title: Case F-102/07: Action brought on 28 September 2007 — Kerstens v Commission

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/49

         Action brought on 28 September 2007 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-102/07)
   (2007/C 297/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Petrus J.F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: M.C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 November 2005 awarding the applicant three directorate-general priority points (PMO) (PPDG) under the 2004 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 85/2005 of 23 November 2005;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 November 2005 awarding the applicant zero directorate-general priority points (PMO) (PPDG) under the 2005 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 85/2005 of 23 November 2005;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 November 2006 awarding the applicant zero directorate-general priority points (PMO) (PPDG) under the 2006 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 55/2006;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 November 2006 awarding the applicant zero priority points for activities in the interest of the institution (PPII) under the 2006 promotion exercise as published in Administrative Notices 55/2006;

               —

               annul the express decision of the appointing authority of 15 June 2007 giving a negative response to the applicant's complaints R/142/07 and R/183/07, dated 16 and 22 February 2007 respectively;

               —

               take formal note that the applicant reserves, in that context, the right to rely on the existence of a misuse of powers and infringement of the rules for disciplinary procedures and to claim damages from the Commission of the European Communities;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant, an official in Grade A*12, relies on five pleas in law, the first of which alleges breach of the principle that the quota of priority points should be used up arising from Article 5 of the of the General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations (GIP 45) and a manifest error of assessment concerning the grant of priority points awarded by the Director General (PPDG) under the 2004 promotion exercise.
   The second plea in law alleges breach of Articles 4 to 6 of GIP 45 and a manifest error of appreciation concerning the award of PPDG for 2005 and 2006.
   The third plea in law alleges infringement of Article 9 of GIP 45 consisting of a manifest error of assessment concerning the grant of priority points in recognition of work carried out in the interests of the institution (PPII). In the alternative, the third plea in law alleges a breach of the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty.
   The fourth plea in law alleges breach of the principle of equal treatment concerning the grant of PPDG for 2004, 2005 and 2006 and PPII for 2006.
   The fifth plea in law alleges a breach of the duty to state reasons concerning the award of PPDG for 2004, 2005 and 2006.
   Finally, the applicant reserves the right to rely on the existence of a misuse of powers and breach of the rules for disciplinary procedures and to claim damages from the Commission.


title: Case C-498/08 P: Order of the Court of 9 July 2009 — Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for annulment — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility because out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/23

         Order of the Court of 9 July 2009 — Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-498/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for annulment - Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility because out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2009/C 267/40
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA (represented by: M. Salvi, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 9 September 2008 in Case T-224/08 Fornaci Laterizi Danesi v Commission — by which the Court of First Instance dismissed as inadmissible the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/25/EC of 13 November 2007 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a first updated list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2008 L 12, p. 383), in so far as a plot of land belonging to the applicant, under reference IT20A0018, was included in that list.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Fornaci Laterizi Danesi SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-508/04: Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/17

         Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

   (Case C-508/04)
   (2005/C 45/31)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 December 2004, by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Van Beek and B. Schima acting as Agents, assisted by M. Lang, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligation to transpose, correctly and completely, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 (1) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora by not transposing, correctly and completely, Articles 1, 6(1) to (4), 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16(1) and 22(b) of that directive into Austrian law.

               2.

               Order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this application the Commission is challenging the defective transposition into Austrian law of Directive 92/43/EEC by means of the relevant legal provisions of the provinces of Carinthia, Niederösterreich, Oberösterreich, Salzburg, Steiermark, Tyrol and Vorarlberg notified to the Commission or to its knowledge adopted.
   In the Commission's view, the following provisions concerning individual federal provinces have not been completely or correctly transposed: Definitions (Article 1 of the directive); necessary conservation measures (Article 6(1)); prohibition on deterioration (Article 6(2)); plans or projects which could have serious implications for special areas of conservation (Article 6(3) and (4)); in regard to the system of protection under the ‘wild birds’ Directive 79/409/EEC (Article 7); surveillance of conservation status (Article 11); system of protection for animal species listed in Annex 1V(a) (Article 12); system of protection for plant species listed in Annex IV(b) (Article 13); prohibited means of capture and killing (Article 15); criteria for derogation from Articles 12 to 15 (Article 16(1)); deliberate introduction of non-native species (Article 22(b)).

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-552/09 P: Appeal brought on 24 December 2009 by Ferrero SpA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2009 in Case T-140/08: Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/11

         Appeal brought on 24 December 2009 by Ferrero SpA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 October 2009 in Case T-140/08: Ferrero SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck
   (Case C-552/09 P)
   2010/C 80/19
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ferrero SpA (represented by: F. Jacobacci, avvocato, C. Gielen and H.M.H. Speyart, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Tirol Milch reg.Gen.mbH Innsbruck

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               uphold Ferrero's application for annulment of the contested decision or, alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration; and

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Ferrero, both in first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant maintains that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (‘CFI’) violated the system of Article 8 of Regulation No 40/94 (1) in carrying out a single factual assessment of similarity with implications both under Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5), even though both provisions have entirely distinct sets of tests;

               —

               the CFI erred in law in finding that it need not take into account the reputation of the earlier trade marks in finding that the conditions for the applicability of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) were not met;

               —

               the CFI erred in law or distorted the facts submitted to it in applying erroneous, unfounded and unreasoned rules of evidence in assessing similarity;

               —

               the CFI erred in law in failing to take into proper account that the earlier trade marks contain verbal trade marks and that the challenged trade mark is figurative; and

               —

               the CFI erred in law in failing to take into proper account the existence of a family of trade marks.

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


title: Case T-224/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — EU figurative mark Out Door — Earlier EU word mark OUTDOOR PRO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)
   (Case T-224/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - EU figurative mark Out Door - Earlier EU word mark OUTDOOR PRO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 195/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH (Friedrichshafen, Germany) (represented by: W. Schulte Hemming, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 (Case R 2302/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and Messe Friedrichshafen.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Action brought on 6 March 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union (Case C-61/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 133/ 15
of the European Communities, represented by Hélène                      Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Michard and Enrico Traversa, acting as Agents, with an                  Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos               Servais .
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the element concerning anchovy contained in the
( a ) declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force an                Annex to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3074/95 of
       administrative provision extending to the leasing or                   22 December 1995 ( ! ) fixing, for certain fish stocks and
       letting of certain items of movable property the                       groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
       exemption from VAT restricted by Community                             1996 and certain conditions under which they may be
       legislation exclusively to the leasing or letting of                   fished,
       immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Council Directive      — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
       77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( the Sixth VAT Directive )
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
       relating to turnover taxes — common system of value              Pleas in law and main arguments
       added tax : uniform basis of assessment (');
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
( b ) order the French Republic to pay the costs .                      in Case C-179/95 ( 2 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (>) OJ No L 330 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 10 .
The Commission considers that the exemption from VAT in
respect of the leasing or letting of certain items of movable
property, such as tents, caravans and mobile homes, goes
beyond the limits laid down by Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) of the Sixth
Directive, which applies only to the leasing or letting of
immovable property .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 December
In the Commission's view, the uncertain interpretation of
                                                                        1995 in the case of Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner
the concept of a supply of services in the form of the leasing
                                                                                Skripalle
or letting of certain items of movable property which stems
from a hybrid interpretation, in accordance with criteria laid                                    ( Case C-63 /96 )
down by national law, of the supply of accommodation in a                                           ( 96/C 133/32 )
hotel or similar establishment, constitutes a major problem
which directly calls in question the system of uniform
taxation within the Community established by the Sixth                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directive in relation to the leasing or letting of movable              European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                        ( Federal Finance Court ) — Eleventh Chamber — of 13
property .
                                                                        December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
The Commission further observes that the provisions on                  on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
exemption must be strictly interpreted, since they constitute           Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner Skripalle on the
an exception to the basic principle of the Directive, which             following questions :
establishes a common system of taxation of economic
                                                                         1 . Does Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC cover an
activities within the Community .
                                                                              authorization by the Council to introduce special
                                                                              measures for derogation from Directive 77/388/EEC (^
( 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                              in order to prevent tax avoidance which, in the case of
                                                                              supplies for consideration made between associated
                                                                              persons, apply the cost to the taxable person within the
                                                                              meaning of Article 11 A ( 1 ) (c ) of Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                              as the minimum basis of assessment also where the
                                                                              agreed consideration represents the market rate but is
Action brought on 6 March 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain                        less than the minimum basis of assessment and there is
           against the Council of the European Union                          therefore no tax avoidance ?
                           ( Case C-61/96 )
                                                                        2 . Can a Member State invoke special measures under
                             ( 96/C 133/31 )                                  Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC as taxation rules
                                                                               applying to a taxable person, if neither the Council's
An action against the Council of the European Union was                       decision authorizing the measures was published in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            Official Journal of the European Communities nor the
Communities on 6 March 1 996 by the Kingdom of Spain,                          authorization procedure under Article 27 ( 2 ) to ( 4 )
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del                          of Directive 77/388/EEC made public — after its


title: Case T-147/13: Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014  — Zhejiang Yuhui Solar Energy Source v Commission

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/52

         Order of the General Court of 1 April 2014 — Zhejiang Yuhui Solar Energy Source v Commission
   (Case T-147/13) (1)

   2014/C 175/74
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27. 4. 2013.


title: Case C-8/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 January 2008 — 1. T-Mobile Netherlands, 2. KPN Mobile NV, 3. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, 4. Orange Nederland NV, Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 January 2008 — 1. T-Mobile Netherlands, 2. KPN Mobile NV, 3. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, 4. Orange Nederland NV, Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV
   (Case C-8/08)
   (2008/C 92/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants:

               1.

               T-Mobile Netherlands BV

               2.

               KPN Mobile NV

               3.

               Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit

               4.

               Orange Nederland NV

         Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV
   Questions referred

               1.

               When applying Article 81(1) EC, which criteria must be applied when assessing whether a concerted practice has as its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market?

               2.

               Is Article 81 EC to be interpreted as meaning that, when a national court applies that provision, the evidence of a causal connection between concerted practice and market conduct must be adduced and appraised in accordance with the rules of national law, provided that those rules are not less favourable than the rules governing similar domestic actions and they do not make the exercise of the rights granted by Community law in practice impossible or excessively difficult?

               3.

               When applying the concept of concerted practices in Article 81 EC, is there always a presumption of a causal connection between concerted practice and market conduct even if the concerted practice is an isolated event and the undertaking which took part in the practice remains active on the market or only in those cases in which the concerted practice has taken place with a certain degree of regularity over a lengthy period?


title: Case C-197/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — Cohesion fund — Reduction of the financial assistance — Adoption of the decision by the European Commission — Existence of a time-limit — Failure to comply with the time-limit — Consequences)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/15

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
      (Case C-197/13 P) (1)

      ((Appeal - Cohesion fund - Reduction of the financial assistance - Adoption of the decision by the European Commission - Existence of a time-limit - Failure to comply with the time-limit - Consequences))
      (2014/C 395/17)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Spain v Commission (T-540/10, EU:T:2013:47);

                  2)

                  Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 6154 of 13 September 2010 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the stages of projects entitled ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsection IX-A’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.005), ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsection X-B (Avinyonet del Penedés-Sant Sadurní d’Anoia)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.008), ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsections XI-A and XI-B (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia-Gelida)’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.009), ‘High Speed Line Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-French border. Section Lleida-Martorell (Platform). Subsection IX-C’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.010);

                  3)

                  Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the Kingdom of Spain and to bear its own costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

         (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case T-547/08: Action brought on 12 December 2008 — X-Technology Swiss v OHIM (representation of a sock)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/31

         Action brought on 12 December 2008 — X-Technology Swiss v OHIM (representation of a sock)
   (Case T-547/08)
   (2009/C 55/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: X-Technology Swiss GmbH (represented by A. Herbertz and R. Jung, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 in Case R 846/2008-4;

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative trade mark as ‘other mark — positional mark’ of the colour ‘orange (Pantone 16-1359 TPX)’ for goods in Class 25 (application No 5 658 117).

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) since the trade mark applied for fulfils the minimum requirement as to distinctive character.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case F-26/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Remuneration — Installation allowance — Article 5(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to a new place of employment — Last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Non-payment of the installation allowance if an official entitled to the household allowance is transferred to the place where his family resides — Need for the official to be installed with his family in the place of employment — Spouses effectively separated — Consequences — Inapplicability of the last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 18 November 2015 — FH v Parliament
   (Case F-26/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Remuneration - Installation allowance - Article 5(2) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to a new place of employment - Last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Non-payment of the installation allowance if an official entitled to the household allowance is transferred to the place where his family resides - Need for the official to be installed with his family in the place of employment - Spouses effectively separated - Consequences - Inapplicability of the last sentence of Article 5(4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations))
   (2016/C 007/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: FH (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and N. Chemaï, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to reject the applicant’s application to be paid the installation allowance, following his relocation from Yemen to Brussels, where his spouse, from whom he is separated, lives, and an application seeking that the defendant be ordered to pay the applicant that installation allowance together with interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 15 April 2014 by which the European Parliament rejected the application for the installation allowance submitted by FH;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay FH, in respect of the installation allowance due to him, a sum corresponding to one month of his basic salary; that sum is to be paid together with default interest calculated at the rate set by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations and applicable during the period concerned, increased by two points, from 11 February 2014 until the date of actual payment;

               3.

               Declares that the European Parliament is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by FH.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20/4/2015, p. 44.


title: Case C-565/07 P: Order of the Court of 19 May 2009 — AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), American Medical Systems, Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative trade mark AMS Advanced Medical Services — Partial refusal of registration — Opposition proceedings — Appeal which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/15

         Order of the Court of 19 May 2009 — AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), American Medical Systems, Inc.
   (Case C-565/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative trade mark AMS Advanced Medical Services - Partial refusal of registration - Opposition proceedings - Appeal which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 220/26
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH (represented by: S. Schäffler, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), American Medical Systems, Inc. (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2007 in Case T-425/03 AMS v OHIM — American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘AMS Advanced Medical Services’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10 and 42 against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2003 annulling the decision of the Opposition Division and granting in part the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘AMS’ — Opposition proceedings — Admissibility of a request to prove the genuine use of the earlier mark made by the applicant for the first time before the Board of Appeal

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH;

               2.

               Orders AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 08.03.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2002 in Case T-168/99 Territorio Histórico de Àlava — Diputación Foral de Àlava v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) — Order to suspend payment of alleged aid)

text:
C 156/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            29.6.2002
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              4.    In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(c) of Decision
                                                                              1999/718 is annulled in so far as it excludes the plant valued
                                                                              at EUR 1 803 036,31 from the eligible costs covered by the
                        of 6 March 2002                                       Ekimen aid scheme.
in Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99: Territo-               5.    In Cases T-127/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(e) of Decision
rio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and                    1999/718 is annulled.
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        6.    In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 2(1)(a) of Decision
                                                                              1999/718 is annulled in so far as it refers to Article 1(a) and
(State aid — Concept of State aid — Tax measures —                            (b) of that decision and in so far as it instructs the Kingdom of
Selective nature — Justification owing to the nature or                       Spain to recover from Demesa aid relating to the annulled part
scheme of the tax system — Compatibility of the aid with                      of Article 1(c) of that decision.
                      the common market)
                                                                        7.    In Cases T-127/99 and T-148/99, Article 2(1)(b) of Decision
                                                                              1999/718 is annulled in so far as it refers to Article 1(e) of
                        (2002/C 156/29)                                       that decision.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       8.    The actions are dismissed as to the remainder.
                                                                        9.    Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.
In Joines Cases T-127/99, Territorio Histórico de Álava —
Diputación Foral de Álava and Others, represented by A. Creus
                                                                        (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999 and C 299 of 16.10.1999.
Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, T-129/99, Comu-
nidad Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco, Gasteizko Industria Lurra, SA,
established in Vitoria (Spain), represented by F. Pombo Garcı́a,
E. Garayar Gutiérrez and J. Alonso Berberena, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, and T-148/99 Daewoo
Electronics Manufacturing España, SA, established in Vitoria,
represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente,
lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. Santaolalla, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana)                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
supported by Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Electrodo-
mésticos de Lı́nea Blanca (ANFEL), having its registered office
in Madrid (Spain), represented by M. Muñiz and M. Cortés                                          of 6 March 2002
Muleiro, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
and by Conseil européen de la construction d’appareils domes-
                                                                        in Case T-168/99 Territorio Histórico de Àlava — Diputa-
tiques (CECED), represented by A. González Martı́nez, lawyer,
                                                                        ción Foral de Àlava v Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg — application                                            Communities (1)
for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/718/EC of
24 February 1999 concerning State aid granted by Spain to
Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa) (OJ                (State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under
1999 L 292, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Third                    Article 88(2) — Order to suspend payment of alleged aid)
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi,
President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura
Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                                   (2002/C 156/30)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
1.   In Case T-129/99, the action is inadmissible in so far as it
     seeks the annulment of Article 1(d) and (e) of Commission
     Decision 1999/718/EC of 24 February 1999 concerning                In Case T-168/99 Territorio Histórico de Àlava — Diputación
     State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Electronics Manufactur-       Foral de Àlava, represented by A. Creus Carreras, lawyer, v
     ing España SA (Demesa) and of Article 2(1)(b) thereof.            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaol-
                                                                        alla, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana) — application for
                                                                        annulment of the Commission Decision of 31 March 1999
2.   In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(a) of Decision           initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC in respect of
     1999/718 is annulled.                                              the aid granted by the Spanish authorities to Ramondı́n SA
                                                                        and Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, on the one hand, and requiring
3.   In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(b) of Decision           the Spanish authorities to suspend payment of that aid, on the
     1999/718 is annulled.                                              other (OJ 1999 C 194, p. 18) — the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- 29.6.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 156/17
(Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi,               2.    Declares that there is no longer need to adjudicate on the claim
President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura                      for a declaration that the Commission failed to act;
Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2002 in which it:               3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one
                                                                                half of the applicant’s costs.
1.    Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                        of 28 February 2002
                         of 7 March 2002                                   in Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00: Kvaerner Warnow
                                                                           Werft GmbH v Commission of the European Communi-
in Case T-212/99: Intervet International BV v Commission                                                    ties (1)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aids — Shipbuilding — Former German Democratic
(Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Veterinary medicinal                        Republic — Limits on capacity — Composition of the
products — Application for the inclusion of ‘Altrenogest’ in               Commission — Commission Member given leave of absence
the list of substances for which a provisional maximum                     — Election of Commission Members to the European Parlia-
residue limit may be established — Opinion of the Committee                                                 ment)
for Veterinary Medicinal Products (CVMP) — Action for
annulment — Inadmissibility — Action for failure to act —
Adoption of a position putting an end to the inaction — No                                           (2002/C 156/32)
                        need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                          (2002/C 156/31)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Joined Cases T-227/99 and T-134/00: Kvaerner Warnow
                                                                           Werft GmbH, established in Rostock-Warnemünde (Germany),
                                                                           represented by M. Schütte, lawyer, with an address for service
In Case T-212/99, Intervet International BV, formerly Hoechst              in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
Roussel Vet GmbH, established in Boxmeer (Netherlands),                    (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt) — application for annulment of
represented by D. Waelbroek and D. Brinckman, lawyers, with                Commission Decision 1999/675/EC of 8 July 1999, as
an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                  amended, and of Commission Decision 2000/336/EC of
European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou, H. Stolvlbaek               15 February 2000 on State aid granted by the Federal Republic
and F. Ruggeri-Laderchi): Application for the annulment of an              of Germany to Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH (OJ 1999
alleged Commission decision rejecting an application by the                L 274, p. 23 and OJ 2000 L 120, p. 12, respectively) — the
applicant for the insertion of the substance ‘altrenogest’ in              Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Compo-
Annex III to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of                        sition), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-
26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for                         Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary                  D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ 1990                 judgment on 28 February 2002, in which it:
L 224, p. 1) and, in the alternative, for a declaration that the
Commission unlawfully failed to prepare a draft of measures
                                                                           1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/675/EC of 8 July 1999
to be taken with a view to such insertion and to initiate the
                                                                                on the State aid implemented by Germany in favour of Kvaerner
procedure laid down in Article 8 of that regulation. The Court
                                                                                Warnow Werft GmbH, as amended by Commission Decision
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura
                                                                                2000/416/EC of 29 March 2000 on State aid implemented
Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                                by Germany in favour of Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
                                                                                (1999) and Commission Decision 2000/336/EC of 15 Febru-
                                                                                ary 2000 on State aid implemented by Germany in favour of
1.    Dismisses the claim for annulment as inadmissible;                         Kvaerner Warnow Werft GmbH;


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 June 1996 in Case T-18/96 R: Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and Federatie Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
20 . 7 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 210/ 17
applicant to the Translation Service of that institution and,          ( Netherlands ), represented by Martijn van Empel, of the
second, for her immediate reassignment to the post which               Amsterdam Bar, and Thomas Janssens, of the Brussels Bar,
she occupied at the Office for Official Publications of the            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
European Communities — the President of the Court of                   of Marc Loesch , 11 rue Goethe, v . Commission of
First Instance made an order on 22 April 1 996 , the operative         the European Communities ( Agent: Wouter Wils ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of operation of Commission
                                                                       Decision 95/55 1 /EC of 29 November 1995 relating to a
1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                       ( IV.34.179 , 34.202 , 216 — Stichting Certificatie
2,   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijf and the Federatie Nederlandse
                                                                       Kraanverhuurbedrijven, OJ No L 312 , 1995 , p . 79 ), and for
                                                                       access to the file opened in the context of that proceeding —
                                                                       the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                       4 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                                                                       1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                       2,   the costs are reserved.
                        of 3 June 1996
in Case T-41 /96 R Bayer AG v. Commission of the
                    European Communities
                         ( 96/C 210/43 )
               (Language of the case: German)                          Action brought on 13 May 1996 by Kish Glass Company
                                                                       Limited against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
In Case T-41 /96 R : Bayer AG, with its registered office at
Leverkusen ( Germany ), represented by Joachim Sedemund ,                                       ( Case T-65 /96 )
of .the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in                                               ( 96/C 210/45 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May , 31
Grand-rue, against the Commission of the European
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Communities ( Agents : Wouter Wils and Klaus Wiedner ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 2 of
the Commission Decision of 10 January 199 6 relating                   An action against the Commission of the European
to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
(IV/34.279/F3 : Adalat ) — the President of the Court of First         Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1996 by
Instance made an order on 3 June 1 996 , the operative part of         Kish Glass Company Limited, represented by Maurice
which is as follows :                                                   Byrne, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                       at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 , rue
                                                                       Mathias Hardt .
 1 , operation of Article 2 of the decision is suspended;
2,   costs are reserved.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Commission dated 2 1 February
                                                                            1996 in Case IV/34.193~Kish Glass,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                        of 4 June 1996                                  The applicant, an Irish undertaking with limited liability,
 in      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting     Certificatie      which supplies glass products to all levels of trade ,
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf         and      Federatie      Nederlandse        challenges the Commission's refusal to take any action in
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven v. Commission of the European                    relation to its complaint concerning its supplier's abuse of a
                           Communities                                  dominant position . The abuse consisted in applying
                          ( 96/C 210/44 )                               dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with trading
                                                                        parties other than the applicant and restricting the supply of
                                                                        float glass to the applicant in 1987.
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                        In the applicant's view, the contested decision should be
 In      Case     T-18/96       R:      Stichting      Certificatie     annulled on the following grounds :
 Kraanverhuurbedrijf,         established      at     Culemborg
 ( Netherlands )       and         Federatie         Nederlandse        — Infringement of an essential procedural requirement and
 Kraanverhuurbedrijven,         established     at Culemborg                of the rights of the defence . The Commission did not give


title: Case C-311/09: Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/12

         Action brought on 4 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-311/09)
   2009/C 256/23
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by charging VAT for the supply of international road transport services by taxable persons having their seat or permanent place of residence outside Poland in the manner set out in Chapter 13, Paragraph 35(1), (3), (4) and (5), of the Regulation of the Minister for Finance of 27 April 2004, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   International road transport services are liable to value added tax under the principles defined in Directive 2006/112.
   In the Commission’s submission, to charge and calculate VAT on international road transport services supplied by taxable persons having their seat or permanent place of residence outside Poland in the manner set out in Chapter 13, Paragraph 35(1), (3), (4) and (5), of the Regulation of the Minister for Finance of 27 April 2004 is incompatible with Articles 73, 168 and 273 of Directive 2006/112. The incompatibility with Article 73 of Directive 2006/112 consists in the fact that in every case the taxable amount is PLN 285, taking account neither of the actual distance covered in Poland by bus nor of the actual payment due for a particular service supplied. The Polish system for collection of VAT does not allow a taxable person supplying international passenger transport services to deduct the VAT on goods acquired during a given tax period for the purposes of the taxed passenger service supplied (for example on fuel), which is contrary to Article 168 of Directive 2006/112. Furthermore, the Polish system for collection of the VAT is incompatible with Article 273 of the directive because it establishes an obligation for taxable persons to submit a return showing the amount of tax to the customs office at the time when the bus carrying passengers enters Poland and to pay that tax at the customs office ‘as of the moment when the bus carrying passengers enters national territory’, which gives rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.
   In the Commission’s submission, the contested system for collecting and calculating VAT cannot be based on Article 281 or Article 395 of Directive 2006/112.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-379/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 25 September 2009 — Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 25 September 2009 — Maurits Casteels v British Airways plc
   (Case C-379/09)
   2009/C 312/25
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Arbeidshof te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Maurits Casteels

      Respondent: British Airways plc

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 42 EC, in the absence of action on the part of the Council, be invoked by a private individual against his private-sector employer in a dispute before national courts?

               2.

               Do Article 39 EC, prior to the adoption of Directive 98/49, (1) and Article 42 EC, individually or in conjunction with each other, preclude the following situation:
               In the case where an employee who is in the service of the same legal entity/employer, otherwise than in the context of postings, is employed successively in a number of operating units of that employer in various Member States and in each case is subject to the supplementary pension plans applicable to those operating units,

                           —

                           for the determination of a period for the acquisition of definitive entitlements to supplementary pension benefits (based on the contributions of the employer and the employee) in a particular Member State, no account is taken of the years of service already completed with the same employer in another Member State or of the employee’s membership of a supplementary pension scheme there, and

                           —

                           the transfer of an employee, with his agreement, to an operating unit of the same employer in another Member State is treated as equivalent to the situation, as envisaged in the pension rules, of an employee voluntarily leaving an operating unit, in which case entitlements to a supplementary pension are limited to the employee’s own contributions,

                           —

                           and that situation has the unfavourable consequence that the employee loses his entitlements to supplementary pension benefits in relation to his employment in that Member State, which would not have been the case had he worked for his employer in only one Member State and remained a member of the supplementary pension scheme of that Member State?

      (1)  Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and self-employed persons moving within the Community (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 46).


C 121/14              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.5.1999
References for a preliminary ruling from the Verwal-                          Removal from the register of Case C-289/98 (1)
tungsgericht Frankfurt am Main by orders of that court of
23 February 1999 in the cases of Ernst-Otto Flemmer,                                           (1999/C 121/27)
Renate Christoffel and Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European                      By order of 16 December 1998 the president of the Court of
Communities represented by Bundesanstalt Für                           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung                          from the register of Case C-289/98: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
            (Cases C-80/99, C-81/99 and C-82/99)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                        (1999/C 121/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the First Chamber of the
Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main
of 23 February 1999, which were received at the Court
Registry on 4 March 1999, for preliminary rulings in the cases                Removal from the register of Case C-197/97 (1)
of 1. Ernst Otto Flemmer, 2. Renate Christoffel 3. And
Marike Leitensdorfer v. Council of the European Union and                                      (1999/C 121/28)
Commission of the European Communities represented by
Bundesanstalt für Forstwirtschaft und Ernährung on the fol-            By order of 27 January 1999 the president of the Court of
lowing questions:                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-197/97 (reference for a preliminary
a) Is the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty in          ruling from the Liverpool Industrial Tribunal): Donna Marie
    conjunction with Article 178 of the EC Treaty in conjunc-          Davies v. Girobank plc.
    tion with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the Court of         (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
    Justice also has jurisdiction in disputes which derive from
    a contract concluded by the competent national authority
    in the name and on behalf of the Council and Commission
    in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93
    providing for an offer of compensation to certain pro-
    ducers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented
    from carrying on their trade?
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-24/98 (1)
b) If that question is answered in the negative and if there is a
    case falling within the first paragraph of Article 215 of the                              (1999/C 121/29)
    EC Treaty and if the national courts thus have jurisdiction
    under Article 183 of the EC Treaty, the further question           By order of 2 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    arises whether the provisions of national procedural law           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    or the general principles of law common to the legal               from the register of Case C-24/98: Commission of the
    systems of the Member States are to be applied to such a           European Communities v. Ireland.
    contract, in so far as Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 makes
    no provision.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
c) If the general principles of law are applicable, the question
    then arises whether and under what conditions the com-
    petent national authority may set aside in whole or in part
    a contract concluded in the name and on behalf of the
    Council and Commission if it subsequently transpires that
    the conditions to be fulfilled under Regulation (EEC) No
    2187/93 for the making of an offer of compensation were                   Removal from the register of Case C-371/96 (1)
    in whole or in part not met, or if the conditions for the
    making of an offer of compensation are met only because                                    (1999/C 121/30)
    the competent national authorities consider that they are
    precluded for reasons of the protection of legitimate              By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
    expectations from annulling the definitive allocation of a         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
    special reference quantity which is a precondition for             from the register of Case C-371/96 (reference for a preliminary
    granting compensation.                                             ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                       v. Cotonificio del Trentino SpA.
(1) OJ L 196, 5.8.1993, p. 6.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/43

         Removal from the Register of Case T-176/00 (1)

   (2005/C 143/80)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 March 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-176/00, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.


title: Case C-477/04: Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/5

         Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-477/04)
   (2005/C 31/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Chiara Cattabriga and Barry Doherty, acting as Agents.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/11/EC (1) of 14 February 2002 amending Directive 68/193/EEC (2) on the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation of the vine and repealing Directive 74/649/EEC or, in any case, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 3 February 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 53 of 23 February 2002, p. 20.

      (2)  OJ, English Special Edition: 1968(I), p. 93


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 November 1997 in Case T-290/94: Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market - Commitments - Feminine hygiene products - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Consultation of third parties - Dominant position)

text:
24.1.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 26/5
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 27 November 1997                                                of 9 December 1997
in Case T-290/94: Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the
                 European Communities (1)                          in Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm
                                                                   Quiller and Johann Heusmann v. Commission of the
(Competition Ð Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 Ð                                        European Communities (1)
Decision declaring a concentration to be compatible with
the common market Ð Commitments Ð Feminine                         (Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk
hygiene products Ð Action for annulment Ð                          Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Regulation
Admissibility Ð Infringement of essential procedural               (EEC) No 2055/93 Ð Compensation for producers Ð
requirements Ð Consultation of third parties Ð                                          Limitation period)
                     Dominant position)
                                                                                (98/C 26/10)
                         (98/C 26/09)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-290/94: Kaysersberg SA, established in
Kaysersberg (France), represented by Dominique Voillemot
and Jacques-Philippe Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an            In Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94: Friedhelm Quiller,
address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of               of Lienen (Germany), and Johann Heusmann, of Loxstedt
Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe against Commission of                (Germany), represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild
the European Communities (Agents: represented initially            Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
by Francisco GonzaÂlez Díaz and GeÂraud de Bergues,                Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
subsequently by Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier),                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lambert
supported by Procter & Gamble GmbH, established in                 Dupong and Guy Konsbruck, 14 A Rue des Bains, v.
Schwalbach (Germany), represented by Mario Siragusa, of            Council of the European Union (Agents: Arthur
the Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scasselati-Sforzolini, of the               Brautigam, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð
Bologna Bar, and Nicholas Levy, barrister, of the Bar of           application for compensation, under Article 178 and the
England and Wales, with an address for service in                  second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, for
Luxembourg at the chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 2                 damage suffered by the applicants as a result of their
Place Winston Churchill Ð application for the annulment            being prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council
of Commission Decision 94/893/EC of 21 June 1994                   Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting
relating to a proceeding under Council Regulation (EEC)            general rules for the application of the levy referred to in
No 4064/89 declaring a concentration to be compatible              Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and
with the common market and the functioning of the EEA              milk products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as
Agreement (IV/M.430 Ð Procter & Gamble/VP                          supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/
Schickedanz (II), (OJ 1994 L 354, p. 32) Ð the Court of            84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11),
First Instance of the European Communities (Second                 amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of C. W.                  20 March 1989 (OJ L 84, 29.3.1989, p. 2) Ð the Court
Bellamy, President, C. P. BrieÈt, A. Kalogeropoulos, A.            of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
Potocki and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio               composed of: A. Saggio, President, C. P. BrieÈt, A.
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, has given a judgment on                  Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos; A.
27 November 1997, in which it:                                     Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                   9 December 1997 in which it:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                   1. orders the defendants to pay compensation for the
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs, including the                damage suffered by the applicants, first, as a result of
    costs incurred by the intervener, P&G.                             the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/
                                                                       84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                       application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
(1) OJ C 316, 12.11.1994.
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
                                                                       products sector, as supplemented by Commission
                                                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying
                                                                       down detailed rules for the application of the


title: Case T-92/09: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Strategi Group v OHIM — RBI (STRATEGI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark STRATEGI — Earlier national word mark Stratégies — Relative ground for refusal — Proof of use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/29

         Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Strategi Group v OHIM — RBI (STRATEGI)
   (Case T-92/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark STRATEGI - Earlier national word mark Stratégies - Relative ground for refusal - Proof of use of the earlier trade mark - Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) and Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   2010/C 317/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Strategi Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Saunders, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Reed Business Information (RBI) (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by: A. Messas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2008 (Case R 1581/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Reed Business Information (RBI) and Strategi Group Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Strategi Group Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2000 in Case T-63/98: Transpo Maastricht BV and Marco Ooms v Commission of the European Communities (Inland waterway transport — Structural improvements — Application of Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 — Exemption)

text:
C 102/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8.4.2000
4. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the             3. Rules that there is no need to adjudicate in Case T-151/98;
     Netherlands Antilles Government in both cases;
                                                                           4. Orders the Commission to bear all the costs.
5. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs in both cases.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998 and C 358 of 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998 and C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 1 February 2000
                        of 3 February 2000
                                                                           in Case T-63/98: Transpo Maastricht BV and Marco Ooms
in Joined Cases T-46/98 and T-151/98: Council of Euro-                            v Commission of the European Communities (1)
pean Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) v the Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Inland waterway transport — Structural improvements —
                                                                           Application of Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 — Exemption)
(Action for annulment — European Regional Development
Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Failure to state
    reasons — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)                                            (2000/C 102/44)
                          (2000/C 102/43)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)                        In Case T-63/98: Transpo Maastricht BV, established in
                                                                           Maastricht, Netherlands and Marco Ooms, of Terneuzen,
                                                                           Netherlands, represented by M. J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam
Joined Cases T-46/98 and T-151/98, Council of European                     Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Municipalities and Regions (CEMR), an association formed                   Chambers of Fernand Entringer, 34A Rue Philippe II v
under French law, established in Paris, represented by Daniel              Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Lugard
M. Tomasevic and Francis Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, with an             and L. Pignataro) — application for the annulment of the
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia                 Commission’s decision of 13 February 1998 refusing to grant
Manhaeve, 56-58, Rue Charles Martel, against Commission of                 the applicants, in respect of the vessel Durance, an exemption
the European Communities, (Agent: Peter Oliver) — appli-                   under Article 8(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89
cation for the annulment of the Commission’s decision                      of 27 April 1989 on structural improvements in inland
reducing the financial assistance granted to the applicant by              waterway transport (OJ 1989 L 116, p. 25) — the Court of
the European Regional Development Fund for the European                    First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke,
City Cooperation System Programme — the Court of First                     President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;
Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber),                     J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and                     a judgment on 1 February 2000, in which it:
P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar
has given a judgment on 3 February 2000, in which it:
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
1. Annuls the Commission decision contained in Debit Note
     No 970004505 F relating to the European City Cooperation              2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay those
     System Project No 91/00/29/003, issued in December 1997                    incurred by the Commission jointly and severally.
     and amended on 15 July 1998, in so far as it concerns the
     refusal of cofinancing in respect of expenditure declared by the
     Commission to be ineligible, with the exception of expenditure
                                                                           (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
     connected with the Strasbourg General Assembly in the amounts
     of ECU 101 598 and ECU 256 882;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-46/98;


title: Case T-107/17: Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/24

         Action brought on 16 February 2017 — Steinhoff and Others v ECB
   (Case T-107/17)
   (2017/C 129/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Frank Steinhoff (Hamburg, Germany), Ewald Filbry (Dortmund, Germany), Vereinigte Raiffeisenbanken Gräfenberg-Forchheim-Eschenau-Heroldsberg eG (Gräfenberg, Germany), Werner Bäcker (Rodgau, Germany), EMB Consulting SE (Mühltal, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should order the defendant to pay the following sums plus interest in each case at a rate of 5 % above the respective base rate from the date on which the action was commenced:

               —

               to the first applicant: EUR 314 000;

               —

               to the second applicant: EUR 54 950;

               —

               to the third applicant: EUR 2 355 000;

               —

               to the fourth applicant: EUR 303 795;

               —

               to the fifth applicant: EUR 750 460.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action for damages, the applicants claim that the defendant breached its obligations by failing to refer, in its opinion of 17 February 2012 on the terms of securities issued or guaranteed by the Greek State (CON/2012/12), to the unlawfulness of the proposed restructuring of Greece’s public debt through a mandatory exchange by Law 4050/2012.
   In support of the action, the applicants raise four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to refer to the impermissibility of the compulsory restructuring in the light of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, since amending clauses cannot effectively be inserted retroactively into existing government bonds

               2.

               Second plea in law: failure to find that the expropriatory effect of the envisaged Greek legislative proposal, which provided for a mandatory exchange without appropriate compensation being laid down in the legislation itself, constituted an infringement of the second sentence of Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

               3.

               Third plea in law: failure to refer to an infringement of Article 63 TFEU

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: failure to refer to an infringement of Article 124 TFEU


title: Case T-747/16: Action brought on 25/10/2016 — Vincenti v EUIPO

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/37

         Action brought on 25/10/2016 — Vincenti v EUIPO
   (Case T-747/16)
   (2017/C 014/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guillaume Vincenti (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the EUIPO’s decision not to recognize the applicant’s total permanent incapacity to perform duties and its refusal to declare that he shall be retired

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, namely Articles 7-9, 13, 33, and 78 thereof, and Articles 13-16 of Annex VIII to those Regulations and in particular Article 53 of the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached its fiduciary duty and the principle of sound administration (Articles 41(1), 41 (2)(a), (b) and (c), Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU) as well as the applicant’s procedural rights, also by basing the Contested Decision on distorted facts:

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

         In support of the above pleas, the applicant argues in particular that the Appointing Authority does not have any discretion within the procedure for invalidity according to the relevant stipulations of the Staff Regulations to recognise or not recognise the permanent incapacity of an official to perform his duties, since the decision of the Invalidity Committee is binding and, even on the assumption that the Appointing Authority has a discretion within this procedure, there was no justified reason in the case of the applicant not to recognize his permanent incapacity.


title: Case C-429/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 21 September 2012 — Siegfried Pohl v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck (Austria) lodged on 21 September 2012 — Siegfried Pohl v ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG
   (Case C-429/12)
   2013/C 9/47
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Siegfried Pohl

      Defendant: ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does European Union law as it stands at present, in particular

                           1.

                           the general principle in European Union law of equal treatment,

                           2.

                           the general principle of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age within the meaning of Article 6(3) TEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

                           3.

                           the prohibition of discrimination in connection with freedom of movement for workers in Article 45 TFEU,

                           4.

                           Directive 2000/78/EC, (1)

                     preclude national rules — partly legislative, partly in collective agreements — which by agreement are incorporated into an individual contract of employment, and under which previous periods of service of employees in the rail transport sector are not taken into account at all if they were acquired before reaching the age of 18, and if they were acquired after reaching the age of 18, where they were not completed with a ‘quasi-public’ undertaking in national territory or with the defendant national employer itself, are taken into account only to the extent of one half, regardless of the skills and knowledge acquired by the employee in the particular case?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: It is relevant in calculating the pay outstanding, taking account of previously disregarded previous periods of service (in full up to reaching the age of 18 and as regards the second half from reaching the age of 18 to the claimant’s entry into the service of the defendant) in conformity with European Union law, that the previous periods of service in the calculation were acquired in the period from 1 December 1965 to 24 November 1974, in other words long before Austria’s accession to the EU/EEA and before the first judgment on the principle of equal treatment in European Union law?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does European Union law as it stands at present, in particular the principle of effectiveness, preclude national limitation provisions under which the claim of an employee, subsequently a pensioner, against his employer for payment of additional pay, and subsequently payment of additional pension sums, deriving from the taking into account in conformity with European Union law within the meaning of Question 1 of previous periods of service abroad and of those acquired before reaching the age of 18 — a claim which he did not have under national law and objectively could not bring until delivery of the judgments in Case C-195/98 Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsburnd — Gewerkschaft öffentlicher Dienst on 30 November 2000 and Case C-88/08 Hütter on 16 June 2009 — would be time-barred in its entirety?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Is an employer in the rail transport sector with approximately 40 000 employees and a multi-level hierarchically articulated and territorially comprehensive organisation, under European Union law as it stands at present, in particular the horizontal effect of the general European Union law principle of equal treatment and/or the prohibition of discrimination in connection with freedom of movement for workers, under a duty of care to inform his employees and employees’ representatives of judgments of the Court of Justice, also published in the daily press, which make it appear that a system of accrediting previous periods of service hitherto practised by the employer is contrary to European Union law, a duty which may lead inter alia to payment of additional pay?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 April 2005 in Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/80/EC — non-transposition)

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 14 April 2005
   in Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - non-transposition)
   (2005/C 143/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 5 April 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Juhász (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by not adopting the legislation, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004


title: Case T-407/11: Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — SRF v Council

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/83

         Order of the General Court of 14 June 2013 — SRF v Council
   (Case T-407/11) (1)

   2013/C 225/188
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-399/07: Order of the General Court of 25 January 2011 — Basell Polyolefine v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/34

         Order of the General Court of 25 January 2011 — Basell Polyolefine v Commission
   (Case T-399/07) (1)

   2011/C 80/60
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the First Chamber (extended composition) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 22.12.2007.


title: Case C-555/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG (Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age — Directive 2000/78/EC — National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of employment completed before the employee reaches the age of 25 in calculating the notice period — Justification for the measure — National legislation contrary to the directive — Role of the national court)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-555/07) (1)

   (Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of employment completed before the employee reaches the age of 25 in calculating the notice period - Justification for the measure - National legislation contrary to the directive - Role of the national court)
   2010/C 63/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Seda Kücükdeveci

      Defendant: Swedex GmbH & Co. KG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) — Interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of age, and of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — National legislation relating to dismissals establishing notice periods which increase with length of service but in which any period of employment before the employee reaches the age of 25 is disregarded

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               European Union law, more particularly the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age as given expression by Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that periods of employment completed by an employee before reaching the age of 25 are not taken into account in calculating the notice period for dismissal.

               2.

               It is for the national court, hearing proceedings between individuals, to ensure that the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, as given expression in Directive 2000/78, is complied with, disapplying if need be any contrary provision of national legislation, independently of whether it makes use of its entitlement, in the cases referred to in the second paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of that principle.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Case T-272/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/32

         Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-272/05)
   (2005/C 229/68)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Stéphane Veramme, resident in Auderghem (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 10 December 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.