title: Reference to the Court for preliminary rulings by the Pretura Circondariale di Trento by an order of 7 March 1997 in the proceedings pending before that court between Leonardo Gulli and Ente Poste Italiane (Case C-105/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/ 11
Procurement Office ) of 7 November 1996 , which was                         Community incurs liability even for lawful legislative
received at the Court Registry on 10 March 1997, for a                      acts. That plea was put forward in the initial
preliminary ruling in the review proceedings brought by                     application under the heading 'Sonderopfer'
Josef Kollensperger GmbH & Co KG and Atzwanger AG                           (exceptional burdens ). In any event, the submissions in
against Gemeindeverband Bezirkskrankenhaus Schwaz                           the reply do not constitute a new plea in law, but at
( association of municipalities for the Schwaz district                     most a new argument. Liability for lawful legislative
hospital ) on the following questions :                                     acts rests on the same legal basis as liability for
                                                                            unlawful ones, namely the second paragraph of
( a ) Is Article 2 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (') of                   Article 215 of the Treaty. The objective pursued by the
      21 December 1989 to be interpreted as meaning that                    applicants, namely damages for legislative acts of the
      the (Tyrol ) Regional Public Procurement Office,                      Community, is the same . The task of the Court is also
      established by the (Tyrol ) regional law of 6 June 1994               the same, since the rationale for liability for lawful
      on the award of public contracts ( LGB1 No 87/1994 ),                 legislative acts is essentially the same as that for
      is a review body within the meaning of Article 2 ( 8 ) of             unlawful ones, namely that individual parties are not
      the Directive ?                                                       to be singled out to bear exceptional burdens.
( b ) Did the abovementioned law on the award of public                — The Court of First Instance infringed Community law
      contracts adequately secure the transposition into                    by dismissing the pleas in law based on breach of the
      national law of Council Directive         89/665/EEC of               rights of the defence, the principle of non
      21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws,                     discrimination, the principle of the protection of
      regulations and administrative provisions relating to                 legitimate expectations, the fundamental freedom to
      the application of review procedures to the award of                  pursue an economic activity, and the prohibition on
      public supply and public works contracts, in regard to                delegation of legislative competence . In particular, the
      the review procedures mentioned in Article 1 thereof?                 Court of First Instance declined, when applying the
                                                                            principle of non-discrimination and in the context of
(') OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .                                 the freedom to pursue an economic activity, to take
                                                                            account of the facts of the case adduced before it, i.e.
                                                                            to recognize the individual effects of the Regulation in
                                                                            the particular case of the applicant. If that approach
                                                                            were correct, examination of basic rights ( including
                                                                            the principle of non-discrimination) in an individual
Appeal brought on 10 March 1997 by Atlanta AG against                       case, as continually requested by the applicant, could
the judgment delivered on 11 December 1996 by the                           never take place in principle . Examination would
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition ) of the Court of                      always be curtailed at the outset as to whether
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                          application of the contested rule ( in this case Title IV
T-521/93 between, of the one part, Atlanta AG and                           of the Regulation ) to the particular circumstances in
Others and, of the other part, the Council of the European                 which an individual party is placed infringes
 Union and the Commission of the European Communities                       fundamental rights . It would be conceivable in those
                                                                           circumstances that, despite having its fundamental
                        ( Case C-104/97 P                                   rights individually affected by the application of a
                           ( 97/C 142/23 )                                  Community measure, the applicant would have no
                                                                           procedure available for complaint.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December
                                                                       (') OJ No C 40 , 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 15 .
1996 by the Fourth Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-521 /93 between, of the one part, Atlanta AG
and Others and, of the other part, the Council of the
European Union and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by the French Republic and the
United Kingdom, was brought before the Court of Justice                Reference to the Court for preliminary rulings by the
of the European Communities on 10 March 1997 by                        Pretura Circondariale di Trento by an order of 7 March
Atlanta AG, represented by Erik Undritz and Gerrit                     1997 in the proceedings pending before that court
Schohe, Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in                         between Leonardo Gulli and Ente Poste Italiane
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue                                               ( Case C-105/97)
Philippe II, L-2340 Luxembourg.
                                                                                ( 97/C 142/24 )
The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the
judgment of the Court of First Instance (').                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Pretura
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Circondariale di Trento (Magistrate's Court for the
                                                                       District of Trento ) of 7 March 1997, which was received
— The Court of First Instance was procedurally incorrect               at the Court Registry on 13 March 1997, for a
      in ruling inadmissible ( pursuant to Article 48 ( 2 ) of its     preliminary ruling in the case Leonardo Gulli and Ente Po
      Rules of Procedure ) the applicants ' plea that the              ste Italiane, on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- No C 142/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10 . 5 . 97
( a ) whether a legal provision which relieves a particular                         particular to Article 132 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty and
      public economic entity from the obligation of                                 Articles 102 and 103 of Council Decision 91 /482/
      complying with the generally applicable legislation                           EC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
      concerning fixed-term employment contracts falls                              overseas      countries      and   territories with     the
      within the scope of 'aid granted by a Member State or                         European Economic Community ( 2 ) valid in so far
      through State resources in any form whatsoever';                              they relate to the imports referred to in
                                                                                Question 1 ( a )?
( b ) whether, if question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative,
      an aid of that kind should be subject to the                                  If Questions 1(a ) and ( b ) are answered in the
      preliminary examination procedure under Article 93 ( 3 )                      affirmative :
      of the Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Must Article 23 of the aforementioned Directive be
(c ) whether, where that procedure has not been followed,                       interpreted as meaning that the national provisions
      the prohibition of an aid of that kind can be regarded                    adopted to implement that article may only be applied
      as directly applicable within the domestic law of the                    to the imports referred to in Question 1 ( a ):
      Italian State;
                                                                               — after the rules relating to intra-Community trade
( d ) whether, in the event of question (c ) being answered in                      in the goods concerned, to which, under Article 22
      the affirmative, such a prohibition may be relied on in                       of that Directive, the third-country rules must be
      a dispute between the public economic entity and an                           at least equivalent, have fully entered into force,
      individual who complains of failure to apply to him                           and
      the general legislation concerning fixed-term
      employment in order to secure conversion of his                          — after a legally valid decision has been taken with
      employment relationship into one of indeterminate                             regard to the inclusion of the country concerned
      duration and/or compensation for damage .                                     on the first list mentioned in Article 23 ( 3 ) and
                                                                                with regard to the list of approved establishments
                                                                                in that country ?
                                                                         3 . Is Commission Decision 94/70/EC ( 3 ) valid ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court                  (') OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992, p . 1 .
of 15 January 1997 in the case of 1 . Dutch Antillian                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                         ( 3 ) OJ No L 36 , 8 . 2 . 1994, p. 5 .
Dairy Industry Inc., 2. Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV;
Netherlands Antilles intervening, v. Rijksdienst voor de
                      Keuring van Vee en Vlees
                           ( Case C-106/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/25 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Reference has been made of the Court of Justice of the                   Grande Instance, Grasse, by judgment of that court of
European Communities College van Beroep voor het Be                     19 July 1996 in the case of the Public Prosecutor, and the
drijfsleven ( administrative court of last instance in matters           federal consumers' union 'Que Choisir ?' and the general
of trade and industry) by judgment of that court of                      consumer organization 'OR.GE.CO', civil plaintiffs, v.
 15 January 1997 in the case of 1 . Dutch Antillian Dairy                                 Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA
Industry Inc., 2 . Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV; Nether                                              ( Case C-107/97 )
lands Antilles intervening, v. Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:                                                           ( 97/C 142/26 )
 1 . ( a ) Must the provisions of Chapter III of Directive 92/           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            46/EEC ( 5 ), seen in particular in the light of             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
            Article 227, together with Articles 131 to 136, of           Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Grasse, of 19 July
            the EC Treaty be interpreted as setting the result           1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
            to be achieved — within the meaning of the third             14 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
            paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty — by               Public Prosecutor, and the federal consumers ' union ' Que
            national implementing provisions which are                   Choisir ?' and the general consumer organization
            applicable to imports into the EC of butter                  ' OR.GE.CO', civil plaintiffs, v. Max Rombi and
            originating in the overseas countries and territories        Arkopharma SA on the following questions:
            listed in Annex IV to the EC Treaty, including the
            Netherlands Antilles ?
                                                                         1 . Can a Member State correctly transpose a Community
            If Question 1 ( a ) is answered in the affirmative:                 directive where in the national transposing measure it
                                                                                maintains in force previous provisions adopted on the
      ( b ) Are the provisions of Chapter III of the                            basis of repealed national legislation transposing a
            aforementioned Directive, having regard in                          previous, repealed directive, indicating in the new


title: Case T-294/10: Action brought on 30 June 2010 — CBp Carbon Industries v OHIM

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/17

         Action brought on 30 June 2010 — CBp Carbon Industries v OHIM
   (Case T-294/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBp Carbon Industries, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: J. Fish, Solicitor and S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 April 2010 in case R 1361/2009-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CARBON GREEN’ for goods in class 17 — Community trade mark application No 973531

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
   On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the distinctiveness of the concerned word mark in relation to the relevant goods.
   By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal (i) erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the concerned word mark, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods in question; (ii) on the one hand correctly concluded that the relevant public was specialised, yet, on the other failed to establish facts of its own motion that showed the mark was descriptive to such public; and (iii) failed to establish on the evidence that there was, in the relevant specialised sphere, a reasonable likelihood that other traders would wish to use the sign in future.


title: Case T-338/04: Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Centro Europa 7 srl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/52

         Action brought on 11 August 2004 by Centro Europa 7 srl against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-338/04)
   (2004/C 262/96)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 August 2004 by Centro Europa 7 srl, represented by Vittorio Ripa di Meana and Roberto Mastroianni, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision not to take any further action on the complaint lodged by the applicant on 18 October 2001, notified to the applicant by letter by the Director of DG Competition, Mr Menshing, on 4 June 2004, sent by fax on 9 June 2004, No D (2004)/471;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in the present case participated in July 1999 in the tender procedure organised in Italy for the granting of private terrestrial analogue television broadcasting licences, obtaining the award of a six-year contract for unencrypted transmission, renewable for a further six years. However, the applicant has still not been able to transmit in the clear because it has still not been allocated the frequencies under the contract. Implementation of the national frequency plan, which would have fulfilled its legitimate expectations, has not been carried out because, in accordance with the Italian legislation in force, the frequencies are taken up by television operators which have not obtained a licence and have been able to continue operating under the ‘transitional arrangements’ introduced by Law No 249 of 1997. Accordingly, the fact that the third network of the group Mediaset (Retequattro) continues to carry on business has made it impossible to free up the necessary frequencies in order to allow the applicant to commence transmission as it should after obtaining the broadcasting licence.
   This action has been brought against the decision not to take action against the complaint regarding distortion of competition as a result of the abovementioned situation and of the request to the Commission asking it to take action, pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty, regarding measures favouring the undertaking RTI on which Italian law has conferred special rights.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Articles 82 and 86 of the Treaty and breach of the obligation to provide reasons inasmuch as the defendant:

               —

               should have examined the complaint in question for not having replied to the principal complaint regarding the discrimination suffered in respect of access to the television broadcasting market.

               —

               adopted the act in question without taking into consideration the fact that the measures which the Italian authorities adopted or failed to adopt, by excluding Europa 7 from the market in television broadcasting, strengthened RTI's dominant position.

               —

               failed to take into consideration the consequences of the entry into force of Law No 11 of 2004 on the applicant's position. In that connection, the applicant also alleges breach of the general principle of sound administration, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.


title: Case T-451/04: Action for failure to act brought on 18 November 2004 by Mediocurso – Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/32

         Action for failure to act brought on 18 November 2004 by Mediocurso – Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-451/04)
   (2005/C 19/68)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 November 2004 by Mediocurso – Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular S.A., established in Lisbon (Portugal), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Eduardo Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an address for service in Lisbon.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Commission, by failing to comply with Article 233 EC, was in breach of its duty to implement the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 21 September 2000 in Case C-462/98 P Mediocurso v Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant founds its claim on the Commission's alleged failure to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 September 2000 in Case C-462/98 P Mediocurso v Commission.
   More than 50 months have passed since the judgment was delivered and the Commission has not taken the measures which implementation of the judgment require it to take, namely taking a decision on the applicant's requests for payment of outstanding balances.
   Despite having been formally requested to act, by letter from the applicant dated 19 July 2004, the Commission merely responded, by letter of 31 August 2004, that its services would be taking new decisions as soon as possible. In the applicant's submission, that response is a purely interim communication and does not amount to a measure implementing the abovementioned judgment.
   Thus, as provided for in Article 232 EC, the Commission has unlawfully failed to act and in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 232 EC the Court of Justice may establish the infringement.


title: Case C-221/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Trento — Italy) — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 97/81/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Conversion of part-time employment relationship to full-time employment relationship without the worker’s consent)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Trento — Italy) — Teresa Mascellani v Ministero della Giustizia
   (Case C-221/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 97/81/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Conversion of part-time employment relationship to full-time employment relationship without the worker’s consent))
   (2014/C 462/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Trento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Teresa Mascellani

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded on 6 June 1997 which is annexed to Council Directive 1997/81/EC of 15 December 1997, concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, in particular Clause 5.2 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, it does not preclude national legislation pursuant to which the employer may order the conversion of a part-time employment relationship into a full-time employment relationship without the consent of the worker concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-75/10 P: Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-40/08: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/21

         Appeal brought on 9 February 2010 by European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2009 in Case T-40/08: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-75/10 P)
   2010/C 113/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (EREF) (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 in Case T-40/08, EREF v Commission of the European Communities, null and void;

               —

               refer the case back for judgment to the Sixth Chamber of the General Court;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the procedural costs of the appeal procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant asks the Court to declare the Order of the CFI of 19 November 2009 in case T-40/08 null and void and to refer it back to the General Court for reconsideration.
   The Appellant contests the CFI’s conclusion that it's lawyer, Dr Fouquet, could not represent it before the CFI and that its application was therefore inadmissible.
   The CFI considers that because Dr Fouquet was nominated as a director of EREF on 29 June 2004 she could no longer be considered an independent third party. The Appellant submits that Dr Fouquet had not been formally nominated as a director of EREF — under Belgian law such a nomination would have required official registration with the competent Belgian authorities. The director status of Dr Fouquet at EREF was titular only and not, or only to a very limited extent, linked to the power of representation.
   The Appellant also submits that even if it is assumed that the position of Dr Fouquet as director was of a formal nature the CFI incorrectly applied the criteria for assessing the status of a lawyer as an independent third party. It is submitted that the CFI misunderstood both the legal situation of EREF's representative before the Court and the real distribution of tasks and obligations between Dr Fouquet and EREF. Pursuant to German law the position of Dr Fouquet as director of EREF would allow her to represent the Appellant before the Court.


title: Case C-253/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division, by order of that court of 14 June 2000, in the case of 1) Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA and 2) Superior Fruiticola SA against 1) Frumar Ltd and 2) Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd

text:
26.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 247/23
that the particular legislation constitutes discrimination incom-        ‘Does Regulation 2200/96 (1) (and did Regulation 1035/72 (2)
patible with the Treaty in the field of the free movement of             when it was in force) give rise to a legal duty resting upon
capital (Article 56 EC, ex Article 73b).                                 persons who trade in a fruit or a vegetable within the
                                                                         Community to comply with the requirements as regards
                                                                         variety name laid down by a quality standard which is
                                                                         applicable to that fruit or vegetable, which a national court
                                                                         should enforce in civil proceedings brought at the suit of a
                                                                         person who is a substantial grower within the Community of
                                                                         the fruit or vegetable concerned?’
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins
Vétérinaires by a decision of 10 June 2000 in the case of                (1) of the Council of 28 October 1996 on the common organization
                                                                             of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1).
                 Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd
                                                                         (2) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972, p. 1.
                         (Case C-252/00)
                         (2000/C 247/32)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins Vétéri-
naires (French language Joint Appeal Board of the Association
of Veterinary Surgeons, Belgium) of 10 June 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 26 June 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd.
The Conseil Mixte d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre
des Médecins Vétérinaires asks the Court of Justice to rule on           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
the following question:                                                  Trento — Special Section — by order of that court of
                                                                         6 June 2000 in the case of Grundig Italiana SpA against
                                                                                Ministero delle Finanze
On a proper construction, does Article 85 of the EC Treaty
prohibit the ban on advertising laid down by the Upper
Council of the Association of Veterinary Surgeons in the 1983                                       (Case C-255/00)
Code of Conduct, in particular in so far as the Code does not
allow objective information to be given in a professional
context about an artificial insemination centre for horses run                                      (2000/C 247/34)
by a veterinary surgeon?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Trento
                                                                         (District Court, Trento) of 6 June 2000, received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Grundig Italiana SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                         (Ministry of Finance) on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division, by order of that court
of 14 June 2000, in the case of 1) Antonio Muñoz y Cia                  ‘Is a national provision, namely the last part of Article 29(1)
SA and 2) Superior Fruiticola SA against 1) Frumar Ltd                   of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990, compatible with
          and 2) Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd                         Community law and in particular with the often stated
                                                                         principle of effectiveness (inter alia, Case C-343/1996 Dilex-
                                                                         port, Case C-260/1996 Spac, Case C-231/1996 Edis, Case
                         (Case C-253/00)
                                                                         C-228/1996 Aprile, Case C-261/1995 Palmisani) where it lays
                                                                         down a period of grace of 90 days within which, in order to
                         (2000/C 247/33)                                 avoid the three-year time-limit introduced retroactively in
                                                                         place of a previous five-year limitation period, a party enjoying
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   a right to recover a sum paid but not due resulting from a
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                  payment made prior to the entry into force of the said
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 14 June 2000, which was            provision must bring a legal action?’
received at the Court Registry on 26 June 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA
and 2) Superior Fruiticola SA against 1) Frumar Ltd and 2)
Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd, on the following question:


title: Case T-377/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Commission v Birkhoff (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Social security — Health insurance — Reimbursement of medical expenses — Annulment at first instance of the decision refusing the prior authorisation for reimbursement of the costs of acquisition of a wheelchair — Distortion of the clear sense of evidence)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/49

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2009 — Commission v Birkhoff
   (Case T-377/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Social security - Health insurance - Reimbursement of medical expenses - Annulment at first instance of the decision refusing the prior authorisation for reimbursement of the costs of acquisition of a wheelchair - Distortion of the clear sense of evidence)
   2010/C 24/86
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: C. Inzillo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case F 76/07 Birkhoff v Commission, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 8 July 2008 in Case F-76/07 Birkhoff v Commission, not published in the ECR;

               2.

               Sets aside the decision of the Settlements Office of 8 November 2006.

               3.

               Orders Mr Gerhard Birkhoff and the European Commission to bear their own costs in relation to the present instance.

               4.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case F-23/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Mario Animali and Others v European Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/44

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 1 August 2016 — Mario Animali and Others v European Commission
      (Case F-23/13) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Decision recognising years of pensionable service applying the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
      (2016/C 364/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Mario Animali and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers, and subsequently by: D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and finally by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: C. Ehrbar and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and finally by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision transmitting the definitive calculation of the annuities for the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme under the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 156, 1.6.2013, p. 55.


title: Case T-101/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2007 — Castell del Remei v OHIM — Bodegas Roda (Castell del Remei ODA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark Castell del Remei ODA — Earlier international word mark RODA and earlier national trade marks RODA, RODA I, RODA II and BODEGAS RODA — Absolute ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2007 — Castell del Remei v OHIM — Bodegas Roda (Castell del Remei ODA)
   (Case T-101/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark Castell del Remei ODA - Earlier international word mark RODA and earlier national trade marks RODA, RODA I, RODA II and BODEGAS RODA - Absolute ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2007/C 315/71)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Castell del Remei SL (Castell del Remei, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, D. Moreau, J. Grau Mora, A. Angulo Lafora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño, M.Baylos Morales and A. Velásquez Ibáñez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Roda SA (La Rioja, Spain) (represented by: M. López Camba, B. García Peces and J. Grimau Muñoz, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 263/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Roda SA and Castell del Remei SL.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121 of 20.5.2006.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-52/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/81)
   By order of 28 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-52/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 97 of 20.04.2002.


title: Case T-116/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Oakley v OHIM — Venticinque (O STORE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark O STORE — Earlier national word mark THE O STORE — Comparison of services provided in connection with retail trade with corresponding goods — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Application for alteration made by the intervener — Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Oakley v OHIM — Venticinque (O STORE)
   (Case T-116/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark O STORE - Earlier national word mark THE O STORE - Comparison of services provided in connection with retail trade with corresponding goods - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Application for alteration made by the intervener - Article 134(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance)
   (2008/C 285/64)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (One Icon, Foothill Ranch, United States) (represented by: M. Huth-Dierig and M. Nentwig, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Venticinque Ltd (Hailsham, East Sussex, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Caneva, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Joined Cases R 682/2004-1 and R 685/2004-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Venticinque Ltd and Oakley, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Oakley, Inc., to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;

               3.

               Orders Venticinque Ltd to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case F-26/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — AZ v Commission (Civil service — Promotion — 2009 promotion exercise — Ability to work in a third language — Existence of a disciplinary procedure — Exclusion from the promotion exercise)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — AZ v Commission
   (Case F-26/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Promotion - 2009 promotion exercise - Ability to work in a third language - Existence of a disciplinary procedure - Exclusion from the promotion exercise)
   2011/C 362/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AZ (Thionville, France) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from the 2009 promotion exercise and order that the Commission pay to him a sum of compensation for non-material damage.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AZ to pay the entirety of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010, p. 58.


title: Case C-364/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/15/EC — Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-364/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/15/EC - Organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 155/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities (OJ 2002 L 80, p. 35)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/15/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case C-377/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 26 July 2010 — Adrian Băilă v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Craiova, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dolj (Romania) lodged on 26 July 2010 — Adrian Băilă v Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Craiova, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu
   (Case C-377/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/17
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Dolj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Adrian Băilă

      Defendants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Craiova, Administrația Fondului Pentru Mediu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax introduced by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as amended by Government Emergency Order No 218/2008, from which motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, are exempt, as are all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4 which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009, but which applies to similar or competing second-hand motor vehicles from other Member States which were registered before 15 December 2008, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods, thus protecting the domestic manufacture of new motor vehicles?

               2.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax introduced by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as amended by Government Emergency Order No 218/2008, from which motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, are exempt, as are all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4 which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009, but which applies to motor vehicles with different technical characteristics from those indicated above, which were registered during the same period in other Member States, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods, thus protecting the domestic manufacture of new motor vehicles?


title: Case C-474/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)) — Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland v Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/42/EC — Article 6 — Designation, for consultation purposes, of an authority likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes — Possibility of authority to be consulted conceiving plans or programmes — Requirement to designate a separate authority — Arrangements for the information and consultation of the authorities and the public)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom)) — Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland v Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd
   (Case C-474/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/42/EC - Article 6 - Designation, for consultation purposes, of an authority likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of implementing plans and programmes - Possibility of authority to be consulted conceiving plans or programmes - Requirement to designate a separate authority - Arrangements for the information and consultation of the authorities and the public)
   2011/C 362/14
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

      Respondents: Seaport (NI) Ltd, Magherafelt District Council, F P McCann (Developments) Ltd, Younger Homes Ltd, Heron Brothers Ltd, G Small Contracts, Creagh Concrete Products Ltd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 6(2), 6(3) and 6(4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Designation, as authority to be consulted, of an authority likely to be concerned by the environmental effects of the implementation of plans and programmes — Rules relating to informing and consulting authorities and the public.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 6(3) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment does not require that another authority to be consulted as provided for in that provision be created or designated, provided that, within the authority usually responsible for undertaking consultation on environmental matters and designated as such, a functional separation is organised so that an administrative entity internal to it has real autonomy, meaning, in particular, that it is provided with administrative and human resources of its own and is thus in a position to fulfil the tasks entrusted to authorities to be consulted as provided for in Article 6(3) and, in particular, to give an objective opinion on the plan or programme envisaged by the authority to which it is attached.

               2.

               Article 6(2) of Directive 2001/42 must be interpreted as not requiring that the national legislation transposing the directive lay down precisely the periods within which the authorities designated and the public affected or likely to be affected for the purposes of Article 6(3) and (4) should be able to express their opinions on a particular draft plan or programme and on the environmental report upon it. Consequently, Article 6(2) does not preclude such periods from being laid down on a case-by-case basis by the authority which prepares the plan or programme. However, in that situation, Article 6(2) requires that, for the purposes of consultation of those authorities and the public on a given draft plan or programme, the period actually laid down be sufficient to allow them an effective opportunity to express their opinions in good time on that draft plan or programme and on the environmental report upon it.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Cases F-39/10 and F-39/10 R: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 September 2010 — De Roos-Le Large v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/68

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 September 2010 — De Roos-Le Large v Commission
   (Cases F-39/10 and F-39/10 R)
   ()
   2011/C 30/136
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case T-148/04: Action brought on 26 April 2004 by TQ3 Travel Solutions against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/10

         Action brought on 26 April 2004 by TQ3 Travel Solutions against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-148/04)
   (2004/C 179/21)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 April 2004 by TQ3 Travel Solutions, established in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by Rusen Ergec and Kim Möric, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 24 February 2004, informing the applicant of the rejection of its tender for Lot 1 (Brussels) of Contract No ADMIN/D1/PR/2003/131;

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision awarding Lot 1 to Carlson Wagonlit Travel, notified to the applicant by a letter from the Commission of 16 March 2004;

               —

               Hold that the unlawful action by the Commission constitutes a fault capable of rendering it liable to the appliant;

               —

               Send the applicant back to the Commission for the loss suffered to be assessed;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following a restricted invitation to tender for ‘travel agency services’ (1) issued on 20 October 2003 and the tendering procedure, the Commission took the decision not to award the contract to the applicant and to award it to Carlson Wagonlit Travel.
   The applicant makes two identical pleas in law challenging those decisions, alleging obvious error by the Commission in assessing the tenders.
   In its first plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made an obvious error of assessment by holding that the tender of Carlson Wagonlit Travel was not abnormally low; it also claims that the Commission acted unlawfully by failing to comply with the obligation under Article 146(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 (2), requiring it to ask for appropriate clarifications as to the composition of the tender.
   The second plea alleges obvious error by the Commission in assessing the quality of the tenders, giving the tender by Carlson Wagonlit Travel the highest mark for the quality of the services offered, whereas that tender was unable to allow sufficient quality for the services concerned to be guaranteed.

      (1)  Contract No ADMIN/D1/PR/2003/131 (OJ S 143).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).


title: Case F-80/09: Action brought on 26 September 2009 — Lenz v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/66

         Action brought on 26 September 2009 — Lenz v Commission
   (Case F-80/09)
   2009/C 282/127
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erika Lenz (Osnabrück, Germany) (represented by: J. Römer and V. Lenz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 4 May 2009 not to pay the costs of the applicant’s treatment by a non-medical practitioner

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 4 May 2009 in the form of the decision of 8 July 2009 rejecting the complaint and order the defendant to reimburse 85 % of the costs of EUR 297 in respect of the non-medical practitioner, that is to say, in this case, EUR 253;

               —

               Declare that the defendant must reimburse to the applicant all the medical costs in the form of non-medical practitioners’ fees incurred after 1 April 2009;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and the lawyers’ costs incurred by the applicant in the pre-litigation and judicial proceedings.


title: Case T-376/15: Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — KK v EASME (Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation — Call for proposals in respect of the 2014-2015 work programme — Programme to support innovation within SMEs — EASME decision declaring a proposal ineligible — ‘Single submission’ rule — Evaluation review procedure — E-portal for filing proposals temporarily inaccessible — Error of assessment — Infringement of the procedural rules — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 May 2017 — KK v EASME
   (Case T-376/15) (1)

   ((Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation - Call for proposals in respect of the 2014-2015 work programme - Programme to support innovation within SMEs - EASME decision declaring a proposal ineligible - ‘Single submission’ rule - Evaluation review procedure - E-portal for filing proposals temporarily inaccessible - Error of assessment - Infringement of the procedural rules - Non-contractual liability))
   (2017/C 213/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: KK (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) (represented by: A. Pallares Allueva and E. Fierro Sedano, acting as Agents, and A. Duron and D. Waelbroeck, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of EASME of 15 June 2015 rejecting the proposal submitted by the applicant in response to the Call for proposals and related activities under the 2014-15 work programmes under Horizon 2020 — the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-20) and under the Research and Training Programme of the European Atomic Energy Community (2014-18) complementing Horizon 2020 (OJ 2013 C 361, p. 9) and, in addition, seeking compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that rejection.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders KK to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-159/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — COFAC v Commission

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/36

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — COFAC v Commission
   (Case T-159/07)
   (2007/C 155/66)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: COFAC — Cooperativa de Formação e Animação Cultural, crl (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: Luís Gomes, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of Commission Decision D(2004) 24253 of 9 November 2004, reducing the amount of the financial assistance granted by the European Social Fund (‘the ESF’) to the applicant by Decision C(87) 0860 of 30 April 1987 (file No 880707 P1);

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those put forward in Case T-158/07.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 1999 in Case T-288/97: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia v the Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Commission decision - State aid - Action brought by a sub-State body - Admissible)

text:
28.8.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 246/27
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Brussels, represented by Georgios Sakellaropoulos, of the
                                                                           Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                          of 15 June 1999                                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Maria
                                                                           Condu Durante) — application for annulment of the decision
in Case T-288/97: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia                   of the Commission of 12 March 1997 rejecting the application
    v the Commission of the European Communities (1)                       for the award of an invalidity pension — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,
(Action for annulment — Commission decision — State aid                    President, and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor,
    — Action brought by a sub-State body — Admissible)                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                           on 3 June 1999, in which it:
                          (1999/C 246/54)
                                                                           1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible as regards the first plea and
                                                                                as unfounded as regards the second plea;
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-288/97: Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia,
represented by Renato Fusco, of the Trieste Bar, and Maurizio              (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
Maresca, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at 36 Rue Wiltz, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Paul Nemitz and Paolo Stan-
canelli and Massimo Moretto) — application for the annulment
of Commission Decision 98/182/EC of 30 July 1997 concern-
ing aid granted by the Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region (Italy) to
road haulage companies in the Region (OJ 1997 L 66, p. 18)
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, extended                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C.W.
Bellamy, R.M. Moura Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi,
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,                                     of 10 June 1999
gave a judgment on 15 June 1999, in which it:
                                                                           in Case T-10/98: E-Quattro Snc v Commission of the
1. Dismisses the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Com-                             European Communities (1)
     mission of the European Communities;
2. Orders that the action on the merits shall proceed;                     (Arbitration clause — Obligation of payment — Non-
                                                                                performance)
3. Orders that the costs be reserved.
                                                                                (1999/C 246/56)
(1) OJ 1998 C 7.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           In Case T-10/98: E-Quattro Snc, established in Laveno-
                                                                           Mombello (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advo-
                                                                           cate with rights of audience before the Corte di Cassazione,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: José Luis Iglesias
                           of 3 June 1999                                  Buhigues, Barry Doherty and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application,
                                                                           pursuant to Article 153 EA, for compensation for damage
                                                                           allegedly suffered in connection with a contract concluded
in Case T-295/97: Dimitrios Coussios v Commission of                       with the Community — the Court of First Instance (Second
                 the European Communities (1)                              Chamber), composed of A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy
                                                                           and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
(Officials — Award of an invalidity pension — Relationship                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1999, in
between the procedures provided for in Articles 73 and 78 of               which it:
                       the Staff Regulations)
                                                                           1. Dismisses the action;
                          (1999/C 246/55)
                                                                           2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                         (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
In Case T-295/97: Dimitrios Coussios, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in


title: Case C-192/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Crown Office, by order of that Court of 14 April 1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur

text:
7.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 226/17
3. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as agent with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
                                                                          de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— (Legislation does not comply)                                           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
     Law 38/1995 of 12 December (2) on the right of access to                  administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     information on the environment does not comply with the                   Council Directive 96/43/EC (1) amending and consolidating
     third indent of Article 3(2) in so far as it provides that the            Directive 85/73/EEC (2) in order to ensure financing of
     public authorities may refuse to provide information where                veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and
     it relates to files which have been the subject-matter of                 certain animal products and amending Directives
     actions in the past.                                                      90/675/EEC (3) and 91/496/EEC (4) and/or by failing to
                                                                               inform the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil
— Further, in imposing an obligation on the public authorities                 its obligations under that Directive, and
     to respond to requests for information ‘as soon as possible
     and within a period of two months’, and to ‘indicate its             — order Ireland to pay the costs.
     reasons for refusing requests for information’, Law
     38/1995 recognises silence on the part of the adminis-
     tration as being sufficient to be an implied rejection of a          Pleas in law and main arguments
     request for information.
— Finally, the necessary legal provisions are not in place                Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), under which a directive shall
     either to establish that information on the environment is           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
     free or to fix the prices to be charges for supplying such           State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
     information; in the latter case, to ensure compliance with           States to observe the period for compliance laid clown in the
     Article 5 of the directive, the charges laid clown may not           directive. That period has expired without Ireland having
     exceed a reasonable cost.                                            enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                                                                          referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
— The Commission considers that, in one specific case,
     the Spanish authorities simply mechanically applied an               (1) of 26 June 1996 (OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1).
     internal rule on charges the application of which is                 (2) of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and
     contrary to Article 5 of the directive because the charge,               controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14).
     which is payable prior to the requested documentation                (3) of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the
     being provided, exceeds a reasonable cost. The Spanish                   organization of veterinary checks on products entering the
     administration failed to take the directive into account and,            Community from third countries (OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1).
     as it acknowledged, the fee was charged not in respect of            (4) of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the
                                                                              organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Com-
     the supply of information on the environment but pursu-                  munity from third countries and amending Directives
     ant to national legislation on the supply of technical                   89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991,
     studies, without regard being had to the definition of                   p. 56).
     information relating to the environment given in Article
     2(a) of the directive.
(1) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.
(2) Boletin Oficial de España 297, of 13.12.1995.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
                                                                          Crown Office, by order of that Court of 14 April 1999, in
                                                                          the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
                                                                                Home Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur
Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of                                                  (Case C-192/99)
          the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (1999/C 226/28)
                          (Case C-190/99)                                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                          (1999/C 226/27)                                 Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Crown
                                                                          Office, of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                 of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home
Justice of the European Communities on 21 May 1999 by the                 Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur, on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
1. When determining whether the Applicant, as a British                     (c) Give rise to directly effective rights which citizens of
   Overseas Citizen not entitled (under United Kingdom law)                      the Union may invoke before national courts and
   to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, is a ‘person                        tribunals.
   holding the nationality of a Member State’ and therefore is
   ‘a citizen of the Union’ for the purpose of Article 8 of the
   EC Treaty:                                                               (d) Apply to situations which are wholly internal to a
                                                                                single Member State?
   (1) What is the effect (if any) as a master of Community
        law of
        (a) the United Kingdom’s 1972 Declaration ‘on the
            definition of the term “nationals”’ which was
            made at the time of Accession to the European
            Communities and annexed to the Final Act of the
            Accession Conference, and
                                                                        Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
        (b) the United Kingdom’s 1982 Declaration ‘on the
            meaning of a UK national’ and
                                                                                (Case C-200/99)
        (c) Declaration No. 2 to the Treaty on European Union
            signed on 7 February 1992 that nationality is to be                                  (1999/C 226/29)
            decided solely by reference to the national law of
            the Member State concerned and Member States
            may declare, for information, who are to be                 An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
            considered to be their nationals for Community              Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
            purposes?                                                   the European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities, represented by Mr
                                                                        Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Cómez de la
   (2) If and to the extent that the United Kingdom is not              Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
        entitled, as a matter of Community law, to rely on the          Wagner, Kirchberg.
        Declarations referred to in (1) above, what are the
        relevant criteria for identifying whether a person has
        nationality of a Member State for the purposes of               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
        Article 8 where domestic law identifies various categor-
        ies of nationality only some of which confer a right to
        enter and remain in that Member State?                          — declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations or
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with (i)
                                                                            Council Directive 95/68/EC (1) amending Directive
                                                                            77/99/EEC (2) on health problems affecting the production
   (3) In this context, what is the effect of the principle of              and marketing of meat products and certain other products
        respect for fundamental human rights under Com-                     of animal origin, and (ii) Council Directive 96/90 (3)
        munity law claimed by the Applicant, in particular                  amending Directive 92/118/EEC (4) laying clown animal
        where the Applicant relies on Article 3(2) of the Fourth            health and public health requirements governing trace in
        Protocol to the European Convention on Human                        and imports into the Community of products not subject
        Rights that no one shall be deprived of the right to                to the said requirements laid down in specific Community
        enter the territory of the State of which he is a national,         rules referred to in Annex A (1) to Directive 89/662/EEC (5)
        which has not been ratified by the United Kingdom?                  and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(6); the
                                                                            United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            this Directive and under the Treaty; and
2. In the circumstances of the present case, does Article 8a(1)
   of the EC Treaty:
                                                                        — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
   (a) Confer rights on a citizen of the Union to enter and
        remain in the Member State of which he is a national            Pleas in law and main arguments
        even where those rights are otherwise denied by
        national law.
                                                                        Article 249 CE (ex article 189) under which a directive shall
                                                                        be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
   (b) Confer rights additional to those which existed under            State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
        the EC Treaty prior to its amendment by the Treaty on           States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the
        European Union.                                                 directive. That period has expired without the United Kingdom


title: Case F-41/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/60

         Action brought on 8 May 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIB
   (Case F-41/13)
   2013/C 207/104
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, claim for annulment of the decisions in the wage slips of February 2013, determining the annual adjustment of salaries for 2013 to be limited to 1.8 %, of the defendant’s information notes sent to the applicants on 5 February 2013 and 15 February 2013 and annulment of subsequent wage slips. Secondly, claim that the institution be ordered to pay damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision contained in the applicants’ wage slips for February 2013, a decision determining the annual adjustment of salaries for 2013 to be limited to 1.8 % and, consequently, annul the similar decisions contained in the subsequent wage slips and, so far as necessary, annul two information notes sent to the applicants on 5 February 2013 and 15 February 2013;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to each applicant, as compensation for material harm (i) the balance of salary corresponding to application of the annual adjustment for 2013, that is an increase of 1.8 %, for the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2013; (ii) the balance of salary corresponding to the results of application of the annual adjustment of 1.8 % for 2013 on the amount of salaries to be paid from January 2014; (iii) default interest on the balance of salaries payable until full payment of the sums payable, the applicable default interest rates to be calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for its principal refinancing operations applicable over the period concerned, increased by three points and (iv) damages due to the loss of purchasing power, that entire material harm being estimated, provisionally, in respect of each applicant, at EUR 30 000;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to each applicant the sum of EUR 1 000 as compensation for non-material harm;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs.


title: Case T-322/04: Action brought on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-Palmolive Company against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/49

         Action brought on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-Palmolive Company against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
   (Case T-322/04)
   (2004/C 262/92)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-Palmolive Company, established in New York (United States), represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri and Antonio Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2004 delivered in Case R 0076/2004-2, and;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Mark covered by the application:

               Word mark ‘SIMPLY WHITE’- Application No 2688315.

               Products or services:

               Dentifrices, toothpaste and mouth wash (Class 3).

               Decision challenged before the Board of Appeal:

               Refusal by the Examiner of the application.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Application dismissed.

               Grounds for decision:

               Incorrect interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-122/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Yao N'Dré v Council

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/28

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2011 — Yao N'Dré v Council
   (Case T-122/11) (1)

   2011/C 319/60
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case C-374/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Preliminary reference — Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Products subject to excise duty — Tax markings — Irregular departure from a suspension arrangement — Theft — Release for consumption in the Member State of the theft — Non-reimbursement of the tax markings of a Member State already affixed to the stolen products)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/21

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   (Case C-374/06) (1)

   (Preliminary reference - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 92/12/EEC - Products subject to excise duty - Tax markings - Irregular departure from a suspension arrangement - Theft - Release for consumption in the Member State of the theft - Non-reimbursement of the tax markings of a Member State already affixed to the stolen products)
   (2008/C 51/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BATIG Gesellschaft für Beteiligungen mbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Refusal of a Member State to repay the amount paid for tax markings attached to tobacco products which then irregularly left the duty suspension arrangements of another Member State with the consequence that excise duty was paid in the latter State — Theft of cigarettes.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 of 14 April 2003 adapting to Decision 1999/468/EC the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity), does not preclude the legislation of a Member State which excludes the reimbursement of the amount paid to obtain tax markings issued by that Member State when those markings have been affixed to products subject to excise duty before being released for consumption in that Member State, when those products have been stolen in another Member State, involving the payment of excise duties in that other Member State, and when evidence has not been furnished that the stolen products will not be marketed in the Member State which issued those markings.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-638/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Roca against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-412/10 Roca v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/29

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Roca against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-412/10 Roca v Commission
   (Case C-638/13 P)
   2014/C 52/52
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Roca (represented by: P. Vidal Martínez, abogada)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the arguments put forward by Roca in the present case;

               —

               set aside in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 in Case T-412/10;

               —

               uphold Roca’s claims and reduce the fine imposed on it;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by Roca in the present case, as well as those incurred in Case T-412/10 in so far as the same grounds are concerned.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

                     First ground of appeal
                  , alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons and the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment as regards the assessment of the lesser gravity of Roca’s infringement because of the smaller range of goods concerned by the infringement, and distortion of the findings of fact in the decision.

               2.

                     Second ground of appeal
                  , alleging error of law in the application of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and breach of the principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate expectations in the application of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2.