title: Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-24/95)

text:
25 . 3 . 95         | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 74/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case T-248/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/35 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-248/94 : Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian
Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-24/95 )
                           ( 95/C 74/33 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-249/94 ( )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/36 )
An action against the Council of the European Union and                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Communities on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Jacobsen, Jarplund-Weding ( Federal Republic of Germany),             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
represented by Dr. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                 T-249/94: Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Communities .
of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendants to pay compensation to the
     applicant for the period of five milk years from 1 April
     1988 in the amount of DM 24 540, together with                          Removal from the register of Case T-250/94 ( )
     interest of 8% from 17 December 1983 .                                                       ( 95/C 74/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-20/94 .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-250/94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-l 24/93 ( )
                            ( 95/C 74/34 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-251/94 ( x )
               (Language of the case: German)                                                     ( 95/C 74/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 20 January 1995 the President of the First
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First                  By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-l 24/9 3 : Georg Werner v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                              T-251 /94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
 (M OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-142/11: Order of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — SIR v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/21

         Order of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — SIR v Council
   (Case T-142/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Withdrawal of the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 282/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société ivoirienne de raffinage (SIR) (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), on the ground that those measures establish restrictive measures which cause the applicant harm

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the European Commission’s application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 130, of 30.4.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Torino - Prima Sezione Civile - by order of that court of 14 February 1997 in the case of CIF srl, operating in Turin, v. Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato (Case C-98/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97         EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 142/9
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Turin v. Ministero . delle Finanze dello Stato on the
                                                                      following question:
The Government considers that the decision of the
Commission is unlawful in so far as it orders a financial             If the judgment of the Court of Justice of 20 April 1993 in
adjustment for the purpose of clearing the EAGGF                      Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni Spa
accounts with regard to the sum of Lit 11 934 331 913                 and Cispadana Costruzioni Spa v. Amministrazione delle
and accordingly challenges the decision itself, seeking the           Finanze dello Stato (*) on a reference made under
partial annulment thereof on the following ground:                    Article 177 of the EEC Treaty on the interpretation of
                                                                      Articles 10 and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (2 )
Infringement of Article                  11   of Commis              and those Articles of that Directive must be interpreted —
sion Regulation ( EEC )                No      2677 / 85 of           in proceedings brought before the national court for
24 September 1985                                                     repayment of taxes paid pursuant to national legislation
                                                                      ( Article 3 of Decree-Law No 853 of 19 December 1984,
                                                                      enacted as Law No 17/1985 , as amended ) contrary to that
The Azienda per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricola ( State           Directive — as meaning that the prescription periods laid
Board for Intervention in the Agricultural Market, AIMA)              down by Article 13 of Decree No 641 /72 of the President
observed the provisions contained in Article 11 of                    of the Republic may or may not be relied upon in order to
Regulation ( EEC ) No 2677/85 in respect of security.                 refuse such repayment and, if they may be so relied upon,
                                                                      as meaning that those periods must start running on the
The allegations made in the Summary Report are untrue                 date of payment or at the time when the aforementioned
with regard to 82 instances 'relating to applications for             Directive was properly transposed into national law ?
aid unduly paid, covered, moreover, by valid security and
which has not yet been recovered from the national                    H [ 1993 ECR 1-1915 .
authority'.                                                           (2 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1969(11), p. 412.
Some amounts have already been received and paid to the
EAGGF. In respect of others, the sums have been
recovered by being set off against other amounts which
were payable . In one instance, the credit which fell to be
recovered is guaranteed by means of a voluntary first                 Action brought on 7 March 1997 by the Commission of
mortgage. In many other cases, the necessary executive                    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
procedures have been put in place for the compulsory                                            ( Case C-101/97)
recovery of amounts due.
                                                                                97/C 142/20 )
Finally, a special situation is that regarding the 'Caruso
Rosa' company, in respect of which the 'AgencontroP                   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
found that there had been infringements, without,                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
however, succeeding in quantifying the amount of the aid              7 March 1997 by the Commission of the European
unduly paid. In the absence of reliable information, it has           Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, of its Legal
not been possible to forfeit the securities. To that end, the         Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service at the
Guardia di Finanza has therefore been requested to                    office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
investigate further and when such investigation is                    Kirchberg.
completed any aid unduly received by the undertaking will
be recovered .                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force a
                                                                            law relating to value added tax which does not permit
                                                                            deduction of the tax in respect of real property
                                                                            acquired, even by means of financial leasing, in joint
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale                       ownership or co-ownership with persons who are not
Civile e Penale di Torino — Prima Sezione Civile — by                       acting in connection with carrying on a business, trade
order of that court of 14 February 1997 in the case of CIF                  or profession, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
srl, operating in Turin, v. Ministero delle Finanze dello                   its obligations under Article 17 ( 2 ) ( a ) of Council
                              Stato                                         Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 H ( the Sixth
                       ( Case C-98/97 )                                     VAT Directive ),
                         ( 97/C 142/19 )                              — order the Italian Republic to bear the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Civile e
Penale di Torino — Prima Sezione Civile — ( Civil and                 The Commission cannot but note the glaring discrepancy
Criminal Court, Turin, First Civil Section ) of 14 February           between Article 19 (2 ) ( e ) ( b ) of the Italian Presidential
1997, received at the Court Registry on 6 March 1997,                 Decree and Article 17 (2 ) ( a ) of the Sixth Directive, as
for a preliminary ruling in the case of CIF srl, operating in         interpreted in the decisions of the Court.


title: Case C-197/02: Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 191/18              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.8.2002
Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Commission of                      —    The mandatory exchange of the licence on grounds of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                        lack of space in which to record data is not provided for
                                                                             in Point 4 of Annex I to the directive: That provision does
                                                                             not provide for an exchange in such circumstances, nor
                        (Case C-195/02)                                      does Article 8, which deals precisely with the exchange
                                                                             of driving licences. Since the directive regulates these
                                                                             matters exhaustively, it must be concluded that it pre-
                                                                             cludes a provision which requires exchange under the
                        (2002/C 191/29)                                      terms laid down in Article 25(2) of the Regulations on
                                                                             Drivers.
                                                                        —    Transitional provision number 7 of the Regulations on
An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before the                    Drivers is contrary to Annex III to the directive: Directive
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 May                       91/439/EEC does not provide for the recognition of
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          acquired rights. According to Article 7(1)(a), the holder
represented by Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Wouter Wils,                of a driving licence must be able to meet minimum
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               standards of physical and mental fitness for driving
the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Legal Service,              power-driven vehicles, as laid down in Annex III to the
Wagner Centre.                                                               directive. Accordingly, when renewing the driving licence,
                                                                             the holder must meet those minimum standards. The
                                                                             Commission does not accept the argument put forward
                                                                             by the Spanish authorities that the absence of any kind of
                                                                             ‘grandfather clause’ is due to an oversight.
The applicant claims
that the Court should declare that the Kingdom of Spain:
                                                                        (1) OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1.
—     by adopting Articles 22 and 24 of the Regulations on
      Drivers, has infringed Article 1(2) of Directive 91/439/
      EEC (1);
—     by adopting Article 25(2) of the Regulations on Drivers,
      has infringed point 4 of Annex I to Directive 91/439/
      EEC;
—     by adopting transitional provision number 7 of the
      Regulations on Drivers, has infringed Article 7(19(a) of
      Directive 91/439/EEC;
                                                                        Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
and order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-197/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 191/30)
—     The obligation to enter the driving licence in a register of
      Drivers and Offenders is contrary to Article 1(2) of
      the Directive: the system of mandatory registration is
      disproportionate to the objective it pursues because the
      consequences of its non-observance are so severe. Use of
      the power conferred by the directive to apply Spanish
      rules on duration and medical checks is in no way                 An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
      hindered or diluted by failure to register. Furthermore, in       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 May
      order to ensure the effectiveness of a points system or           2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      any system which takes note of recidivism it is sufficient,       represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, acting as Agent, with
      for example, for the details of the licence in question to        an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
      be recorded upon the first offence.                               Escobar Guerrero, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 191/19
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              European Communities in Case T-231/99 between Colin
                                                                          Joynson and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          supported by Bass plc, was brought before the Court of Justice
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force Articles 9.4, 21.3
                                                                          of the European Communities on 3 June 2002 by Colin
      and 22.6 of Royal Decree No 2822/1998, under which
                                                                          Joynson, represented by B. Bedford, Barrister, instructed by
      motorcycles, three-wheeled vehicles, mopeds and bicycles
                                                                          Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors.
      may not tow a trailer or semi trailer, the Kingdom of
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18,
      28 and 49 EC and Article 11 of the European Economic
      Area (EEA) Agreement;
                                                                          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
—     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                          a)    set aside the judgment appealed against in whole; and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           b)    grant the relief sought by the appellant in the proceedings
                                                                                before the Court of First Instance; alternatively
The total prohibition on the use on the road of a two- or three-
                                                                          c)    remit the case to the Court of First Instance; and in any
wheeled vehicle towing a trailer constitutes, first, an obstacle
                                                                                event
to the importation of that type of vehicle from other Member
States or from the signatories to the EEA Agreement. Secondly,
such prohibition, inasmuch as it applies to persons travelling
to Spain in vehicles registered in other Member States, may               d)    order the defendant to pay the appellant’s costs.
constitute an obstacle to the freedom of movement of persons
and to the freedom to provide services. The Commission
points out that there is no technical reason to justify the
absolute ban adopted by the Spanish Government which
affects vehicles which fully meet all safety requirements for
their use on the public highway. Nor does the nature of                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Spanish roads justify total banning from the road of two- or
three-wheeled vehicles towing a trailer, which also includes a
ban on the use of such vehicles in urban areas and on those
                                                                          The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance erred
roads (motorways and dual carriageways, for example) which
                                                                          in law:
by their nature have eliminated the very risks highlighted by
the Spanish authorities.
                                                                          a)    In holding that the Commission, on the question of
                                                                                whether a beer supply agreement contributes to an
                                                                                improvement in distribution, was right to consider only
                                                                                the effect of possible deliberate price discrimination on
                                                                                the part of Bass plc and not the poor profitability said
                                                                                to be the consequence of the system of leases itself
                                                                                independently of any deliberate price discrimination,
Appeal brought on 3 June 2002 by Colin Joynson against
the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002 by the Third                      b)    In holding that a failure to specify beers in the purchasing
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                          obligation by brand or denomination leading to the
Communities in Case T-231/99 (1) between Colin Joynson                          exclusion of a beer supply agreement from Regulation
and the Commission of the European Communities,                                 1984/83 (2) is, in the present case, a purely technical
                     supported by Bass plc                                      matter which does not prevent the agreement from
                                                                                complying with the spirit of that Regulation,
                       (Case C-204/02 P)
                                                                          c)    In concluding that an examination of the possibility of a
                                                                                grant of individual exemption to a beer supply under
                        (2002/C 191/31)                                         Article 81(3) EC can be limited to the application of the
                                                                                frame work analysis provided by Regulation 1984/83,
                                                                          d)    In holding that the price differential and the reference
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 March 2002                       group used to measure the differential can be limited by
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      reference to Article 14(c)(2) of Regulation 1984/83,


title: Case C-52/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2013 — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2013 — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-52/13)
   2013/C 123/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint

      Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Question referred

   With regard to the protection to be afforded to traders, is Directive 2006/114/EC (1) to be interpreted as referring to advertising that is misleading and at the same time based on unlawful comparison, or to two separate offences, each of which may be relevant in its own right, namely misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising?

      (1)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21.


title: Case C-173/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2015 — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 17 April 2015 — GE Healthcare GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-173/15)
   (2015/C 236/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GE Healthcare GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can royalties or licence fees within the meaning of Article 32(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Code’) be included in the customs value even though it is not established either at the time the contract is concluded or at the relevant date as regards the incurring of the customs debt (the latter date being determined in the event of any dispute in accordance with Articles 201(2) and 214(1) of the Code) that royalties or licence fees have become chargeable?

               2.

               If the reply to question 1 is in the affirmative: can royalties or licence fees for trade marks within the meaning of Article 32(1)(c) of the Code relate to the imported goods notwithstanding the fact that those royalties or licence fees are also paid for services and for the use of the key part of the name of the common group of companies?

               3.

               If the reply to question 2 is in the affirmative: can royalties or licence fees for trade marks within the meaning of Article 32(1)(c) of the Code be a condition of the sale for export to the Community of the imported goods within the meaning of Article 32(5)(b) of the Code even though payment was demanded by an undertaking related to the seller and to the buyer, and was made?

               4.

               If the reply to question 3 is in the affirmative and the royalties or licence fees relate, as here, partly to the imported goods and partly to post-importation services: does it follow from the appropriate apportionment made only on the basis of objective and quantifiable data, in accordance with Article 158(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Implementing Regulation’) and the interpretative note on Article 32(2) of the Code in Annex 23 to the Implementing Regulation, that only a customs value in accordance with Article 29 of the Code may be corrected, or, if a customs value cannot be determined in accordance with Article 29 of the Code, is the apportionment laid down in Article 158(3) of the Implementing Regulation also possible, in so far as those costs would not otherwise be taken into account, when determining a customs value to be established in accordance with Article 31 of the Code?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.


title: Case T-82/13: Action brought on 13 February 2013 — Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/28

         Action brought on 13 February 2013 — Panasonic and MT Picture Display v Commission
   (Case T-82/13)
   2013/C 101/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Panasonic Corp. (Kadoma, Japan) and MT Picture Display Co. Ltd (Matsuocho, Japan) (represented by: R. Gerrits, A. Bischke, lawyers, M. Hoskins, QC, and S. Abram, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final adopted on 5 December 2012 in case COMP/39437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes, in whole or in part, as appropriate, insofar as it finds that the applicants infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA Agreement;

               —

               Annul the penalties imposed on the applicants, or reduce such penalties, as appropriate; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs for these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of right to a fair hearing in relation to the period up to 10 February 2003, as:

                           —

                           The contested decision bases its finding that Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘MEI’) participated in the alleged single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU relating to colour picture tubes (the ‘CPT cartel’) in the period before 10 February 2003 on two new claims, which did not appear in the Statement of Objections: first that MEI knew, or should have known, about the CPT cartel and secondly that MEI made a strategic decision to participate in the CPT cartel through bilateral contacts. Similarly, the contested decision relies for the first time on certain oral statements and documentary evidence, or parts thereof, in support of these allegations;

                           —

                           The inclusion of these allegations and materials for the first time in the contested decision constitutes a serious breach of Panasonic Corporation’s (‘Panasonic’) rights of defence is inadmissible and requires annulment of the said decision against MEI in respect of this period.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to prove that MEI knew or should have known of the existence and/or content of the CPT cartel in relation to the period up to 10 February 2003, as:

                           —

                           Even if the allegations and/or evidence referred to under the first plea in law were admissible, the Commission has failed to prove that MEI knew or should have known that the bilateral contacts in which it participated were part of an overall plan and that the overall plan included all of the constituent elements of the alleged CPT cartel;

                           —

                           Neither does the evidence relied on show that MEI made a strategic choice to participate in any CPT cartel via bilateral meetings.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging failure to prove that MEI/MT Picture Display Co., Ltd. (‘MTPD’) participated in the single and continuous infringement identified in the contested decision as from 10 February 2003, as:

                           —

                           The activities in Europe and Asia as from 10 February 2003 did not form part of a common plan with a single objective;

                           —

                           MEI/MTPD did not participate in any multilateral CPT meetings in Europe;

                           —

                           In relation to MEI/MTPD’s bilateral contacts during this period, the Commission has failed to prove that MEI/MTPD knew or should have known of the existence and/or content of the multilateral cartel activities in Europe involving other addressees of the contested decision.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the penalty imposed on Panasonic/MTPD should be overturned completely, alternatively reduced, as:

                           —

                           Panasonic/MTPD’s primary case is that the findings of infringement against each of them should be annulled in their entirety and the penalty imposed on each of them should be overturned completely;

                           —

                           Alternatively, if Panasonic/MTPD’s application for annulment is successful on some but not all grounds, the penalty imposed on Panasonic/MTPD should be reduced accordingly;

                           —

                           Further or alternatively, even if the finding of infringement is sustained, the fine imposed on Panasonic/MTPD is excessive, because the contested decision uses a flawed methodology which assigns an erroneously inflated value to intra-group sales for fine calculation purposes;

                           —

                           Further or alternatively still, if it is not overturned completely, the fine imposed on Panasonic/MTPD should be reduced in recognition of its lesser involvement in the alleged CPT cartel.


title: Action brought on 17 October 1995 by Société Guérin Automobiles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-195/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/21
withholding from the complainant of information as                     nevertheless obliged to carry out a careful and impartial
significant as the existence and contents of requests for              examination of all the relevant elements of each case, in
information and the observations of the undertaking                    order to be able to assess, with full knowledge of the matter,
concerned on the issues involved or on the request for its             the factual and legal aspects submitted by the complainants
comments on the complaint. The applicant remains                       for its consideration .
unaware of the nature of the request for information which
was addressed to Peugeot in the four matters referred to by            The applicant contends that the defendant institution failed
DG IV, and consequently whether that request has any                   to comply with those requirements in the present case. It
bearing whatever on its complaint.                                     argues in that regard that it is not open to the Commission to
                                                                       claim that there was no sufficient Community interest such
Lastly, the decision to proceed on the basis of a system of            as to require it to move on to the next stage of the procedure,
interconnections between the Sodima matter and other                   namely notification of the complaints, or at least the
matters, which is apparent from the Commission's letter of             communication of its intentions pursuant to Article 6 of
12 September 1995 , may be regarded as an artifice designed            Regulation No 99/63 , since :
to delay the outcome of the procedure in the applicant's own
case and to make improper use, in the other cases, of the              ( a ) the Commissioner responsible for competition matters
specific evidence produced by the applicant, thereby                          has publicly stated on numerous occasions that
disregarding the terms laid down by the complainant and                       complaints will be dealt with quickly and that sanctions
the requirements of confidentiality.                                          will be imposed where complaints are well-founded;
                                                                       ( b ) in the present matter, preparatory inquiries into the
                                                                              complaint were all the more necessary in that Nissan
                                                                              France involved the Commission in the drafting of its
Action brought on 17 October 1995 by Société Guérin                           dealership agreement, as is apparent from a letter of
Automobiles against the Commission of the European                             1 July 1993 sent by Nissan France to the applicant.
                            Communities
                                                                       It further states that, had the Commission adopted a
                         ( Case T- 195/95 )                            decision in the form of a withdrawal of exemption or a
                           ( 95/C 333/39 )                             declaration that the clauses and practices followed in its
                                                                       dealings with Nissan France were contrary to Community
                 (Language of the case: French)                        competition law, the applicant would have been able more
                                                                       rapidly to obtain an order for compensation from the
An action against the Commission of the European                       national court before which the matter is pending.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1995
by Societe Guerin Automobiles, established at Alen^on
( France ), represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                Action brought on 17 October 1995 by 'H' against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                   ( Case T-l 96/95 )
— declare that the Commission has wrongfully failed to                                           ( 95/C 333/40 )
     act ,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— alternatively, declare on the basis of Article 215 of the
     Treaty that the Commission has thus incurred                      An action against the Commission of the European
     non-contractual liability towards the applicant, and              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     order it to pay to the applicant compensation assessed at         Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1995
     FF 1 577 188,53 ,
                                                                       by 'H ', residing in Brussels, represented by Pierre-Paul van
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                       an address for service at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
                                                                       2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicant company, a concessionaire of Nissan France               The applicant claims that the Court should:
( which imports Nissan vehicles and is a subsidiary of the
Japanese manufacturer ), contests the Commission's refusal             — declare the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee
to act on a complaint lodged by it against Nissan France                     irregular and void,
concerning the compatibility of the dealership agreement
with Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Regulation                        — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
No 123/85 .                                                                  Communities of 27 September 1994 retiring the
                                                                             applicant and granting her an invalidity pension
It considers that, whilst the Commission is indeed at liberty                pursuant to the provisions of the third paragraph of
to establish an order of priority in dealing with matters, it is             Article 78 of the Staff Regulations,


title: Case F-137/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 February 2016 — GV v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Member of the contract staff — Contract for an indefinite period — Article 47(c) of the CEOS — Reasons for dismissal — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Right to be heard — Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Principle of sound administration — Material damage — Non-material damage)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 5 February 2016 — GV v EEAS
   (Case F-137/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - EEAS staff - Member of the contract staff - Contract for an indefinite period - Article 47(c) of the CEOS - Reasons for dismissal - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard - Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Principle of sound administration - Material damage - Non-material damage))
   (2016/C 106/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GV (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the EEAS terminating the applicant’s contract of employment for an indefinite period, and a claim for compensation for the material and non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 29 January 2014 by which the Director of the ‘Human Resources’ Directorate of the European External Action Service, acting in his capacity as the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment, decided to terminate GV’s employment contract with effect from 31 August 2014;

               2.

               Orders the European External Action Service to pay GV the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to bear the costs incurred by GV.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015, p. 54.


title: Action brought on 26 August 1996 by Freistaat Sachsen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-132/96)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/29
19 September 1996, the operative part of which is as                   question was necessary in order to compensate for the
follows :                                                              disadvantages caused by the division of Germany. Instead, it
                                                                       merely addressed the question whether the criteria for
1 . the application for interim relief is dismissed;                   applying Article 92 ( 3 ) were fulfilled . Since the Commission
                                                                       has a discretion in the adoption of decisions under
2.   the costs are reserved.                                           Article 92 ( 3 ), but not under Article 92 ( 2 ), it should have
                                                                       approached the matter from the opposite standpoint, and
                                                                       should initially have applied Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ). In failing to
                                                                       do so , it infringed the EC Treaty . The considerations relating
                                                                       to capacity which the Commission applied were
                                                                       misconceived in law and in fact; from a legal standpoint, the
                                                                       application of Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the Treaty does not
Action brought on 26 August 1996 by Freistaat Sachsen
                                                                       depend on whether the aid gave rise to overcapacity, and
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       from a factual standpoint that was not the case .
                       ( Case T-132/96 )
                         ( 96/C 336/62 )                               The Commission did not interpret Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c );
                                                                       moreover, as is apparent from the grounds of its decision , it
               (Language of the case: German)                          took the view that the present case did not concern 'regional
                                                                       aid for new investment projects'. Since the Commission thus
                                                                       failed to provide reasons for its decision, the action must
An action against the Commission of the European                       also succeed on the ground of infringement of essential
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      procedural requirements .
Instance of the European Communities on 26 August 1996
by Freistaat Sachsen, Dresden, represented by Karl Pfeiffer
and Joachim Sedemund, Rechtsanwalte, of Messrs Deringer                In addition , the Commission misapplied Article 92 ( 3 ).
Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund , Berlin, with an address for               Above all , the Commission erred in law in founding its
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31                decision on Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ) as a whole , without
Grand-Rue .                                                            explaining which of those two completely different and
                                                                       mutually exclusive provisions it was seeking to apply . In
                                                                       fact, the only one of those provisions which could possibly
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           have been applicable was Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ), which could not
                                                                       have served to justify the Commission 's findings . In that
— annul Article 2 of the decision of the Commission of                 regard also , therefore, the Commission infringed both the
     26 June 1996 on aid granted by Germany to the                     Treaty and its obligation to provide a statement of
     Volkswagen Group for the plants in Mosel and                      reasons .
     Chemnitz ( reference No C 62/91 ex NN 75 , 77, 78 and
     79/91 ),
                                                                       The Commission wrongly based its decision in addition on
                                                                       the Community framework provisions for the motor
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              industry in order to substantiate the different treatment
                                                                       afforded to       new investments     and to investments in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    expansion . The Community framework provisions do not
                                                                       lay down different rules for the two forms of investment,
The action is directed against a decision of the Commission            and there is no basis in the applicable Community legislation
of 26 June 1996 addressed to the Government of the Federal             for the Commission 's administrative practice of making
Republic of Germany, refusing approval of significant parts            such distinctions from time to time .
of the aid in question, for which provision has been made ,
pursuant to rules of German law approved by the                        Lastly, the contested decision is also wrong because, when
Commission, with regard to factories in the Freistaat                  the German authorities approved the aid, the Community
Sachsen ( Free State of Saxony ) owned by the Volkswagen               framework provisions for the motor industry had already
Group . The Commission refused to authorize such aid ,                 expired but had not yet been renewed . The same also applies
amounting to approximately DM 240 million , on the                     to the Commission 's decision whereby the Community
ground that Article 92 ( 2 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty, which allows       framework provisions were extended to cover Germany,
aid to be granted in order to compensate for the                       despite the fact that the German Government had not given
disadvantages caused by the division of Germany, is not                its consent thereto . Since the German aid rules had been
applicable and that Article 92 ( 3 ) of the Treaty does not            approved by the Commission and the Commission had not
permit grants of aid amounting to more than the sums                   raised any objection regarding the correct application of
approved by it.                                                        those rules, there was no need for any specific notification of
                                                                       the German aid decision in March 1991 , and there was no
The applicant considers that the Commission erred in failing           justification for the initiation by the Commission of a
to apply Article 92 ( 2 ) ( c ) of the EC Treaty to the factual        proceeding under Article 93 ( 3 ) or for its adoption of the
situation requiring to be assessed in the present case . That          contested decision . On that ground also , the decision should
provision - has mandatory force in law and is therefore                be annulled .
applicable in every case where the factual criteria set out in
its wording are fulfilled . The Commission did not examine
whether that was the case — that is to say, whether the aid in


title: Case T-459/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/25

         Action brought on 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-459/04)
   (2005/C 45/57)
   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 22 November 2004 by Jorge Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of 18 March 2004 classifying the applicant in Grade A5, step 3;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the difference between the salary corresponding to the applicant's classification in Grade A5, step 3, and the salary corresponding to classification in a higher grade, with default interest of 5.75 % per annum from 1 December 2002;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant, a Commission official, applied for a post at A5/A4 level in the field of taxation and customs. He was selected and appointed at Grade A5, step 3. The applicant contests that decision, arguing that he is a particularly highly qualified candidate with exceptional qualifications and that he should, therefore, have been appointed at Grade A4. On that basis, the applicant raises a plea of manifest error of assessment in the application of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant also raises a plea of breach of the right to a fair hearing alleging that the defendant did not give him an opportunity to present his point of view before the contested decision was taken.
   Finally, the applicant relies on a plea of breach of Article 253 EC, pointing out that no reasons were stated for the contested decision, or in the alternative, that inadequate reasons were stated.


title: Case T-119/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Royal Philips Electronics N.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/35
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Royal Philips                                principles of proper administration, in that it has referred
Electronics N.V. against the Commission of the European                         the case to the French authorities with regard to the
                          Communities                                           impact of the acquisition on the French market, instead
                                                                                of dealing with the case in full itself.
                         (Case T-119/02)
                                                                          (1) OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13.
                         (2002/C 169/62)                                  (2) Not yet published in the OJ.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Royal Philips                    Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Mitsubishi HiTec
Electronics N.V., represented by Mr E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and            Paper Bielefeld GmbH against the Commission of the
Ms N. Cronstedt of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The                                         European Communities
Hague (The Netherlands).
                                                                                (Case T-122/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (2002/C 169/63)
—     annul the Approval Decision and the Referral Decision;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Mitsubishi HiTec
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Paper Bielefeld GmbH, represented by Mr Andrzej W.J. Kmiecik
                                                                          and Mr Ivo Van Bael of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant in the present case, a Dutch company active in
the areas of lighting, consumer electronics, electrical household         The applicant claims that the Court should:
appliances, components, semiconductors and medical systems,
seeks the annulment of two Decisions by the Commission of
8 January 2002 in case COMP/M.2621 — SEB/Moulinex,                        —     annul Article 1 of the Decision insofar as it alleges that
regarding the acquisition by Group SEB of the small electrical                  the applicant was involved in an infringement before
appliances business of SA Moulinex under, respectively,                         1 January 1993;
Article 9(3) (the referral Decision) and Article 6(1)(b) and
(2) (the approval Decision) of Regulation No 4064/89, of                  —     reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant;
21 December 1989, on the control of concentrations between
undertakings (1). The same merger procedure is also the subject
of Case T-114/02 Babyliss/Commission (2).                                 —     order the Commission to bear the costs.
In support of its pleas, the applicant submits that:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     the Commission has breached Article 6(1)(c) and 6(2) of
      Regulation No 4064/89 and committed a manifest error
      in assessing the relevant facts of the case, in that it             By the present application, the applicant contests part of the
      approved the notified concentration in the first phase of           Commission Decision of 20 December 2001 in case COMP/
      its investigation accepting the commitments offered by              E-1/36.212-Carbonless paper, by which the Commission
      SEB.                                                                concluded that the applicant infringed Article 81(1) of the
                                                                          Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating
                                                                          in a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the
—     the Commission has breached Articles 6(1)(c), 6(2) and              sector of carbonless paper from January 1992 until September
      9(3) of Regulation No 4064/89, Article 253 EC, and the              1995, and imposed a fine on the applicant.


title: Case T-125/99: Action brought on 21 May 1999 by Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens against the European Parliament

text:
28.8.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 246/35
Commission to offset against debts owed by it, arising from             The applicant argues that the aforementioned Article 115 and
non-contractual prescriptive obligations, contractual debts due         Rule 1(1)(j) are invalid and lack binding force because they
to it which are governed by the laws of a Member State — in             infringe Article 12 EC (ex Article 6) and Article 1 of Council
this case, Belgium — to which the MED-URBS contracts refer.             Regulation No 1 (2). While the Community trade mark may be
                                                                        lodged in the Dutch language, one of the five working
The applicant also pleads breaches of the principles of legal           languages of the Office must be used during the subsequent
certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations, and         procedure and in opposition proceedings. This rule on
of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for                 languages places the applicant at a disadvantage vis-à-vis trade
measures adopted.                                                       mark agents from Member States whose languages feature
                                                                        among the official working languages of the Office.
                                                                        (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
                                                                            1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation of 15 April 1958 determining the languages
                                                                            to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English
Action brought on 19 May 1999 by C. Kik against the                         Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59).
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade
                       marks and designs)
                        (Case T-120/99)
                        (1999/C 246/71)
                                                                        Action brought on 21 May 1999 by Enrique Gutiérrez de
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                            Quijano y Llorens against the European Parliament
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                   (Case T-125/99)
Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19                                        (1999/C 246/72)
May 1999 by C. Kik, trade mark agent, The Hague, represented
by G.L. Kooy, of the Bar of The Hague, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
Avenue Marie-Thérèse.
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        21 May 1999 by Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens,
1. declare her application to be well founded;                          represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stephan Le Goueff,
2. annul, or review, the decision of the Board of Appeal,               9 Avenue Guillaume, 1651 Luxembourg.
     Third Chamber, rejecting her application for registration
     of the (Community) trade mark KIK and, ruling afresh,
     annul the decision taken by the Office on 19 March 1999;           The applicant claims that the Court should:
3. in the alternative, rule that all formal requirements were           — partially annul Notice of Open Competition PE/215/LA of
     satisfied with regard to the application for registration of            the General Secretariat of the European Parliament — as
     the trade mark KIK;                                                     regards ‘option 2’ — published in Official Journal of the
                                                                             European Communities No C-53 A of 24 February 1999;
4. in the further alternative, rule that the applicant is not
     obliged to submit only one of the Office’s official working        — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
     languages as a second language;
5. order the Office to pay the costs of the proceedings.                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice and a former
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         official of the European Parliament, contests Notice of Open
                                                                        Competition PE/215/LA in that, in one of its options, that
The applicant’s application for registration of the trade mark          notice provides for the drawing up of a reserve list of
KIK for ‘providing advice on situations of unfair competition           Spanish-language interpreters. It must be remembered in this
on the European Community market (Class 42)’ was submitted              connection that, by judgment of 22 May 1996 (1), upheld on
in the Dutch language. Dutch was also indicated as the second           appeal by judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November
language. The application was rejected on the ground that it            1998 (2), the Court of First Instance annulled the decision of
failed to comply with Rule 1(1)(j) of Regulation No 2868/95 (1)         the defendant institution rejecting the applicant’s complaint
and Article 115(3) of Regulation No 40/94 with regard to the            against the rejection of his candidature for the post advertised
second language. The Board of Appeal confirmed the decision             in Notice PE/LA91 for the recruitment by transfer of a
of the examiner.                                                        Spanish-language interpreter.
 ---pagebreak--- C 246/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                         (a) L a c k o f c o m p e t e n c e
— breach of Articles 24 and 29 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                             The Commission has no competence to grant an individual
— breach of Article 233 of the EC Treaty (ex Article 176)                    exemption pursuant to Article 81(3) E C with retroactive
     through failure to comply with the above judgments;                     effect unless the conditions set out therein are fulfilled ‘at
                                                                             all times’. It is apparent from the contested decision that
— misuse of powers by the defendant and breach of the                        the countervailing benefits necessary to satisfy Article 81
     principle of proportionality.                                           (3) were not present from 1990/91 to 1993/94, namely
                                                                             four years out of the seven-year review period adopted by
                                                                             the Commission
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the requirement that
reasons must be stated for acts.
                                                                             Any analysis of an agreement within the meaning of
(1) Case T-140/94 Gutiérrez de Quijano v European Parliament                 Article 81 (1) with a view to the grant of a retroactive
    (1996) ECR-SC II-689).                                                   individual exemption under Article 81 (3) can only be
(2) Case C-252/96 European Parliament v Gutiérrez de Quijano                 undertaken by the Commission by reference to the date of
    (1998) ECR I-7421).                                                      the agreement or to the date to which retroactivity is
                                                                             sought. The Commission has no power to grant an
                                                                             exemption in respect of an agreement which now qualifies
                                                                             for exemption under Article 81(3) but did not do so at any
                                                                             time prior to the Commission’s assessment.
                                                                         (b) M a n i f e s t e r r o r i n m a k i n g t h e c o n t e s t e d
Action brought on 27 May 1999 by Michael Hamilton                            decision
Shaw, Timothy John Falla and WPP Luxembourg Appeal
Group Limited against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                        In concluding that Whitbread should be granted an
                                                                             individual exemption under Article 81(3), the Commission
                                                                             made a manifest error:
                        (Case T-131/99)
                        (1999/C 246/73)                                      — in relying upon evidence produced by Whitbread
                                                                                which was partisan, inaccurate and unrepresentative;
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             — in failing to accept and/or admit contrary evidence of
                                                                                Whitbread tenants as to the true facts;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 May 1999 by Michael Hamilton                      — in failing, after having been put on notice as to the
Shaw, Timothy John Falla and WPP Luxembourg Appeal                                inaccuracy and unrepresentative nature of the evidence
Group Limited, represented by Julian Henry Maitland-Walker,                       upon with it sought to rely, to carry out a further
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                                investigation to determine the true facts;
Loeff Claeys Verbeke, 58 rue Charles Martel.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  — in concluding that the evidence upon which the
                                                                                contested decision was based was sufficient to justify
1. annul the whole or in part the Commission Decision of 24                       the conclusion that an individual exemption should be
     February 1999 granting to Whitbread Plc an individual                        granted.
     exemption under Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty (now
     Article 81(3) EC) in respect of certain individual lease
     agreements in standard form operated by Whitbread since             (c) I n a d e q u a t e
     1 January 1990 (OJ L 1999 88 p.16);
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,                      The contested decision fails to provide adequate reasoning
     including those of the applicants.                                      for the grant of an individual exemption having regard to
                                                                             the fact that the contested decision itself shows that there
                                                                             were no countervailing benefits present in four out of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              seven years covered by the Commission’s analysis.
The applicants submit that the contested decision granting an
individual exemption under Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty
(now Article 81(3) EC), should be declared void in whole or in
part for the reasons set out below:


title: Case T-350/08: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Papierfabrik Hamburger-Spremberg v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/50

         Order of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Papierfabrik Hamburger-Spremberg v Commission
   (Case T-350/08) (1)

   2010/C 134/82

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-175/09 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2009 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08, Stols v Council

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/15

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2009 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08, Stols v Council
   (Case T-175/09 P)
   2009/C 167/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by M. Bauer and G. Kimberley, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the CST of 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08 Willem Stols v Council,

               —

               Dismiss the action of 21 May 2008 by which Mr Stols had sought annulment of the decision of 16 July 2007 by which the Council refused to include him on the list of officials promoted to grade AST 11 for the 2007 promotion exercise, together with the decision of 5 February 2008 by which the Deputy Secretary-General of the Council had rejected, as the appointing authority, Mr Stols’ complaint submitted in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations,

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs incurred at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the Council of the European Union seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 17 February 2009 in Case F-51/08 Stols v Council, by which the CST annulled the Council decisions refusing to promote Mr Stols to grade AST 11 in the context of the 2007 promotion exercise.
   In support of its appeal, the Council relies on two grounds of appeal alleging:

               —

               an error of law, in so far as the CST exceeded the limits set by the case-law to the review by the Community judicature of the wide discretion enjoyed by the appointing authority for the purposes of the comparative consideration of the merits of officials who are candidatesfor promotion;

               —

               an infringement of the obligation to state reasons, as the judgment under appeal is marred by numerous omissions and imprecisions which render incomprehensible the basis on which the CST actually concluded that there was a manifest error on the part of the Council difficult to understand.


title: Case T-88/99: Action brought on 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas against the European Parliament

text:
5.6.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 160/31
— breach of legitimate expectations and the principles of                 Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi
    legal certainty and of proper publication of measures in                             against the European Parliament
    that amendment of 13 September 1995 had not been
    brought to the notice of the Members concerned. In this
                                                                                (Case T-85/99)
    connection, the applicant also alleges infringement of
    article 27 (1) of the Rules Governing the Payment of
    Expense and Allowances to Members,                                                            (1999/C 160/57)
— breach of the principle of non-discrimination, as may be
    seen from a comparison between the applicant’s position                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
    and that of colleagues sitting in the national parliament or
    that of Italian Members who have taken their seats during
    the current parliamentary term.                                       An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          13 April 1999 by Gastone Parigi, represented by Wilma
Lastly the applicant pleads breach of the requirement to state            Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
reasons, of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
and of the principle of proper administration.                            of Ernest Arendt,8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
                                                                              holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
                                                                              period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
Action brought on 13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando                            III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
               against the European Parliament                                Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of
                                                                              the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No
                                                                              300761, rejecting Mr Gastone Parigi’s request for the
                         (Case T-84/99)
                                                                              provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex
                                                                              to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
                        (1999/C 160/56)                                       the current parliamentary term,
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                            proceedings.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                Pleas in law and main arguments
13 April 1999 by Leoluca Orlando represented by Wilma
Viscardini Donà, assisted by Gabriela Donà, both of the Padua
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                          raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.
of Ernest Arendt, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, pursuant to article 173 of the EC Treaty, after
    holding, pursuant to article 184 of the EC Treaty, that the
    period of six months laid down in article 3 (1) of Annex
    III to the ‘Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses and
    Allowances to Members’ is inapplicable, the decision of               Action brought on 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas
    the Council of quaestors of 4 February 1999, reference No                            against the European Parliament
    300763, rejecting Mr Leoluca Orlando’s request for the
    provisional pension scheme referred to in the said Annex                                       (Case T-88/99)
    to apply with retroactive effect as from the beginning of
    the current parliamentary term,
                                                                                (1999/C 160/58)
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the
    proceedings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                 14 April 1999 by Vasilios Boukouvalas, an official of the
raised in Case T-83/99 Ripa di Meana v. Parliament.                       European Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by
                                                                          Professor Kharis Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Véronique
                                                                          Duhaubois, 139, rue Schetzel, L-2518 Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 160/32              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.6.1999
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk against
                                                                                the European Parliament
— find his action admissible,
                                                                                (Case T-89/99)
— hold to be unlawful and annul:                                                              (1999/C 160/59)
    (a) the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 9                         (Language of the case: German)
        December 1998 against the act contested under (b)
        below,                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                      15 April 1999 by Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
    (b) Decision No 26264/11.9.1998 of the defendant bear-            by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, of Körnerstrasse 5, Berlin,
        ing the signature of the Head of the Personnel Service        and having an address service at the latter’s Chambers.
        Mrs Nouaille-Degorce, rejecting his application of 16
        July 1998 regarding payment of the allowance, under           The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant
        article 2 (4) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations,          to withdraw its Decision rejecting the applicant as a candidate
        whereby parents may be treated as if they were                in Competition PE/86/A (OJ 77 A, 12.3.1998) and to admit
        dependent children,                                           the applicant to the competition.
— order the defendant to pay that allowance to the applicant          Pleas in law and main arguments
    for the above period, together with interest for late
    payment at 8 % from the date upon which each monthly              The applicant, who on 12 December 1996 passed the Erste
    payment became due,                                               Juristische Staatsprüfung (first State law examination), in which
                                                                      he was awarded the mark ‘befriedigend’ (‘satisfactory’), applied
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal costs, and         within the specified time to take part in Competition
    to so order even if the action is dismissed first, because        PE/86/A (1) for the recruitment of English-language assistant
    there are exceptional circumstances within the meaning of         administrators. On 21 October 1998 he was informed — only
    the first subparagraph of article 87 (3) of the Rules             after having himself made an enquiry in that regard — that he
    of Procedure, in particular circumstances of personal             had not been admitted to the competition because the results
    impecuniosity, as set out in the main body of the                 of his final examination were not equivalent to a ‘Second Class
    application and, secondly, because of the applicant was           Honours {degree}, Division One (a “2.1”)’ in Ireland or the
    impelled to bring this action following the failure of the        United Kingdom.
    defendant to reply to his complaint within the four-month
                                                                      The applicant considers that the defendant has failed to attach
    time-limit laid down.
                                                                      sufficient weight to the significance of the Erste Juristische
                                                                      Staatsprüfung in Germany.
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                              In obtaining the mark ‘bedriedigend’ in his final examination,
                                                                      he was amongst the top 36 % of those sitting that examination
                                                                      in Germany in that year. By contrast, the percentage of
                                                                      graduates obtaining a ‘Second Class Honours, Division One
(a) The defendant wrongly took account of the income of the           (a“2.1”)’ grade in Ireland or the United Kingdom was signifi-
    applicant’s two brothers.                                         cantly higher, as is demonstrated, for example, by the fact that
                                                                      in 1997 and 1998 approximately 70 % of those sitting final
                                                                      examinations at the University of Cambridge obtained a
(b) The defendant miscalculated the applicant’s net monthly           ‘Second Class Honours, Division One (a “2.1”)’.
    income.
                                                                      If the final mark obtained by the applicant were to be regarded
(c) The defendant calculated incorrectly the thresholds of 30 %       as fulfilling the criteria referred to, that would amount
    or 20 % on hypothetical pay (full-time employment),               to discrimination between German law students and other
    instead of on actual pay (part-time employment).                  students, who are normally awarded higher final marks.
                                                                      For the purposes of participating in European Parliament
                                                                      competitions, candidates from Germany should not be
(d) The defendant failed to apply article 10 of the general
                                                                      required to have obtained very much better final grades than
    implementing provisions.
                                                                      candidates from other Member States.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 77 A, 12.3.1998.


title: Case F-65/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 — Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Secretarial allowance — Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/38

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 September 2011 — Pereira Sequeira v Commission
   (Case F-65/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Internal competition published before 1 May 2004 - Member of the temporary staff appearing on the list of suitable candidates before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Articles 5(4) and 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Secretarial allowance - Action in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded)
   2011/C 340/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rosa Maria Pereira Sequeira (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority, notified to the applicant on 19 September 2005, whereby the latter, a member of the temporary staff and a successful candidate in internal competition COM/PC//04, was appointed an official in Grade C*1, pursuant to the provisions of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165 of 15.07.06, p. 36.


title: Case T-389/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark GUDDY — Earlier Community word mark GUCCI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark by reason of the public’s recognition of that mark — Evidence — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM — Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY)
   (Case T-389/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark GUDDY - Earlier Community word mark GUCCI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Highly distinctive character of the earlier mark by reason of the public’s recognition of that mark - Evidence - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 258/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Chang Qing Qing (Florence)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Guccio Gucci SpA and Mr Chang Qing Qing

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 14 April 2011 (Case R 143/2010-1) so far as it concerns, first, the goods in Class 9 of the Nice Agreement concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purpose of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, and, secondly, the precious stones and precious metals in Class 14 of that agreement;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-486/04: Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/32

         Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-486/04)
   (2005/C 57/55)
   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 13 December 2004 by Christos Michail, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Haralambos Meidanis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's Decisions of 20 March 2004, impliedly rejecting the application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations made by the applicant on 20 November 2003, and of 13 September 2004, rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant;

               —

               make an appropriate order as to costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   On 20 November 2003, the applicant, a Commission official, made an application for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations alleging that he was the victim of mental harassment on the part of the administration of his institution. By his action, he seeks the annulment of the implied decision rejecting that application and the decision rejecting his complaint submitted under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant claims that the defendant did not take action on his complaints regarding alleged irregularities in the verification and checking of Community joint financing but, on the contrary, precisely because of his complaints, adopted an attitude designed to intimidate him and to compromise his career. In support of his action, he relies on Articles 12a, 21a, 22b and 24 of the Staff Regulations, the provisions of the Financial Regulation, the principle of sound financial management and the protection of the financial interests of the Commission, the principle of fair and equal treatment of staff and a manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission.