                                       parts of the documentation in the proceeding, and
substance of the matter :                                                                   gave access to other documents only in the form of
                                                                                illegible copies,
— the applicant at no time participated in any agreement
     on non-transhipment to home markets and the                                        — failed to provide German translations of numerous
     regulation of cross-border supplies of cement,                                         items of documentary evidence and extensive parts
                                                                                of the provisional minutes of hearings,
— the Commission's complaint that the applicant
     communicated to Cembureau-The European Cement                                      — prescribed an unreasonably short time limit for
     Association the unpublished prices actually charged by                                 the submission of replies to the statement of
     the applicant is unfounded . The Commission's                                          objections,
     assumptions in that regard are based on errors of                                  — omitted, contrary to the principles governing
     fact.
                                                                                official investigations, to include within the
                                                                                subject-matter of the proceeding its internal
In the alternative, the fine should be reduced, since,                                      documentation regarding discussions between the
according even to the contents of the decision itself, the                                   Commissioner responsible for competition matters
participation by the applicant in the alleged infringements                                 and the undertakings concerning aid to certain
was minimal, and the applicant could not have assumed that                                   Greek producers and discussions concerning the
the communication of publicly available gross price lists                                   basing point system,
constituted an infringement of Article 85 of the EC
Treaty.                                                                                — formulated the statement of objections sent to the
                                                                                applicant in a manner which was incomplete and
                                                                                insufficiently specific.
                                                                                ( 2 ) The contested decision is unlawful, in that:
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Dyckerhoff                                        — it is inadequately reasoned and fails, in breach of the
Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European                                   applicant's right to a fair hearing, to deal with the
                           Communities                                                      defence open to the applicant,
                         (Case T-35/95 )                                                — it misconstrues the actual cicumstances in the
                          ( 95/C 101 /33 )                                                  cement market and therefore necessarily draws
                                                                                erroneous conclusions regarding the possibility of
                                                                                cross-border competition,
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                — it fails adequately to take into consideration the
An action against the Commission of the European                                            particular competitive situation of the applicant,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                                     — it goes beyond the legal limits within which the
1995 by Dyckerhoff Aktiengesellschaft of Wiesbaden                                          alleged conduct of Cembureau and/or of certain
( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Claus Tessin                                sub-groups and of the national associations may be
and Frank Montag, Rechtsanwàlte, Cologne, with an                                           imputed to undertakings .
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                                                       ( 3 ) The applicant contends, lastly, that individual articles
                                                                                of the contested decision are unlawful, since they are
                                                                                based neither on the actual findings contained in the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                            Decision nor in Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty:
1 , annul Articles 1 , 3 ( 3 ) (a ), 4 ( 1 ), (2 ) and ( 3 ) ( a ), 5 , 7, 8 , 9        — contrary to what is stated in Article 1 of the
     and 10 of Commission Decision C(94 ) 3077 final of                                     Decision, the applicant did not participate in any
     30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under                                        Cembureau agreement, since no such agreement
     Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases IV/33.126 and                                      existed,
     33.322 — Cement), in so far as they concern the
     applicant;                                                                         — there is no evidence to support the finding in Article
                                                                                3 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the Decision that the applicant
2 , in the alternative, reduce to a reasonable sum the fines of                             participated in agreements and concerted practices
     ECU 12 296 000 and ECU 988 000 imposed on the                                          involving the regulation of cement supplies from
     applicant by Articles 9 and 10 of the contested                                        France to Germany; in any event, discussions held
     Decision;                                                                              in that regard did not result in any agreements or
                                                                                practices contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC
3 , order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                  Treaty,


title: Case T-809/16: Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/49

         Action brought on 18 November 2016 — Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank v SRB
   (Case T-809/16)
   (2017/C 030/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG (Bregenz, Austria) (represented by: G. Eisenberger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Single Resolution Board (SRB)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06 of 15 April 2016 (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/06)’), as well as the decision of the Single Resolution Board SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13 of 20 May 2016 (‘Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 20 May 2016 on the adjustment of the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund supplementing the Decision of the Executive Session of the Board of 15 April 2016 on the 2016 ex-ante contributions to the Single Resolution Fund (SRB/ES/SRF/2016/13)’), at least in so far as those decisions concern the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               —

               First plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of a lack of (full) disclosure of the contested decisions.

               —

               Second plea in law: flagrant breach of essential procedural requirements by reason of an inadequate statement of reasons for the contested decisions.


title: Case C-352/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2013 — Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC) v Evonik Degussa GmbH, Akzo Nobel N.V., Solvay SA, Kemira Oyj, Arkema France, FMC Foret SA, Chemoxal SA, Edison SpA

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2013 — Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC) v Evonik Degussa GmbH, Akzo Nobel N.V., Solvay SA, Kemira Oyj, Arkema France, FMC Foret SA, Chemoxal SA, Edison SpA
   (Case C-352/13)
   2013/C 298/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Dortmund

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cartel Damage Claims Hydrogen Peroxide SA (CDC)

      Defendant: Evonik Degussa GmbH, Akzo Nobel N.V., Solvay SA, Kemira Oyj, Arkema France, FMC Foret SA, Chemoxal SA, Edison SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is Article 6(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an action in which a defendant domiciled in the same State as the court and other defendants domiciled in other Member States of the European Union are together the subject of an application for disclosure and damages on account of a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC/Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement which has been established by the European Commission and committed in several Member States and in which the defendants have participated in different places and at different times, it is expedient to hear and determine those applications together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings?

                           (b)

                           Is it significant in this regard if the action against the defendant domiciled in the same State as the court is withdrawn after having been served on all the defendants, before the expiry of the time-limits prescribed by the court for lodging a defence and before the start of the first hearing?

               2.

               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an action for disclosure and damages brought against defendants domiciled in a number of Member States of the European Union on account of a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC/Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement which has been established by the European Commission and committed in several Member States and in which the defendants have participated in different places and at different times, the harmful event occurred in relation to each defendant and in relation to all heads of damage claimed or the overall loss in those Member States in which cartel agreements were concluded and implemented?

               3.

               In the case of actions for damages for infringement of the prohibition of agreements, decisions and concerted practices contained in Article 81 EC/Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, does the requirement of effective enforcement of the prohibition of agreements, decisions and concerted practices laid down in European Union law allow account to be taken of arbitration and jurisdiction clauses contained in contracts for the supply of goods, where this has the effect of excluding the jurisdiction of a court with international jurisdiction under Article 5(3) and/or Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in relation to all the defendants and/or all or some of the claims brought?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-353/09: Action brought on 4 September 2009 — mtronix v OHIM — Growth Finance (mtronix)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/49

         Action brought on 4 September 2009 — mtronix v OHIM — Growth Finance (mtronix)
   (Case T-353/09)
   2009/C 282/95
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: mtronix OHG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Schnetzer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Growth Finance AG

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 in Case R 1557/2007-4;

               —

               alter the contested decision so that the opposition of Growth Finance AG is not upheld, in the alternative, that that opposition is dismissed and Application No 4 193 661 for the services in Class 9 is upheld and the application is continued also for that class;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings;

               —

               in the alternative, order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: mtronix OHG

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘mtronix’ for goods in Classes 9 and 10 (Application No 4 193 661)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Growth Finance AG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘Montronix’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9 and 42 (Community trade mark No 2 762 862), in respect of opposition to the registration for goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially upheld

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue

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


title: Case T-410/03: Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/23
In this regard, she points out that the letter by which she was           Pleas in law and main arguments
notified of the contested decision bears the date of 20 January
2003, that is to say three days before the date on which the
oral test in question actually took place. That error was later           The applicant was an official of the European Parliament when
corrected.                                                                he was transferred to OHIM on 1st October 1998. By the
                                                                          contested decision, OHIM informed the applicant of his
                                                                          number of merit points for the 2002 promotion year. When
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           calculating those points, OHIM limited the applicant’s length
                                                                          of service in the grade to five years and as a result did not take
—     breach of the notice of the competition in question and a           account of the period from 1 January 1991 to 31 October
      defect in the procedure, in that the selection board could          1993.
      not evaluate her on her oral abilities until it had
      interviewed her;
                                                                          In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant submits,
                                                                          firstly, that there was a breach of Article 1 of Decision ADM
—     misuse of powers given that the selection board was                 02-39 rev of OHIM concerning the career and promotion of
      biased;                                                             officials and temporary staff, and of the principles of legality,
                                                                          legal certainty and equal treatment. He submits, furthermore,
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment; and                     that that there was a breach of the Staff Regulations in so far
                                                                          as the principles applicable to transfers between institutions
—     breach of the requirement to state grounds for a decision.          were not adhered to and that the applicant’s legitimate
                                                                          expectations when he accepted the transfer were not upheld.
                                                                          The applicant submits, finally, that there was a breach of the
(1) [2002] ECR-SC I-A-37, II-161.                                         requirement to state the reasons for the disputed decision and
                                                                          of the principle of proportionality.
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Manuel Simões                       Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG
dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                         Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-410/03)
                        (Case T-409/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/39)
                          (2004/C 59/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance              Communities on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt
of the European Communities on 11 December 2003 by                        am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and V. Turn-
Manuel Simões dos Santos, resident in Alicante (Spain),                   er, lawyers.
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul the implied decision of the Appointing Authority                     applicant;
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant and the
      decision of 14 February 2003 fixing his initial number of           —      in the alternative, make an appropriate reduction in the
      merit points for the 2002 promotion year in so far as it                   amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in the
      limits his period of service in the European Parliament;                   contested decision;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the case.               —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/24                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Finally, the applicant complains that owing to the Com-
                                                                           mission’s lack of activity in the first stage of the procedure, the
                                                                           length of the procedure was unreasonable within the meaning
                                                                           of Article 6(1) ECHR and complains that the order to desist is
By Decision K(2003) 3426 of 1 October 2003 the Commission                  unlawful because the relevant business has been sold in the
found that the applicant and four other undertakings had                   meantime.
infringed Article 81(1) EC by virtue of their participation in a
complex, single and continuing agreement and in concerted
practices in the sorbate sector, through which they agreed
inter alia target prices. A fine of EUR 99 million was imposed
on the applicant.
The applicant challenges the decision and claims that the
Commission infringed the principle of good administration by
unlawfully giving preferential treatment to another undertak-              Action brought on 15 December 2003 by Shandong
ing in the administrative procedure. Both undertakings cooper-             Reipu Biochemicals Co. Ltd. against the Council of the
ated with the Commission at the end of 1998 and the applicant                                      European Union
claims that the other undertaking has been given an unlawful
advantage.
                                                                                (Case T-413/03)
The applicant complains that there were irregularities in the
conduct of the procedure at that time and also that despite its                                     (2004/C 59/40)
requests the Commission has refused to grant it access to
Commission documents. The Commission has already allowed
access to some internal documents in the context of general                                   (Language of the case: English)
inspection of documents and it can therefore no longer rely
on general confidentiality of internal documents connected
therewith. Furthermore, a complete version of the decision, or
a version which is sufficiently comprehensible, has not been
supplied to the applicant, information in the first part of the            An action against the Council of the European Union was
decision having been blanked out without justification, thus               brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
making it impossible inter alia to comprehend how the fines                Communities on 15 December 2003 by Shandong Reipu
were calculated.                                                           Biochemicals Co. Ltd., Shandong, (People’s Republic of China),
                                                                           represented by O. Prost, lawyer.
Moreover, the applicant claims that there were errors of
assessment and of law in connection with the fixing of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
fine. It complains that the basic amount is disproportionate
because it has not been treated in the same way as other                   —     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1656/
participants in the procedure. It also complains that the                        2003 of 11 September 2003 imposing a definitive anti-
Commission wrongly inferred that its actions had detrimental                     dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional
consequences and that ‘senior management’ participated in the                    duty imposed on imports of para-cresol originating in
cartel. The applicant submits that the basic amounts of the                      the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 234, p. 1) as
fine calculated according to groups are wrong because, in                        long as it imposes a 12,3 % duty on imports of products
particular, the additional cartel activities of the Japanese                     manufactured by the applicant;
manufacturers have not been taken into account. The applicant
also challenges, on the merits, the further additional fine of
30 % for its alleged position as ‘ringleader’ and also the further         —     ask the Council to pay the costs.
addition of 50 % for recidivism. With regard to appraisal of its
cooperation, the applicant complains that the Commission
wrongly failed to classify it as the first cooperating undertaking.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Moreover, the applicant complains that a previous penalty
imposed in the United States in regard to the same matter was
not taken into account and relies in that regard on the principle          The applicant is established in the People’s Republic of China
of ne bis in idem which also applies in relationships with non-            and produces and exports para-cresol to the European Union.
member countries. Although that principle does not preclude                The applicant contests Regulation (EC) No 1656/2003 which
further proceedings, it requires prior penalties to be taken into          imposes a definitive duty on imports of para-cresol, originating
account.                                                                   in the People’s Republic of China.


title: Case T-129/15: Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/35

         Action brought on 19 March 2015 — Intesa Sanpaolo v OHIM (WAVE 2 PAY)
   (Case T-129/15)
   (2015/C 155/41)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WAVE 2 PAY’ — Application for registration No 12 258 117

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 January 2015 in Case R 1857/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that there was a breach and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               declare that there was a breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, and also that there were contradictions in the contested decision; and consequently

                           —

                           annul the contested decision;

                           —

                           order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-304/05: Action brought on 29 July 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/10

         Action brought on 29 July 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-304/05)
   (2005/C 229/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and D. Recchia, of its Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, in relation to the project for the extension and improvement of the Santa Caterina Valfurva ski area (the ‘Bucaneve’ and ‘Edelweiss’ pistes) and for provision of the corresponding ski facilities, with a view to the holding of the 2005 world Alpine ski championships in SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio, by having:

                           —

                           allowed measures to be taken which are liable to have a significant impact on SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio without making such measures subject to an appropriate assessment of the impact on the site in the light of the conservation objectives for it and, in any event, without complying with the provisions which allow a project to be carried out, in the event of the conclusions of the impact assessment being negative, only in the absence of alternative solutions and only after the adoption and communication to the commission of the compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of ‘Natura 2000’ is protected;

                           —

                           failed to adopt measures to avoid deterioration of natural habitats and species habitats and the disturbance of species for which the SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio was designated;

                           —

                           failed to endow SPA IT 2040044 Parco Nazionale dello Stelvio with the legally protected status capable of guaranteeing, in particular, the survival and breeding of the species of birds mentioned in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC, (1) and the breeding, moulting and wintering of the migratory species not covered by Annex I which visit that locality regularly;

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of Articles 6(2) to (4) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) and of Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/409/EEC;

               2.

               Order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments are set out in the application.

      (1)  OJ L 103 of 25.4.1979, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.


title: Case F-128/10: Action brought on 30 December 2010 — Mora Carrasco and Others v Parliament

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/35

         Action brought on 30 December 2010 — Mora Carrasco and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-128/10)
   2011/C 63/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Aurora Mora Carrasco and Others (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions not to promote the applicants in the 2009 promotion exercise;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case F-49/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion procedure)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/55

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-49/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure)
   (2008/C 313/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier and G. Corstens, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade A*11 pursuant to the 2005 promotion procedure and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nijs to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006, p. 26.


title: Case F-38/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — Bianchi v European Training Foundation (ETF) (Staff cases — Members of temporary staff — Fixed-term contract — Non-renewal — Substandard work — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/42

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — Bianchi v European Training Foundation (ETF)
   (Case F-38/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Members of temporary staff - Fixed-term contract - Non-renewal - Substandard work - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2007/C 183/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Irène Bianchi (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Training Foundation (ETF) (represented by: M. Dunbar, assisted by G. Vandersanden, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision by the Director of the European Training Foundation not to renew the applicant's contract of employment as a member of the temporary staff and, secondly, a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006, p. 37.


title: Case T-197/11 P: Appeal brought on 1 April 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/26

         Appeal brought on 1 April 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission
   (Case T-197/11 P)
   2011/C 186/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission in so far as in that judgment the Civil Service Tribunal rejected the objection of lack of jurisdiction raised by the Commission;

               —

               Order each party to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following plea in law.
   Infringement of European Union law, and in particular the division of competences between the General Court and the Civil Service Tribunal as a specialised court as apparent from Article 270 TFEU read in conjunction with Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union, Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, (1) the first sentence of Article 256(1) TFEU and Article 62a and Article 1 of Annex 1 to the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

               —

               According to those provisions, the Civil Service Tribunal does not enjoy general jurisdiction in respect of all disputes between the European Union and any person to whom the Staff Regulations apply but only in respect of those disputes which concern the legality of an act which adversely affects such person within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

               —

               Where an official submits an application for access to documents, he is acting as an ordinary citizen for the purposes of Regulation No 1049/2001. A specific system of remedies is available to him under the Regulation in the form of an action for annulment before the General Court. The system of remedies according to the Staff Regulations and the Transparency Regulation are purely and simply incompatible.

      (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: Case T-341/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/34

         Action brought on 29 June 2016 — De Masi v Commission

   (Case T-341/16)
   (2016/C 287/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Professor A. Fischer-Lescano)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 June 2016 on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 8 June 2016;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, by which he alleges an infringement of the rights of parliamentary representatives stemming from the second paragraph of Article 230 TFEU in conjunction with Article 10(2) TEU and obligations to provide information.


title: Case T-270/08: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Germany v Commission (ERDF — Reduction in financial assistance — Operational programme falling under Objective No 1 (1994-1999) for Berlin (East) (Germany))

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-270/08) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction in financial assistance - Operational programme falling under Objective No 1 (1994-1999) for Berlin (East) (Germany))
   2013/C 9/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, T. Henze and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented initially by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and N. Díaz Abad and subsequently by: A. Rubio Gonzáles, abogados del Estado); Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries, B. Koopman, M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents); and French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 1615 final of 29 April 2008 reducing the financial contribution under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) initially granted for the Operational Programme falling under Objective 1 (1994-1999) for Berlin (East) in the Federal Republic of Germany

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-458/13: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark GRAPHENE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Larrañaga Otaño v OHIM (GRAPHENE)
   (Case T-458/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark GRAPHENE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 421/54
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Joseba Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastián, Spain) and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño (San Sebastián) (represented by: F. Bueno Salamero, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2013 (Case R 208/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of the word sign GRAPHENE as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Joseba Larrañaga Otaño and Mikel Larrañaga Otaño to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-89/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2009 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Article 1(b)(v) — Failure to state reasons — Court acting of its own motion — Plea involving a matter of public policy raised by the Community judicature — Infringement of the rule that the parties should be heard — Scope of the obligation to state reasons)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 December 2009 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd
   (Case C-89/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Article 1(b)(v) - Failure to state reasons - Court acting of its own motion - Plea involving a matter of public policy raised by the Community judicature - Infringement of the rule that the parties should be heard - Scope of the obligation to state reasons)
   2010/C 24/08
   Language of the case: French, English and Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and N. Khan, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent and by P. McGarry BL), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. Vendrolini, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by R. Adam, Agent and by G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato), Eurallum SpA (represented by R. Denton, Solicitor), Aughinish Alumina Ltd (represented by: J. Handoll and C. Waterson, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 12 December 2007 in Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06 Ireland and Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance annulled Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) — Concepts of existing aid and new aid — Objective concepts — Lack of reasoning — Plea of public policy to be raised automatically by the Community Court — Breach of the principle that the action is confined to the subject-matter as delimited in the application and general principles of the adversarial system and respect of the rights of the defence.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 December 2007 in Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06 Ireland and Others v Commission in so far as it:

                           —

                           annulled Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy, on the ground that, in that decision, the Commission of the European Communities failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons with regard to the non-application in the present case of Article 1(b)(v) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88 EC]; and

                           —

                           ordered the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicants, including the costs relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-69/06 R;

               2.

               Refers Joined Cases T-50/06, T-56/06, T-60/06, T-62/06 and T-69/06 back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders that costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case T-377/08 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 Birkhoff v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/28

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2008 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 Birkhoff v Commission
   (Case T-377/08 P)
   (2008/C 327/54)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall and B. Eggers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 Birkhoff v Commission;

               —

               order Mr Birkhoff to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and of the appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 annulling the decision of the Settlements Office, in the form of a decision on a complaint, not to reimburse the costs of acquiring a new wheelchair two years after the last acquisition, on the grounds of lack of necessity.
   The appellant submits in support of its appeal that, first, contrary to the applicable provisions of Community law, the judgment redefines the margin of discretion of the Medical Officer and of the Medical Council in that, according to the judgment, only independent medical bodies may have such a margin of discretion.
   Second, the judgment disavows any significance in the opinions of the Medical Council — which, in practice, are important in the examination of the necessity of costs — by stating that it is merely an advisory body whose opinions are not published. This is contrary to settled case-law on the Joint Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities, as applicable on 22 March 2004. Furthermore, those opinions have the status of a rebuttable presumption in relation to the necessity of costs.
   In addition, the appellant alleges a distortion of the facts or errors in the legal characterisation of the facts and of the subject-matter of the dispute, and an infringement of the obligation to state the reasons for the judgment, since an essential part of the decision on the complaint was declared to be non-existent.


title: Case C-19/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 January 2009 — Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 15 January 2009 — Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA
   (Case C-19/09)
   (2009/C 82/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH

      Defendant: Silva Trade, SA
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) applicable in the case of a contract for the provision of services also where the services are, by agreement, provided in several Member States?
                           If the answer to that question is in the affirmative,
                           Should the provision referred to be interpreted as meaning that

                           (b)

                           the place of performance of the obligation that is characteristic of the contract must be determined by reference to the place where the service provider's centre of business is located, which is to be determined by reference to the amount of time spent and the importance of the activity;

                           (c)

                           in the event that it is not possible to determine a centre of business, an action in respect of all claims founded on the contract may be brought, at the applicant's choice, in any place of performance of the service within the Community?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative: Is Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 applicable in the case of a contract for the provision of services also where the services are, by agreement, provided in several Member States?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-528/09: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council (Dumping — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China — Determination of a threat of injury — Article 3(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 3(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/15

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — Hubei Xinyegang Steel v Council
      (Case T-528/09) (1)

      (Dumping - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in China - Determination of a threat of injury - Article 3(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Article 3(9) and Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009))
      (2014/C 71/26)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd (Huang Shi, China) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, Q. Azau, lawyer, A. MacGregor, Solicitor, and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by B. O’Connor, Solicitor)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: H. van Vliet and M. França, and subsequently by M. França and J.-F. Brakeland, Agents, assisted by R. Bierwagen, lawyer); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. (Ostrava-Kunčice, Czech Republic); ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA (Roman, Romania); Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH (Paderborn, Germany); Ovako Tube & Ring AB (Hofors, Sweden); Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH (Sulzbach-Rosenberg Germany); Dalmine SpA (Dalmine, Italy); Silcotub SA (Zalău, Romania); TMK-Artrom SA (Slatina, Romania); Tubos Reunidos SA (Amurrio, Spain); Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France (Aulnoye-Aymeries, France); V & M France (Boulogne-Billancourt, France); V & M Deutschland GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany); Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH (Linz, Austria); and Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. (Podbrezová, Slovakia) (represented by: G. Berrisch, G. Wolf, lawyers, and N. Chesaites, Barrister)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009 L 262, p. 19).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in the People’s Republic of China to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports of products produced by Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co. Ltd and collects provisional duties imposed on those exports;

                  2.

                  Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hubei Xinyegang Steel Co;

                  3.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

                  4.

                  Orders ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s., ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Roman SA, Benteler Stahl/Rohr GmbH, Ovako Tube & Ring AB, Rohrwerk Maxhütte GmbH, Dalmine SpA, Silcotub SA, TMK-Artrom SA, Tubos Reunidos SA, Vallourec Mannesmann Oil & Gas France, V & M France, V & M Deutschland GmbH, Voestalpine Tubulars GmbH and Železiarne Podbrezová a.s. to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-420/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 30 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against U (*)

text:
                  19.10.2015

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 346/9

            Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 30 July 2015 — Criminal proceedings against  U (*1)

      (Case C-420/15)
      (2015/C 346/10)
      Language of the case: French

         Referring court

      Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles

         Party to the main proceedings

          U (*1)

         Question referred

      Are Articles 2 and 3 of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 on the registration of vehicles incompatible with Articles 18, 20, 45, 49 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that, in order to be driven in Belgium, even if only in order to pass through the country, vehicles belonging to a resident of a Member State of the European Union other than Belgium and registered in that other State must be registered in Belgium, if that person is also a Belgian resident?

         (*1)  Information erased within the framework of the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Case T-204/99: Olli Mattila v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Access to documents — Decisions 93/731/EC and 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of international relations — Partial access)

text:
C 331/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               sels, represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                           of 12 July 2001                                Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                          dis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for
in Case T-204/99: Olli Mattila v Council of the European                  annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 January 1999
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                     to reject the applicant’s application for the post mentioned in
                                                                          the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and the decision of
                                                                          27 January 1999 to appoint Gérard Zahlen to that post — the
(Access to documents — Decisions 93/731/EC and                            Court of First Instance (Single Judge: J. Azizi); B. Pastor,
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Exception relating to the
                                                                          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
protection of the public interest in the field of international           on 20 July 2001, in which it:
                    relations — Partial access)
                          (2001/C 331/32)                                 1.    Annulled the Commission’s decision to appoint Mr Zahlen to
                                                                                the post mentioned in the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and
                                                                                the decision to reject Mr Brumpter’s application for that post;
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2.    Ordered the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-204/99: Olli Mattila, residing in Hyvinkää, Finland,
represented by Z. Sundström and M. Kauppi, Lawyers, with an               (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
European Union (Agents: J. Aussant and M. Bauer) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker
and X. Lewis) — application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s and the Council’s decisions of 5 and 12 July 1999
respectively refusing the applicant access to certain documents               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
P. Lindh, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                                       of 12 July 2001
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it:
                                                                          in Case T-131/00: Robert Charles Schochaert v Council of
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                                     the European Union (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs together with those      (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Statement of reasons
      incurred by the Council and the Commission.                         — Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates
                                                                                — Action for annulment)
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-131/00: Robert Charles Schochaert, an official of
                                                                          the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,
                           of 20 July 2001                                represented by J. A. Martin, avocat, against Council of the
                                                                          European Union (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) — appli-
in Case T-351/99: Christian Brumter v Commission of the                   cation for annulment of the Council’s decision not to promote
                   European Communities (1)                               the applicant to grade B1 in the course of the 1999 promotions
                                                                          procedure — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
(Officials — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Obli-                      composed of P. Lindh, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-
gation to provide a statement of reasons — Comparative                    Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
examination of the merits of the candidates — Discretion of               trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001,
the appointing authority — Staff report — Request for                     in which it:
                               transfer)
                                                                          1.    Annulled the Council’s decision not to promote the applicant to
                          (2001/C 331/33)                                       grade B1 in the course of the 1999 promotions procedure;
                    (Language of the case: French)                        2.    Ordered the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
In Case T-351/99: Christian Brumter, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-


               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/1

         (2007/C 95/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 82, 14.4.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 69, 24.3.2007

      OJ C 56, 10.3.2007

      OJ C 42, 24.2.2007

      OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

      OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case F-117/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Teughels v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme — Regulation adapting the rate of contribution to the EU pension scheme — Adaptation of actuarial values — Need to adopt general implementing provisions — Temporal application of new general implementing provisions)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Teughels v Commission
   (Case F-117/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of pension rights acquired under a national pension scheme - Regulation adapting the rate of contribution to the EU pension scheme - Adaptation of actuarial values - Need to adopt general implementing provisions - Temporal application of new general implementing provisions)
   2014/C 31/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Catherine Teughels (Eppegem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the Office for administration and payment of individual rights determining the applicant’s retirement pension rights and of the calculation of the number of years of pensionable service to be taken into account in order to determine those rights.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to bear the costs incurred by Ms Teughels.

      (1)  OJ C 25 of 28 01 2012, p. 70.


title: Case C-206/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy)) — Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — General principles of EU law — Implementation of EU law — Scope of EU law — A sufficient connection — Lack of such a connection — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy)) — Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo
   (Case C-206/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - General principles of EU law - Implementation of EU law - Scope of EU law - A sufficient connection - Lack of such a connection - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 129/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cruciano Siragusa

      Defendant: Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia — Interpretation of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Principle of proportionality — National legislation under which any alterations made by the owner to property in an area of scenic interest are conditional upon prior clearance being granted — Obligation, in the absence of such clearance, to demolish the building, even where the owner shows afterwards that the alteration has no adverse effect on the scenery or landscape.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Sicilia (Italy).

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-18/02: Action brought on 5 February 2002 by Anita Jannice Österholm against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/50               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.5.2002
—     The Commission’s failure clearly to articulate in the              —     annul the decision concerning family allowances taken in
      statement of objections the basis upon which it proposed                 the form of Notice of Amendment No 3 on 13 July
      to fine BASF represents a legal error that prejudiced                    2001 by the Directorate-General for Personnel and
      BASF’s rights of defence. This statement of objections is                Administration of the European Commission;
      general and vague as regards the elements relating to the
      calculation of the fine. On this point, the applicant also
      observes that the ‘starting point’ of its fine was arbitrary,      —     declare that the applicant and her stepdaughters are
      disproportionate and contrary to the principle of equal                  entitled to receive the family allowances suspended by
      treatment, and that the 100 % increase imposed upon it                   the Commission’s decision of 13 July 2001 together with
      as a deterrent is unexplained, excessive and could not                   default interest, pursuant to Article 67 of the Staff
      reasonably have been foreseen.                                           Regulations;
—     The Commission erred in attributing to BASF the joint
      role of leader and instigator of the alleged cartel.               —     order the European Commission to pay the sum of
                                                                               EUR 35 935 together with statutory interest by way of
                                                                               compensation for the material damage caused by its
—     The applicant satisfied all the conditions for an award of               failure to give an express decision upholding the com-
      a greater reduction of its fine under Section B of the                   plaint lodged on 14 September 2001;
      Leniency Notice. In any case, irrespective of this Leniency
      Notice, BASF’s co-operation merits a greater reduction of
      its fine.                                                          —     order the European Commission to pay the sum of
                                                                               EUR 25 000 or such other amount, including any higher
                                                                               amount, as may be determined by the Court of First
—     The Commission’s disclosure of BASF’s fine to the                        Instance by way of compensation for the non-material
      media prior to the adoption of the contested Decision                    damage suffered, first, as a result of the failure to respond
      constitutes a material legal error.                                      to the complaint lodged on 14 September 2001 and,
                                                                               second, the incorrect and fallacious information provided
                                                                               to the European School by the defendant;
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs, including lawyers’
                                                                               fees, incurred as a result of the action brought pursuant
                                                                               to Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;
Action brought on 5 February 2002 by Anita Jannice                       in the alternative:
Österholm against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                         —     order the European Commission to pay the sum of
                                                                               EUR 235 340 together with statutory interest by way of
                          (Case T-18/02)
                                                                               compensation for the material damage caused by the
                                                                               invoicing of the school fees relating to the attendance at
                         (2002/C 109/98)                                       the European School of the applicant’s stepdaughters.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 February 2002 by Anita Jannice
Österholm, residing in Stockholm, represented by Juan Ramón            The contested decision suspends the applicant’s household
Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.                                                 allowance, dependent child allowance and education allow-
                                                                         ance. In support of her claim, the applicant pleads, first, an
                                                                         error of assessment of the facts and misuse of powers by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Commission. In the applicant’s view, she fulfils all the con-
                                                                         ditions for entitlement to the household allowance, dependent
                                                                         child allowance and education allowance as laid down in
—     annul the decision given by the Directorate-General for            Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and Annex VII thereto, and
      Personnel and Administration of the European Com-                  has also provided the Commission with all the evidence
      mission on 13 July 2001 concerning family allowances;              necessary for the grant of those allowances.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/51
In addition, the applicant pleads a failure to provide a statement       pharmacologically active substance benzathine penicillin. That
of reasons and infringement of the rights of defence, as well as         substance is a general antibiotic used in veterinary injectable
non-compliance with the principles of sound administration               medicinal products for food producing animals.
and with the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests
of officials. Lastly, according to the applicant, there has
been an infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
inasmuch as the Commission did not adopt a decision within               The application is lodged against the decisions of the European
a reasonable time.                                                       Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) of
                                                                         15 November 2001, requesting the applicants, on the basis of
                                                                         Article 20 of the Directive 81/851 (1), to reply to questions put
                                                                         by the Committee for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP)
                                                                         regarding medicinal products containing benzathine penicillin
                                                                         by 25 March 2002 in the framework of a referral procedure
                                                                         initiated by the Irish authorities and each to pay a fee of
                                                                         10 000 Euro to the EMEA.
Action brought on 25 January 2002 by Albert Albrecht
GmbH + Co. KG and 17 others against the Commission
of the European Communities and the European Agency                      In support of their conclusions, the applicants submit that:
           for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products
                                                                         —     The contested decision infringes Article 20 of Directive
                         (Case T-19/02)                                        81/851, which is only applicable in the framework of the
                                                                               mutual recognition procedure and not to strictly national
                        (2002/C 109/99)                                        marketing authorisations.
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     As the Directives are addressed only to Member States
                                                                               and are therefore not able to impose obligations directly
                                                                               on individuals, the Decision in question should be
                                                                               annulled, as Article 20 of the Directive 81/851 cannot
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      constitute a legal basis upon which to oblige the Appli-
ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                   cants to comply. The EMEA cannot therefore oblige the
Products was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 applicants to pay an arbitration fee of 10 000 Euro.
European Communities on 25 January 2002 by Albert
Albrecht GmbH + Co. KG and 17 others, represented by Mr
Dirk Brinckman and Mr Denis Waelbroeck of Liedekerke                     —     Even if were to be accepted that the arbitration procedure
Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).                                   under Article 20 could be applied to veterinary medicinal
                                                                               products authorised under purely national authorisation
                                                                               procedures, which is not the case, the procedure can in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    any event only affect on the marketing authorisation that
                                                                               is directly affected by the referral. Moreover, it should
—     annul the contested Decisions requesting the applicants                  follow from the very wording of Article 20 that it is
      to submit data under the referral procedure of Article 20                only the person responsible for placing the veterinary
      of Directive 81/851 and requesting them each to pay the                  medicinal product concerned on the market who is
      sum of 10 000 Euro;                                                      bound to forward to the CVMP all available information
                                                                               relating to the matter in question. The procedure under
                                                                               Article 20 should not permit holders of national authoris-
—     alternatively, declare the contested Decisions null and                  ations of different medicinal products to be compelled to
      void;                                                                    submit data.
—     declare the Notice to Applicants illegal in so far as any of
      its provisions could be read as implying that the referral         —     The arbitration procedure could apply in the absence of
      procedure under Article 20 is applicable to marketing                    a mutual recognition procedure, which is not the case: at
      authorisations issued under national law;                                most it allows information to be requested from the
                                                                               holder of the national marketing authorisation whose
—     order the defendants to bear the costs.                                  product is directly concerned by the referral procedure.
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                             veterinary medicinal products (OJ L 317, 6.11.1981, p. 1).
The applicants in the present case are all companies holding a
national marketing authorisation issued by national competent
authorities for a veterinary medicinal product containing the


title: Case C-194/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Esso Italiana srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Esso Italiana srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-194/13)
   2013/C 207/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Esso Italiana srl

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (under Article 4(3) TEU, Article 101 TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU) compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?

               2.

               Are such limitations of those principles justifiable — and, if so, under what conditions — in the light of the need to safeguard the public interest in road traffic safety and, in terms of that functional consideration, is there a proper place for the fixing of minimum operating costs as provided for under Article 83a of Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (as subsequently amended and supplemented)?

               3.

               Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector?


title: Case C-119/11: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2012 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 99 and 110 — Value added tax — Reduced rate — Application of a reduced rate for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing refreshments during the performance)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/7

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 February 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-119/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 99 and 110 - Value added tax - Reduced rate - Application of a reduced rate for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing refreshments during the performance)
   2012/C 118/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 99 and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Application of a reduced rate of VAT of 2,10 % for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing refreshments during the performance — Prohibition on extending the scope of a derogation where such scope has previously been restricted

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying, since 1 January 2007, a reduced rate of VAT of 2,10 % for admission to the first performances of concerts held in establishments providing optional refreshments during the performance, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 99 and 110 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-119/17: Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/26

         Action brought on 20 February 2017 — Alba Aguilera and Others v EEAS
   (Case T-119/17)
   (2017/C 129/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Ruben Alba Aguilera and 28 other applicants (Addis-Ababa, Ethiopia) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that:

               —

               The contested decision is annulled, insofar as it reduces, with effect from 1 January 2016, the amount of the allowance for living conditions for staff posted to Ethiopia from 30 % to 25 %;

               —

               The EEAS is ordered to make a lump-sum payment to the applicants, the amount of which shall be determined ex aequo et bono by the General Court, in respect of the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

               —

               The EEAS is ordered to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action concerns the lawfulness of the EEAS’s decision to reduce the allowance for living conditions (ALC) granted to members of the temporary staff of the EU in the Ethiopia delegation from 30 % to 25 %.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges infringement of the obligation to adopt the GIP of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges infringement of Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, insofar as the method used by the EEAS to set the amount of the ALC in a particular place of employment takes account of the principle of ‘regional coherence’.

               3.

               The third plea in law alleges the multiple manifest errors of assessment which therefore render the contested decision unlawful.