title: Case F-107/12: Action brought on 28 September 2012 — ZZ v EIB

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/41

         Action brought on 28 September 2012 — ZZ v EIB
   (Case F-107/12)
   2012/C 366/83
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the of the EIB’s implied decision not to recalculate the applicant’s years of pensionable service

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 10 July 2011 for the European Investment Bank to recalculate his years of pensionable service and order the defendant to pay the sum resulting from the recalculation;

               —

               order the European Investment Bank to allow the applicant to benefit from a recalculation of his years of pensionable service to take account of the additional 6 years and one month of contributions;

               —

               order the European Investment Bank to pay the sum determined ex aequo et bono and in the provisional amount of EUR 5000 for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.


title: Case C-316/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — J. Sebastian Guevara Kamm v TAM Airlines S.A./TAM Linhas Aereas S.A.

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main — Germany) — J. Sebastian Guevara Kamm v TAM Airlines S.A./TAM Linhas Aereas S.A.
   (Case C-316/12) (1)

   2013/C 63/30
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case T-586/10: Action brought on 22 December 2010 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHMI — Parfums Givenchy (only givenchy)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/19

         Action brought on 22 December 2010 — Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 v OHMI — Parfums Givenchy (only givenchy)
   (Case T-586/10)
   2011/C 80/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aktieselskabet af 21. november 2001 (Brande, Denmark) (represented by: C. Christiansen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Parfums Givenchy SA (Levallois Perret, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 October 2010 in case R 1556/2009-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘only givenchy’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 3980241

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Danish trade mark registration No VR 2001 03359 of the word mark ‘ONLY’, inter alia for goods in classes 3 and 9; Danish trade mark registration No VR 2000 02183 of the word mark ‘ONLY’, for goods in class 25; Community trade mark registration No 638833 of the word mark ‘ONLY’, for goods in classes 14, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there is no likelihood of confusion and that the relevant public would not establish a link or a connection between the earlier marks and the contested mark.


title: Case T-335/01: Action brought on 27 December 2001 by Colette di Marzio against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 68/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.3.2002
Action brought on 27 December 2001 by Colette di                         Action brought on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo Balmori
Marzio against Commission of the European Com-                           Abella against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities                                                                 munities
                         (Case T-335/01)                                                           (Case T-2/02)
                          (2002/C 68/31)
                                                                                (2002/C 68/32)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 27 December 2001 by Colette di                   ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Marzio, residing in Ginasservis (France), represented by Georg-          European Communities on 10 January 2002 by Guillermo
es Vandersanden Laure Levi, lawyers.                                     Balmori Abella, residing in Madrid, represented by Valentı́n
                                                                         Playá Serra, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 18 July 2001, notified on 5 Septem-
      ber 2001, annulling and replacing a decision of 4 January
      2001 with the same purpose of transferring the applicant,          —     annul notice of open competition COM/A/12/01 for
      within the same Directorate General (Directorate General                 the constitution of a reserve for the recruitment of
      for Personnel and Administration) from the External                      administrators in the field of the management of property,
      Security Unit in the Protocol and Security Services                      logistics and operations, issued by the Commission of the
      Directorate to the Information Systems and Informatics                   European Communities on 23 October 2001.
      Infrastructure Unit of the Directorate General for
      Resources, entailing a change of place of work from
      Cadarache in France to Brussels, annul, in so far as
      necessary, the decision of 4 January 2001 and annul the
      decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint, taken on             Pleas in law and main arguments
      17 September 2001;
—     order the defendant to pay damages with interest assessed,
      ex æquo et bono, provisionally, at EUR 25 000;                     The applicant is challenging notice of open competition
                                                                         COM/A/12/01 (1), inasmuch as it states, in point III(B), headed
                                                                         ‘Special conditions’, that ‘candidates must have been born after
—     order the defendant to pay the entire costs.                       30 November 1955’. The applicant claims that that provision
                                                                         imposes discriminatory conditions based on age, since the age-
                                                                         limit is not justified by any special characteristic of the posts
                                                                         to be filled which might suggest that the work could not be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          carried out by persons in the group discriminated against.
                                                                         Consequently, that condition is in breach of the European
                                                                         Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Funda-
                                                                         mental Freedoms (Articles 5, 8 and 14), which the European
In support of her application, the applicant alleges disregard           Union has undertaken to respect (Article 6(2) of the Treaty on
for the interests of the service, manifest error of assessment           European Union), as well as Article 13 of the EC Treaty and
and breach of the principle to have regard for the welfare of            the case-law of the Court of Justice. The applicant further
officials and of the general principle of respect for privacy and        states that, in addition to being illegal, such discrimination is
family life. Finally, the applicant claims that the principle of         gravely prejudicial to workers aged over 45, since that
good management and sound administration and the principle               approach on the part of the Community institutions helps to
to have regard for the welfare of officials have been infringed.         create a bias against the recruitment of those workers.
According to the applicant, the contested decision takes no
account whatever of her personal interests and of her family
situation. Nor was the transfer decided in the interests of the
service. The applicant claims rather that her transfer is the            (1) OJ 2001 C 269 A, p. 13.
result of a tussle over posts between the services concerned.


title: Case C-99/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 24 February 2012 — Eurofit SA v Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)
   (Case C-99/12)
   2012/C 138/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eurofit SA

      Defendant: Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (BIRB)

      Question referred

   Is there a case of force majeure within the meaning of Regulation No 3665/87, laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, (1) where the competent authorities fail to provide requested information, or deliberately communicate erroneous information to an economic operator, thereby distorting its assessment of the reliability of a contractor who is suspected of fraud?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1).


title: Case C-101/02: Action brought on 19 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 118/20                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.5.2002
Action brought on 19 March 2002 by the Commission of                     The Commission therefore concludes that the Italian Govern-
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  ment has failed to implement Directive 92/51 in respect of
                                                                         access to those professions.
                          (Case C-101/02)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                          (2002/C 118/32)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Patakia and Antonio Aresu, acting as                Action brought on 20 March 2002 by the Commission of
Agents.                                                                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-103/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 118/33)
—     declare that, by not having implemented the provisions
      of Council Directive 92/51/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 on a
      second general system for the recognition of professional
      education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/
      EEC (2) in relation to the professional activities of athletes,    An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      coaches, technical and sporting directors and athletics            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 March
      trainers, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      obligations under that directive.                                  represented by Richard Wainwright and Roberto Amorosi,
                                                                         acting as Agents.
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     declare that, by adopting the decree of 5 February 1998
                                                                               on the identification of non-hazardous waste covered by
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               the simplified recovery procedures under Articles 31 and
                                                                               33 of Legislative Decree No 55 of 5 February 1997
                                                                               which,
It is apparent from an examination of the provisions of Law
No 91/81 that the activities of athlete, coach, technical and                  a.    contrary to the first and second indents of the first
sporting director and athletics trainer are regulated professions                    paragraph of Article 11 and Article 10 of Directive
in Italy within the meaning of Directive 92/51. Consequently,                        75/442/EEC (1), as amended, exempts establishments
when the competent Italian authorities receive an application                        and undertakings which recover non-hazardous
for recognition of professional education and training in                            waste from seeking authorisation, without such
respect of those activities they are required to examine that                        exemption being subject to the following require-
application in accordance with the rules laid down by that                           ments: (1) prior setting of a maximum quantity of
directive.                                                                           waste; (2) compliance with the conditions laid down
                                                                                in Article 4 of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended,
                                                                                regarding the quantity of waste processed by the
Article 13 of Decree-Law No 319/94 lists the authorities                             establishments exempt from authorisation,
responsible for the recognition of professional education and
training, providing in particular at subparagraph (a) that the                 b.    contrary to the first indent of Article 11(1) of
minister responsible for supervising the professions referred to                     Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, does not define
in Article 2(a) is competent to rule on applications for                             precisely the kinds of waste covered by the exemp-
recognition in accordance with annex C of that decree. The                           tion from authorisation and thus, also contrary to
relevant annex lists a number of professions and the ministers                       Article 3 of Directive 91/689/EEC (2), in certain
competent to examine applications for recognition of qualifi-                        cases, as a result of the lack of clarity and precision,
cations concerning those professions. However the only sport-                        allows establishments or undertakings which
ing professions listed are those of ski instructor, sailing                          recover certain kinds of hazardous waste to be
instructor, mountain guide and potholing guide with no                               exempted from seeking authorisation on the basis
reference to athlete, coach, technical and sporting director and                     of the less stringent requirements provided for in
athletics trainer.                                                                   respect of non-hazardous waste,


title: Case C-138/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security Commissioners, London, by order dated 28 March 2002, in the case of Brian Francis Collins against Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
15.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/23
     in respect of which registration is sought, the same type                income-based jobseeker’s allowance to a person in the
     of goods are commonly found in the trade and the nature                  circumstances of the claimant in the present case?
     of the marks influences the perception of the marks by
     the targeted public.
—    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:            (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
     the requirements imposed by the Court of First Instance                L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 475).
     with respect to distinctiveness are too stringent.                 (2) on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within
                                                                            the Community for workers of Member States and their families
                                                                            (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 13) (SE SER 1 68(II), p. 485).
—    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
     the Court of First Instance imposes incorrect requirements
     with respect to distinctiveness which are not provided for
     in the Regulation by presuming, without any factual
     basis, that the existence — assumed by it — of ‘a wide
     variety of designs’ and the average consumer’s familiarity
     with shapes similar to those at issue influence distinc-
     tiveness.
(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark, OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
                                                                        by order of that court dated 17 December 2001, in the
                                                                        case of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
                                                                        and Food, Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and
                                                                        others, Interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit
                                                                                and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security
Commissioners, London, by order dated 28 March 2002,
in the case of Brian Francis Collins against Secretary of                                          (Case C-140/02)
                  State for Work and Pensions
                          (Case C-138/02)                                                          (2002/C 144/40)
                         (2002/C 144/39)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
European Communities by an order of the Social Security
                                                                        dated 17 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Commissioners, London, dated 28 March 2002, which was
                                                                        Registry on 16 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 2002, for a
                                                                        of Regina against Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
preliminary ruling in the case of Brian Francis Collins and
                                                                        Ex parte: S.P. Anastasiou (Pissouri) Limited and others, Inter-
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the following
                                                                        veners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd, Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable
questions:
                                                                        (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd, on the following questions:
1.   Is a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the
     present case a worker for the purposes of Regulation               1.    Whether, where citrus fruit originating in one third
     No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968?                        country has been shipped to another third country, the
                                                                              special requirement that the packaging shall bear an
2.   If the answer to question 1 is not in the affirmative, does              appropriate origin mark pursuant to item 16.1 of
     a person in the circumstances of the claimant in the                     Annex IVA of Directive 77/93/EEC, now Directive 2000/
     present case have a right to reside in the United Kingdom                29/EC (1), can only be fulfilled in the country of origin or
     pursuant to Directive No 68/360 (2) of the Council of                    whether it may alternatively be fulfilled in such other
     15 October 1968?                                                         third country?
3.   If the answers to both questions 1 and 2 are not in the
     affirmative, do any provisions or principles of European           2.    Whether the official statement required by items 16.2 to
     Community law require the payment of a social security                   16.4 of Directive 2000/29/EC as to the country of origin
     benefit with conditions of entitlement like those for                    must be made by an official in the country of origin or


title: Case C-180/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2016 by Toshiba Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 January 2016 in Case T-404/12: Toshiba Corporation v European Commission

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/14

         Appeal brought on 29 March 2016 by Toshiba Corporation against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 19 January 2016 in Case T-404/12: Toshiba Corporation v European Commission
   (Case C-180/16 P)
   (2016/C 175/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Toshiba Corporation (represented by: J. F. MacLennan, Solicitor, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt, S. Sakellariou, Δικηγόρος, J. Jourdan, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court in Case T-404/12, and

                           i.

                           Annul the Decision of the European Commission in Case COMP/39.966 — Gas Insulated Switchgear re-adoption; or

                           ii.

                           Reduce the fine imposed on Toshiba, in application of Article 261 TFEU; or

                           iii.

                           Refer the case back to the General Court for determination in accordance with the judgment of this Court as to points of law; and in any event

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present application is founded on three pleas in law:

               a)

               First plea: The General Court erred in law in finding that Toshiba’s rights of defence were not breached by the European Commission; in particular in so far as the Commission did not issue a Statement of Objections to Toshiba prior to adopting the re-adoption decision in 2012;

               b)

               Second plea: The General Court erred in law in concluding that the methodology applied by the European Commission to calculate Toshiba’s fine did not infringe the principle of equal treatment; in particular in so far as the Commission used the starting amount calculated for the joint venture TM T&D as a basis to calculate Toshiba’s fine, and not a turnover relevant to Toshiba, contrary to what the Commission did for the European addressees of the decision adopted in 2007; and

               c)

               Third plea: The General Court erred in law in concluding that the European Commission, by not reducing Toshiba’s fine to reflect its relative participation in the infringement, did not infringe the principle of equal treatment; in particular in so far as the Commission did not consider that Toshiba’s more limited participation in the collusive conduct, in comparison to that of the European addressees of the decision adopted in 2007, justified being reflected in the fine amount.


title: Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-298/95)

text:
No C 286/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28 . 10 . 95
who is domiciled in Ireland against a respondent who is                Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
domiciled in Belgium that the applicant has previously                 the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
obtained in order for maintenance against the                          Hausen , Legal Adviser, with an address for service in
respondent ?                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                        time lmits all the measures necessary in order to
of the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive
                             of Germany                                      78/659/EEC (') of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh
                        ( Case C-297/95 )                                    waters needing protection or improvement in order to
                           ( 95/C 286/ 12 )                                  support fish life and Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                             Directive 79/923/EEC ( 2 ) of 30 October 1979 on the
                                                                             quality required of shellfish waters, the Federal Republic
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          EC Treaty;
Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur                      2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in                        costs .
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            C-297/95 (■'); the time limits expired on 20 July 1980 and
     time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply          5 November 1981 respectively . As regards in particular the
     with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991                obligation to set values under Article 3 of each Directive, the
     concerning urban waste water treatment ( 1 ), the Federal         need for binding national rules arises from the fact that that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations          measure is intended to improve the quality of edible fish and
     under the EC Treaty;                                              shellfish products and thereby indirectly to contribute to the
                                                                       protection of the health of humans .
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .                                                           (') OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p. 47 .
                                                                       (') See page 6 of this Official Journal .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is apparent from the mandatory nature of directives, as
laid down by the third paragraph of Article 1 89 and the first
paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, that a Member State
to which a directive is addressed is obliged to transpose the
provisions of the directive into national law in such a way
that they take full practical effect from the expiry of the time       Action brought on 20 September 1995 by the Commission
limit for transposition . That time limit expired on 30 June                  of the European Communities against the United
 1993 , but the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                                             Kingdom
adopt all the necessary national measures .                                                      ( Case C-300/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/ 14 )
 (') OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       20 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
                                                                        the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service
 Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                  in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 of the European Communities against the Federal Republic               Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                              of Germany
                         ( Case C-298/95 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 95/C 286/13 )
                                                                        1 . declare that in failing to take all the measures necessary
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        to implement Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          1985 concerning the approximation of the laws,


title: Action brought on 21 June 1996 by Mario Costacurta against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-98/96)

text:
10 . 8 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 233 /23
    imposing in a more proportionate manner requirements                Secondly, the applicant maintains that the decision of
    for contributions to the costs of universal services .              26 July 1988 has been disregarded, in that, first, the
                                                                        contested decision was adopted out of time and, secondly,
(') OJ No L 74 , 13 . 3 . 1996 , p . 13 .                               the procedure leading to that decision was not transparent
                                                                        and the applicant was not consulted but confronted with a
                                                                        fait accompli.
Action brought on 21 June 1996 by Mario Costacurta                      Thirdly, according to the applicant, the contested decision
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    does not comply with the requirements entailed by the duty
                                                                        to state reasons .
                          ( Case T-98/96
                            ( 96/C 233/39 )                             Lastly, the applicant argues that the Commission infringed
                                                                        in his case the principles of the protection of legitimate
                  (Language of tbe case: Frencb)                        expectations and of legal certainty, impaired both his
                                                                        legitimate non-pecuniary and pecuniary rights and misused
An action against the Commission of the European                        its powers .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 1996 by
Mario Costacurta , residing at Kinshara ( Zaïre ), represented
by Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 16
Avenue Marie-Thérèse .
                                                                        Action brought on 27 June 1996 by Maria Elisabeth Wolf
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul        the   decision     of   the  Committee    for  the                              ( Case T-101 /96 )
    Administration of Delegations of the Commission of the                                       ( 96/C 233 /40 )
    European Communities , confirmed by the appointing
    authority, contained in Notes No 17493 of
     14 December 1995 , No 8908 of 30 April 1 996 ,                                     (Language of tb e case: Frencb)
    No 14515 of 31 May 19 96 and the appointing
    instrument of 31 May 1996 , assigning the applicant to              An action against the Commission of the European
    the Office for Official Publications of the European                Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Communities in Luxembourg,                                          Instance of the European Communities on 27 June 1 996 by
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs                    Maria Elisabeth Wolf, residing at Mamer ( Grand Duchy of
    incurred in these proceedings , together with those                 Luxembourg ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
    relating to the procedure for interim relief.                       Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant, a Commission official , who has been serving             The applicant claims that the Court should :
with the Commission's delegation to Zaïre for three years,
contests the appointing authority's decision reassigning him
to the Office for Official Publications of the European                 — annul the decision not to admit the applicant to
Communities in Luxembourg .                                                 competition COM/A/955 ,
The applicant alleges , first, infringement of the rotation             — order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in
system established by the Commission's decision of 26 July                  symbolic damages for the non-material damage
1988 concerning ' orientations about the new rotation                       suffered ,
system '. That decision was taken on the basis of Articles 2
and 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, which provide                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
that officials serving in a non-member country are to be
alternately transferred between delegations and the
Commission's seat. Those provisions were infringed in that              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Committee for the Administration of Delegations and
the appointing authority included the Office for Official               The applicant argues that, contrary to what is stated in the
Publications in the rotation system , since that body is not            reasons given for the contested decision , which refer to her
covered by the rotation system and cannot be regarded as                lack of the 12 years ' minimum professional experience
the Commission's seat. Furthermore, the applicant had not               required in the competition notice, she has more than 12
yet completed eight years ' service with the delegation , which         years' professional experience at university level acquired
means that the qualifying period for alternate reassignment             subsequently to the degree qualifying her for the
to the delegation or the seat — currently eight years — has in          competition . In her submission , it cannot seriously be
this case been disregarded . Also, the applicant was no longer          denied that the research work undertaken in preparing her
subject to that system since he had been reassigned                     doctoral thesis caused her to carry out tasks in relation to the
definitively .                                                          statistical area described in the notice of competition .


title: Case T-840/14: Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — Sky (Sky BONUS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS — Earlier national word mark SKY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/43

         Order of the General Court of 11 March 2016 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — Sky (Sky BONUS)
   (Case T-840/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark Sky BONUS - Earlier national word mark SKY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Restriction of the goods designated in the trade mark application - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 156/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Sky plc, formerly British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 (Case R 2040/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and International Gaming Projects Ltd.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               International Gaming Projects Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case C-555/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2012 — Claudio Loreti and Others v Comune di Zagarolo

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Tivoli (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2012 — Claudio Loreti and Others v Comune di Zagarolo
   (Case C-555/12)
   2013/C 32/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Tivoli

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Claudio Loreti and Others

      Defendant: Comune di Zagarolo

      Questions referred

   It is considered necessary to refer to the European Court of Justice of the European Union questions of interpretation for a preliminary ruling on:

               1.

               the compatibility of Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure in force in the Italian Republic, which, pursuant to Article 103 of the Italian Constitution, provides that
               ‘[t]he administrative courts shall have jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning issues of legitimate interests and, in the specific areas laid down by law, disputes involving individual rights, relating to the exercise of or failure to exercise administrative powers in relation to measures, acts, agreements or conduct involving the exercise of those powers, including indirectly, on the part of public authorities. Acts or measures adopted by the Government in the exercise of political power may not be challenged before the courts’,
               with Article 6 of the [European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms] and Articles 47 and 52(3) of the [Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union], as incorporated following the amendment of Article 6 [TEU]:

                           (a)

                           in so far as it allocates to different judicial bodies the power to rule on individual legal situations which are distinguished in abstracto (legitimate interests and individual rights) but the positive identification of which is in fact difficult or indeed impossible in the absence of provisions specifying their actual content;

                           (b)

                           in so far as it provides that the courts have jurisdiction to rule on the same matters on the basis of criteria (the identification of different individual legal situations) which no longer reflect factual reality after the introduction of the possibility of bringing an action for compensation in respect of legitimate interests (for which provision is now made as of the year 2000 in order to bring domestic legislation in line with Community principles), with significant differences, including with regard to the procedural rules for bringing actions;

                     as well as, in general,

               2.

               on the compatibility of Article 103 of the Italian Constitution, in so far as it provides for and affords different forms of protection in respect of individual legal situations (referred to as legitimate interests) for which there is no equivalent under Community law, by conferring competence in this area on different judicial systems, the jurisdiction of which is altered from time to time.


C 146/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                    21.6.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-192/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/60)                                                       (2003/C 146/63)
By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-192/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                            Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-149/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-343/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/61)                                                       (2003/C 146/64)
By order of 6 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-149/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-343/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.                             Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-155/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-363/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/62)                                                       (2003/C 146/65)
By order of 10 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 3 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-155/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-363/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                    Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-322/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen — Italy) — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná (Citizenship of the Union — Principle of non-discrimination — Language rules applicable to civil proceedings)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Bozen — Italy) — Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer v Katerina Pokorná
   (Case C-322/13) (1)

   ((Citizenship of the Union - Principle of non-discrimination - Language rules applicable to civil proceedings))
   2014/C 151/10
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Bozen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ulrike Elfriede Grauel Rüffer

      Defendant: Katerina Pokorná

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Bolzano/Landesgericht Bozen — Interpretation of Articles 18 and 21 TFEU — Non-discrimination and citizenship of the Union — Language regime applicable to civil proceedings — Derogation for nationals — Extension of that derogation to EU nationals in the same situation as nationals

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which grant the right to use a language other than the official language of that State in civil proceedings brought before the courts of a Member State which are situated in a specific territorial entity, only to citizens of that State who are domiciled in the same territorial entity.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-197/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2014  — T.A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 18 April 2014 — T.A. van Dijk v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-197/14)
   2014/C 223/06
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T.A. van Dijk

      Other party to the proceedings: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1)

               Is the Hoge Raad, as the highest national court, required, because of a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a lower national court, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or must it await the answer to that question referred by the lower national court, even if it takes the view that the correct application of EU law on the matter to be decided by it is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to how that question must be answered?

               2)

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, are the Netherlands authorities in the area of social security then bound by an E 101 certificate issued by the authorities of another Member State, even where the case involves a Rhine boatman, with the result that the rules on the applicable legislation in Regulation No 1408/71, (1) to which that certificate refers, are not applicable pursuant to Article 7(2)(a) of that regulation?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English special edition 1971 (II), p. 416).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 19 July 1996 in Case C-196/96: criminal proceedings against Hassan Lahlou (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services with regard to national legislation on the management of copyright by a company governed by public law)

text:
No C 336 / 1 6         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 11 . 96
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                 di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( District Magistrates '
                          of 12 July 1996                             Court, Rome, Tivoli Division ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
in Case C-l 80/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              Mario Modesti — on the compatibility of national
Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European                        legislation relating to the management of copyright with
Communities, supported by Council of the European                     Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court composed of: G. C.
                              Union ( l )                             Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
(Application for interim relief — Agriculture — Animal                Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
health — Emergency measures against bovine spongiform                 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.
                          encephalopathy)                             G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann , J. L. Murray, P.
                           ( 96/C 336/29 )                            Jann, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
                                                                      Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                (Language of the case: English)                       19 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
In Case C-l 80/96 R: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di
Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey Nicoll and Sir Nicholas
Lyell, assisted by K. P. E. Lasok and David Anderson )                Tivoli, by order of 21 February 1996 is inadmissible.
against the Commission of the European Communities
( Agents : Dierk Booss and James Macdonald Flett ),                   (>) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
supported by the Council of the European Union ( Agents :
Arthur Brautigam and Moyra Sims ) — application for
suspension of the operation of Commission Decision
96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to
protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy ( 2 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
and/or for interim measures — the Court, composed of
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                                of 19 July 1996
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of               in Case C-l 96/96: criminal proceedings against Hassan
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.                                      Lahlou ( 1 )
G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.
Ragnemalm and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur ), Judges;                        (Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free
Advocate-General : G. Tesauro; Registrar: R. Grass, made              movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
an order on 12 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as          with regard to national legislation on the management of
follows :                                                                  copyright by a company governed by public law)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/31 )
1 . The United Kingdom 's application is dismissed.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(') OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .                                                 published in the European Court Reports)
( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1996 , p. 47.
                                                                      In Case C-l 96/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale
                                                                      di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( District Magistrates'
                                                                      Court, Rome , Tivoli Division ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                      Hassan Lahlou — on the compatibility of national
                          of 19 July 1996                             legislation relating to the management of copyright with
in Case C-l 91/96: criminal proceedings against Mario                 Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court composed of: G. C.
                              Modesti 0 )                             Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
                                                                      Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
(Interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty on the free           Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J.
movement of goods and the freedom to provide services
                                                                      G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P.
 with regard to national legislation on the management of             Jann , H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Cosmas,
       copyright by a company governed by public law)                 Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on
                           ( 96/C 336/30 )                            19 July 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Tivoli, by order of 15 May 1996 is inadmissible.
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
In Case C-191 /96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale


title: Case T-184/01: Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
27.10.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 303/19
Action brought on 6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors                      The applicant requests that the contested decisions be annulled,
               against the European Parliament                          alleging:
                                                                        —     failure to fulfil the duty to state reasons;
                        (Case T-181/01)
                                                                        —     manifest error of assessment and breach of the interest of
                                                                              the service and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
                        (2001/C 303/32)                                       Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
                                                                              munities (CEOS), in that there is no concrete, objective
                                                                              and relevant factor to justify the contested decisions;
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        —     breach of Articles 29 and 30 of the Staff Regulations, the
                                                                              vacancy notice, and the legal maxim patere legem quam
                                                                              ipse fecisti, in that the procedure currently applicable to
An action against the European Parliament was brought before                  recruitment of staff in the political groups was not
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                    complied with in the present case;
6 August 2001 by Chantal Hectors resident in Brussels,
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                              —     infringement of the principle of equality between men
                                                                              and women, in that, first, the applicant was discriminated
                                                                              against because she was pregnant, and, second, the
                                                                              principle according to which, all things being equal,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   preference should be given to the recruitment of a female
                                                                              official or member of staff (affirmative action), was not
                                                                              observed, in so far as the candidate appointed to the
—     annul the decision taken by the AHCCE, on a date                        position, who was not even on an equal footing with the
      unknown, to appoint another candidate to the post of                    applicant, is a man;
      administrator with the PPE-DE Group of the European
      Parliament and the decision of unknown date not to                —     breach of the duty to have regard to the interests of staff.
      accept her application for that post and, in so far as
      necessary, annul the decision to reject the applicant’s
      complaint taken on 28 May 2001;                                   Regarding the claim for damages, the applicant states that, as
                                                                        a result of the contested decisions, she has suffered material
—     order the defendant to pay damages, on a fair and                 and non-material damage. The damage is material in so far as
      equitable basis, provisionally calculated at one Euro;            she was not allowed to become a member of the Community’s
                                                                        staff and was consequently denied the benefits of the pecuniary
                                                                        rights connected with recruitment as a member of the
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                         temporary staff and of all the rights and interests in terms of
                                                                        career in the Community civil service. The applicant also
                                                                        suffered non-material damage consisting in the total lack of
                                                                        openness and in the defendant’s refusal to provide her with
                                                                        the reasons for its decisions.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant states that, following the vacancy notice publi-
shed on 10 June 2000, for the recruitment of a temporary
agent for the post of administrator or assistant administrator
of Dutch mother tongue in the European Parliament’s Group               Action brought on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.
of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and                  against the Commission of the European Communities
European Democrats, she applied for that post. At the end of
the recruitment procedure, she was informed that she had
been listed in first position on the reserve list, but that the                                    (Case T-184/01)
candidate listed in third position had been appointed to the
post in question. The applicant lodged a complaint against                                        (2001/C 303/33)
those decisions (the decision not to appoint her and the
decision to appoint another candidate). The president of the
PPE-DE Group rejected that complaint, indicating that it is for                              (Language of the case: English)
the competent authority to choose from the list drawn up by
the selection board the candidate to be appointed to the vacant
position and that that authority is not obliged to observe the          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
order of the list of suitable candidates drawn up in order of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
merit.                                                                  European Communities on 6 August 2001 by IMS Health Inc.,
 ---pagebreak--- C 303/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   27.10.2001
a company duly organized and incorporated under the laws of              The Commission’s argument that the applicant’s copyright is a
the State of Delaware (USA), represented by Nicholas Levy,               prerequisite for entering the market is, according to the
John Temple Lang and Robert O’Donoghue, of Cleary, Gottlieb,             applicant, also incorrect and based on a misinterpretation of
Steen & Hamilton, Brussels (Belgium).                                    the facts. The applicant states that its competitors are using a
                                                                         different structure to present the information and that new-
                                                                         comers in the market are free to develop their own structure.
                                                                         The applicant claims that its ‘1 860 brick structure’ is not the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              de facto industry standard, but merely the format used by the
                                                                         leading data services provider.
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 3 July 2001,
      ordering interim measures in case COMP D3/38044,
                                                                         The applicant further claims that there is no prima facie case to
                                                                         justify the ordering of an interim measure. Also, the Com-
alternatively                                                            mission has erred in weighing the interests involved for the
                                                                         purposes of ordering the interim measures. According to the
                                                                         applicant, the grant of a licence would cause irreparable
—     annul the decision insofar as it requires IMS Health to            damage to its business and render its intellectual property
      license the 1 860 Brick Structure to companies currently           rights devoid of all purpose.
      present on the German market for regional sales data
      services and specifies the conditions under which the
      negotiation of licence terms is to be conducted and                The applicant further claims that the Commission has violated
      approved by the Commission,                                        the applicant’s rights of defence during the preliminary
                                                                         procedure.
and, in any event,
—     order the Commission to pay IMS Health’s legal costs and
      expenses in relation to this matter;
—     adopt all such further measures as the Court may consider
      appropriate.                                                       Action brought on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-189/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 303/34)
The applicant provides regional sales data in Germany to                                    (Language of the case: French)
pharmaceutical companies. It has developed in that connection
a specific presentation of this information, called the
‘1 860 brick structure’, of which the applicant holds the                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
intellectual property rights in Germany.                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 5 August 2001 by Vassilios
                                                                         Tsarnavas, resident in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission has ordered an interim measure relating to a
proceeding against the applicant under Article 82 of the EC
Treaty, requiring the applicant to grant licences for the use of         The applicant claims that the Court should:
the ‘1 860 brick structure’ to third parties currently present on
the German market for the provision of regional sales data.              —     annul the decision adopted by the Commission on
That measure is currently contested by the applicant.                          22 September 2000 in that it decides that the applicant’s
                                                                               name should not be included on the list of grade A 5
                                                                               officials considered the most deserving of promotion
In support of its application, the applicant claims that the                   under the 1999 promotion procedure and, as a result,
Commission has violated the protection granted by national                     that the applicant should not be promoted to grade A 4
and international law to its intellectual property rights. The                 under the 1999 promotions procedure;
right to refuse access to one’s intellectual property constitutes,
according to the applicant, the essence of intellectual property         —     in so far as necessary, annul the Commission’s implied
rights. Such a refusal is not therefore contrary to Article 82                 decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the appli-
EC, unless it is accompanied by additional conduct. Such                       cant on 27 December 2000 under Article 90(2) of the
conduct is, according to the applicant, not present in this case.              Staff Regulations;


title: Case C-483/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principles of equality and non-discrimination — Implementation of EU law — Scope of application of EU law — None — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium) — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others
   (Case C-483/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principles of equality and non-discrimination - Implementation of EU law - Scope of application of EU law - None - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
   2014/C 202/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV

      Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV

      Intervening parties: Ministerraad

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Grondwettelijk Hof — Belgium — Interpretation of Article 6(3) TEU, Articles 34, 35, 36, 56 and 57 TFEU, and Articles 15, 16, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legislation requiring retail establishments to close one day per week — Exceptions provided for in respect of retailers established in certain places or marketing certain products

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium).

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Joined Cases T-247/00 and T-250/00: Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Società Cooperativa Veneziana Motoscafi a r.l. and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/46               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Società Coope-                      SCA, Canal+S.A., whose registered office is in Paris, and Liberty
rativa Veneziana Motoscafi a r.l. and Others against                       Media Corporation, whose registered office is in Englewood,
         Commission of the European Communities                            Colorado, (United States of America), represented by Antoine
                                                                           Winckler and Jean-Patrice de La Laurencie, of the Paris Bar,
                                                                           Pierre-Manuel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Suyon Kim and
             (Joined Cases T-247/00 and T-250/00)
                                                                           Samuel Szlezinger, of the Bar of England and Wales.
                         (2000/C 335/87)
                                                                           The applicants claim that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        —     annul, pursuant to Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                                Commission’s decision of 10 July 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
European Communities on 15 September 2000 by Società
Cooperativa Veneziana Motoscafi a r.l. and Others, represented
by Giorgio Orsoni and Andrea Pavanini, of the Venice Bar.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicants contest the decision of the Commission of
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;                              10 July 2000 taken in the context of a proceeding pursuant to
                                                                           Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/JV 40
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Canal+/Lagardère et COMP/JV 47 Canal+/Lagardère/Liberty
                                                                           Media) and amending the decision of the Commission of
                                                                           22 June 2000 declaring compatible with the common market
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            and with the EEA Agreement the concentration operation
                                                                           intended to create a number of joint ventures between
The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in               companies of the Lagardère group, companies of the Canal+
Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v                    group and Liberty in the field of thematic channels and
Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).                     interactive television services and in the distribution of multi-
                                                                           channel bouquets, inasmuch as the amendment consists in
                                                                           categorising certain restrictive clauses declared to be ancillary
The applicants claim in particular that there has been a                   by the first decision as non-ancillary.
manifest error of assessment of the facts, as well as of
procedure, in so far as the relief from contributions in question
are characterised as aid. The applicants also allege infringement          The applicants argue that the contested decision is vitiated
of Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.                                 by serious breaches of procedure which should entail its
                                                                           annulment, in particular:
(1) not yet published.
                                                                           —     first, the Commission manifestly lacked the power ratione
                                                                                temporis to adopt the decision of 10 July, since it was
                                                                                taken more than two weeks after the expiry of the time-
                                                                                limit of one month as provided for in Article 10(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 4064/89 and the decision of 22 June,
                                                                                which was adopted within the statutory time-limit, had
                                                                                brought the proceeding to a close;
Action brought on 15 September 2000 by Lagardère
SCA, Canal+S.A. and Liberty Media Corporation against                      —     secondly, by adopting the decision of 10 July, the Com-
         Commission of the European Communities                                  mission gravely and manifestly infringed the principles of
                                                                                legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations
                                                                                and the observance of acquired rights;
                         (Case T-251/00)
                                                                           —     thirdly, the decision of 10 July is vitiated by a failure to
                         (2000/C 335/88)                                         state reasons;
                                                                           —     fourthly, the decision of 10 July was adopted contrary to
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                the rights of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 September 2000 by Lagardère


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2003 in Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Locus standi — Commission decision ordering recovery of State aid — Action brought by an undertaking buying up assets of a company required to repay aid — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 184/34               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         2.8.2003
4.    orders the Commission to pay default interest to the applicant        1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      at the rate set by the European Central Bank for capital
      refinancing operations in force during the various phases of the
      period concerned, increased by two percentage points per annum,       2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
      on the arrears of pension from 1 January 2001 to 31 March
      2001; that interest must be calculated from the various dates at      (1) OJ C 275 29.9.2001.
      which each payment under the pension scheme should have been
      made, up to the date on which the payment was effected;
5.    in Case T-124/01, orders the parties to bear their own costs;
6.    in Case T-320/01, orders the Commission to bear its own costs
      and pay half the applicant's costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
7.    In Case T-320/01, orders the applicant to bear half his own
      costs.
                                                                                of 6 May 2003
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.02.
                                                                            in Case T-45/02: DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW Agro-
                                                                            Sciences Ltd v European Parliament and Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                            (Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2003/C 184/77)
                          of 30 April 2003                                                      (Language of the case: English)
in Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH v
         Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-45/02, DOW AgroSciences BV, established in
                                                                            Rotterdam (Netherlands), DOW AgroSciences Ltd, established
(Action for annulment — Locus standi — Commission                           in Hitchin (United Kingdom), represented by K. Van Maldegem
decision ordering recovery of State aid — Action brought                    and C. Mereu, lawyers, supported by European Crop Protection
by an undertaking buying up assets of a company required                    Association (ECPA), having its registered office in Brussels
                  to repay aid — Inadmissibility)                           (Belgium), represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman,
                                                                            lawyers, v European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and
                                                                            M. Moore) and Council of the European Union (Agents:
                           (2003/C 184/76)                                  M. Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen), supported by
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
                                                                            Jordana and K. Fitch), APPLICATION for partial annulment of
                    (Language of the case: German)                          Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                            the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
                                                                            priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
                                                                            Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the President of
In Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, estab-                  the Court of First Instance has made an order on 6 May 2003,
lished in Gotha (Germany), represented by M. Matzat, lawyer,                the operative part of which is as follows:
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Buccis) — application for annulment
of Commission Decision 2001/673/EC of 28 March 2001 on                      1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
State aid implemented by Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs
GmbH & Co. Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH, together with Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte                       2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik                           incurred by the Parliament and the Council.
GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH; SKL
Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH;                    3.    The Commission and the European Crop Protection Association
Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH)                           shall bear their own costs.
(OJ 2001 L 236, p. 3) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and               (1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.
M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
30 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:


               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/37

         Removal from the register of Case C-237/03 (1)

   (2004/C 300/72)
   By order of 22 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-237/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal d'instance de Roubaix): SA Banque Sofinco v Daniel Djemoui, Carole Djemoui.

      (1)  OJ C 184 du 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-396/05: Action brought on  2 November 2005  — ARCHI.M.E.D.-E.S v Commission

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/20

         Action brought on 2 November 2005 — ARCHI.M.E.D.-E.S v Commission
   (Case T-396/05)
   (2006/C 74/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Architecture, Microclimat, Energies Douces — Europe et Sud SARL (ARCHI.M.E.D.-E.S) (Ganges, France) (represented by: P.-P. van Gehuchten, J. Sambon, P. Reyniers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's set-off decision contained in the letter of 5 October 2005, notified to the applicant on 10 October 2005;

               —

               annul the recovery decision contained in the letters of 30 August 2005 and the debit note No 3240705638 of 23 August 2005, notified to the applicant on 2 September 2005;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is party to Contract BU 209-95 concluded with the Commission in consequence of the invitation to tender made in connection with the specific programme for research and technological development in the field of non-nuclear energy (1) and covering the execution of a project of renovation of a building in Lyon by using solar and bio-climatic architecture methods. In execution of its contractual obligations, the applicant, on 12 December 2001, sent the Commission the final report on the project. The Commission did not accept that report and, on 5 July 2002, sent the applicant a decision to recover certain payments made by refusing to accept certain costs declared by it in that report. Neither exchanges of correspondence between the parties, nor the meetings held nor the intervention of a mediator could bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute.
   By registered letter of 30 August 2005, the Commission sent the applicant a final recovery decision preceded by a debit note of 23 August 2005. By another registered letter of 5 October 2005, the Commission also communicated to the applicant a decision imposing a set-off of their reciprocal claims: certain claims of the Commission against the applicant in connection with the contract in question, on the one hand and, on the other hand, certain claims of the applicant against the Commission to which it is entitled in connection with another contract. Those are the decisions challenged.
   The applicant challenges the decisions relying on two main pleas in law.
   First of all, it claims that, by the contested decisions, the Commission is in breach of the ordinary rules of set-off between reciprocal claims. The applicant maintains that such set-off is not available when the claims are governed by two different legal systems. According to the applicant, its claims against the Commission are based on Community law, while the Commission's claims against the applicant are governed by French law. In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission has no legal basis enabling it to impose the set-off on the applicant, while the claims concerned are as yet uncertain, which is substantiated by numerous challenges on the part of the applicant itself and the process before the mediator which has not yet been completed.
   By its second plea in law, the applicant submits that the recovery decision should be annulled for failure to state reasons. It avers that the Commission has never furnished satisfactory explanations, in particular with regard to the arguments raised by the applicant over the manner in which it established the amount of its claim.

      (1)  Programme put in place by Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 (OJ L 334 of 22 December 1994, p. 87).


title: Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on 22 January 2002

text:
16.3.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 68/1
                                                                    I
                                                              (Information)
                                                 COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of                     Fifth Chamber
                             Justice
                                                                        Mr Jann, President of the Chamber,
                         (2002/C 68/01)                                 Mr von Bahr, Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr Wathelet,
                                                                        Mr Timmermans and Mr Rosas, Judges.
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of           2.     In addition, as regards the period from 22 January 2002
the European Communities by decision of the Governments                 to 6 October 2002, the list on the basis of which the
of the Member States of the European Communities of                     composition of the Fifth Chamber is determined, as set out in
19 December 2001 (1), Mr Allan Rosas took his oath before               the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on 18 Septem-
the Court on 16 January 2002.                                           ber 2001 (1), has been amended as follows:
                                                                        Fifth Chamber
(1) OJ L&nbsp:20 of 23.1.2002, p. 4.
                                                                        (President: Mr Jann)
                                                                        Mr Edward, Mr La Pergola, Mr von Bahr, Mr Timmermans,
                                                                        Mr Wathelet, and Mr Rosas, Judges.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on                (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001, p. 1.
                        22 January 2002
                         (2002/C 68/02)
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted                Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &
the following decisions at its meeting on 22 January 2002:              Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
                                                                        19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                        of First Instance of the European Communities in case
                                                                        T-117/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
Assignment of Judge Rosas                                               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Mr Rosas is assigned to the First and Fifth Chambers.
                                                                                (Case C-468/01 P)
Composition of the Fifth Chamber                                                                  (2002/C 68/03)
1.     The composition of the Fifth Chamber for the period
from 22 January 2002 to 6 October 2002 has been determined              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
as follows:                                                             2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of


title: Case T-515/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Spain v Commission

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/29

         Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-515/13)
   2013/C 336/62
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, lawyer in the State Legal Service)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               annul the contested decision and

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against Commission Decision C(2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on the tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements, also known as the Spanish Tax Lease System (STLS) (State Aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006)). In that decision the Commission considers the measures resulting from Article 115(11) of the consolidated text of the Law on Corporate Tax (early depreciation of leased assets), from the application of the tonnage tax to non-eligible undertakings, vessels or activities and from Article 50(3) of the Regulation on Corporate Tax to be state aid to economic interest groups that is incompatible with the internal market.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea is based on an infringement of Article 107 TFEU, in that the measures examined in the contested decision do not satisfy any of the requirements for being regarded as state aid, since there is no element of selectivity in the advantage open to all potential investors from every sector of the economy, without any precondition being imposed; nor is there any distortion or threat of distortion of competition because it cannot be considered that an advantage open to all without any discrimination (not even on grounds of nationality) favours or is capable of favouring the competitive position of certain sectors or undertakings to the detriment of their competitors, because every investor could participate in the structures of the so-called STLS and obtain the benefits which that system offered. Consequently, there is no impact on trade between Member States either, given that the partners (or shareholders) in an entity do not carry on any activity on the market.

               2.

               The second ground, which is relied on in the alternative, is based on an infringement of the principles of equal treatment, the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, and therefore, under Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, the aid should not be recovered.