title: Case C-523/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2005/71/EC — Specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/3

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 February 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-523/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2005/71/EC - Specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2010/C 80/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and M.-A. Rabanal Suárez, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research (OJ 2005 L 289, p. 15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/71/EC of 12 October 2005 on a specific procedure for admitting third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.01.2009.


title: Case C-396/06: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 11 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Eivind F. Kramme v SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/37

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 11 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret — Denmark) — Eivind F. Kramme v SAS Scandinavian Airlines Danmark A/S
   (Case C-396/06) (1)

   (2008/C 209/58)

      Language of the case: Denmark

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Case T-590/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/20

         Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Thesing and Bloomberg Finance v ECB
   (Case T-590/10)
   2011/C 72/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP (London, United Kingdom), (represented by: M.H. Stephens and R.C. Lands, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Central Bank communicated by letters dated 17 September 2010 and 21 October 2010, refusing access to the documents requested by the applicants;

               —

               Require the European Central Bank to grant access to those documents to the applicants, in accordance with the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (1); and

               —

               Require the ECB to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annulment of a decision of the European Central Bank communicated by letters dated 17 September 2010 and 21 October 2010, whereby the European Central Bank refused the applicants’ request for access to the following documents pursuant to the Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3):

               (i)

               A note entitled The impact on government deficit and debt from off-market swaps. The Greek case (SEC/GovC/X/10/88a);

               (ii)

               A second note, entitled The Titlos transaction and possible existence of similar transactions impacting on the euro area government debt or deficit levels (SEC/GovC/X/10/88b).

         In support of their action, the applicants submit the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicants allege that the European Central Bank misconstrued and/or misapplied Article 4.1(a) of the decision of the European Central Bank dated 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3), which provides for an exception to the general right of access conferred by article 2 of that decision, as:

                           (i)

                           The European Central Bank failed to construe article 4.1(a) as requiring consideration of public interest factors in favour of disclosure;

                           (ii)

                           The European Central Bank failed to give any sufficient or proper weight to the public interest factors in favour of disclosing the requested documents;

                           (iii)

                           The European Central Bank overstated and/or misidentified the public interest against disclosure of the requested documents.

               In addition, the applicants allege that the European Central Bank misconstrued and/or misapplied article 4.2 of the decision of the European Central Bank dated 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3), which provides for an exception to the general right of access conferred by article 2 of that decision, as:

                           (i)

                           The European Central Bank ought to have construed an “overriding” public interest as meaning a public interest that is strong enough to outweigh any public interest in maintaining the exemption;

                           (ii)

                           The European Central Bank ought to have concluded that there was an overriding public interest, in this sense, in favour of the disclosure of the information requested.

               Finally, the applicants allege that the European Central Bank misconstrued and/or misapplied article 4.3 of the decision of the European Central Bank dated 4 March 2004 (ECB/2004/3), which provides for an exception to the general right of access conferred by article 2 of that decision, as:

                           (i)

                           The European Central Bank ought to have construed an ‘overriding’ public interest as meaning a public interest that is strong enough to outweigh any public interest in maintaining the exemption;

                           (ii)

                           The European Central Bank ought to have concluded that there was an overriding public interest, in this sense, in favour of the disclosure of the information requested;

                           (iii)

                           The European Central Bank overstated and/or misidentified the public interest against disclosure of the requested documents.

      (1)  Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).


               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/1

         (2008/C 272/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

      OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

      OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

      OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

      OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

      OJ C 183, 19.7.2008

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 29 January 2004 in Case C-381/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Caen): Association comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) v François Faou, GAEC de Kerlidou

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/15

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 29 January 2004
   in Case C-381/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Caen): Association comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) v François Faou, GAEC de Kerlidou (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetables - Producers' organisations - Scope of the rules governing production and marketing - Imposition of fees - Non-member producers)
   (2004/C 94/29)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-381/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Caen (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Association comité économique régional agricole fruits et légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) and François Faou, GAEC de Kerlidou — on the interpretation of Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 437), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3284/83 of the Council of 14 November 1983 (OJ 1983 L 325, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 29 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 15b(1) and (8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, as amended by Regulation No 3284/83 (EEC) of the Council of 14 November 1983, is to be interpreted in the following manner:

               —

               a Member State which has applied Article 15b(1), by making certain production and marketing rules laid down by a producers' organisation mandatory for producers who are established in the district of that organisation and who are not members of it may not, without infringing the principle of non-discrimination, apply Article 15b(8) by making them liable for all or part of the fees paid by member producers, without distinguishing according to whether or not those non-member producers are in an objectively different situation from that of the member producers;

               —

               non-member producers are in an objectively different situation from that of the member producers when the rules adopted by that organisation do not apply or apply only marginally to their products and the actions undertaken by the organisation are of no benefit or only of marginal benefit to those products;

               —

               it is for the national courts to assess the evidence presented on this point.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-354/00: Action brought on 25 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
4.11.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 316/19
Action brought on 25 September 2000 by the Com-                            Action brought on 3 October 2000 by the Commission
mission of the European Communities against the                            of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                         Kingdom of Spain                                                             of Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-366/00)
                          (Case C-354/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/36)
                          (2000/C 316/35)
                                                                           An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 3 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                  Communities, represented by Roland Tricot, of its Legal
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Sep-                Service, and Panayotis Panayatopoulos, a national civil servant
tember 2000 by the Commission of the European Communi-                     seconded to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
ties, represented by G. Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal Service,
the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Wagner Centre.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     Declare that, by failing to adopt, or, in the alternative,
                                                                                failing to inform the Commission of, the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions which are necessary in
1.    declare that, by failing to classify as special protection
                                                                                order fully to comply with Council Directive 97/11/EC of
      areas for birds in the Comunidad de Murcia the areas
                                                                                3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      identified by scientific evidence as most suitable for the
                                                                                assessment of the effects of certain public and private
      conservation of protected species, the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                projects on the environment (1), the Grand Duchy of
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of
                                                                                Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) on the conservation of
                                                                                EC Treaty;
      wild birds;
                                                                           —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
2.    order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Case C-335/00 (2); the period for transposition laid down by
                                                                           Article 3 of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March 1999.
The Commission considers that the judgment of the Court of
Justice in Case C-3/96 (2) supports the use in this instance of            (1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
the list drawn up by the Sociedad Española de Ornitologia                 (2) See p. 16 of this Official Journal.
(Spanish Ornithological Society, ‘the SEO’) for the purpose of
deciding which areas must be designated Special Protection
Areas for Birds (SPABs) in Murcia. The Commission therefore
considers classification of the territories of the Comunidad
Autónoma de Murcia as SPABs (3) to be essential, unless the
Spanish authorities had provided, which they did not, scientific
data other than those in the list concerned.                               Action brought on 9 October 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                           the Netherlands against the Council of the European
                                                                                Union
(1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
(2) Judgment of 19 May 1998 in Case C-3/96 Commission v                                               (Case C-369/00)
    Netherlands [1998] ECR I-3031.
(3) In all, only 31 701 hectares of the 291 083 hectares recognised                                   (2000/C 316/37)
    in the SEO’s inventory, that is to say, only 10,2 % of the area of
    the territories listed as Important Areas for Birds have been
    declared to be SPAPs.                                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 9 October 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                           represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the European Law
                                                                           Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague,
                                                                           acting as Agent.


title: Case C-479/10: Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/24

         Action brought on 5 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-479/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/40
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Simonsson and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by exceeding the limit values of PM10 in ambient air in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in zones SW 2 and SW 4 and in 2005 and 2006 in zone SW 5, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Council Directive 1999/30/EC (1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air;

               —

               Order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 provides that Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that concentrations of PM10 in ambient air do not exceed the limit values laid down in Section I of Annex III as from the dates specified therein. The relevant date in this case is 1 January 2005.
   It is apparent from the reports sent by Sweden to the Commission concerning 2005 to 2007 that the limit values for PM10 have been exceeded in zones SW 2 and SW 4 during that entire period, and in zone SW 5 in 2005 and 2006.
   Accordingly, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/30 in respect of those zones and those years.

      (1)  OJ L 163, p. 41.


title: Case F-1/16: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — WQ (*) v Parliament (Civil service — Officials — Certification procedure — 2014 period — Applicant not included on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme — Article 45a of the Staff Regulations)

text:
                  3.10.2016

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 364/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 —  WQ (*1) v Parliament
         (Case F-1/16) (1)

         ((Civil service - Officials - Certification procedure - 2014 period - Applicant not included on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme - Article 45a of the Staff Regulations))
         (2016/C 364/51)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: WQ (*1) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

            Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf and M. Ecker, acting as Agents)

            Re:

         Application for annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to include the applicant’s name on the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the 2014 certification exercise.

            Operative part of the judgment

         The Tribunal:

                     1.

                     Dismisses the action;

                     2.

                     Orders  WQ (*1) to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016, p. 45.


title: Case T-374/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Villeroy & Boch v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/37

         Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Villeroy & Boch v Commission
   (Case T-374/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/62
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann, Solicitor and Professor S. Thomas)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce by an appropriate amount the fine imposed on the applicant in the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 in Case COMP/39092 — Bathroom fittings and fixtures. In the contested decision, fines were imposed on the applicant and on other undertakings on account of infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant participated in a continuing agreement or concerted practice in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria.
   The applicant puts forward seven pleas in support of its action.
   By its first plea, the applicant alleges breach of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement on the ground of the finding of a single, continuous and complex infringement. By that unlawful overall assessment the defendant failed to comply with its duty to carry out a legal assessment of the individual conduct of each of the undertakings to which the decision is addressed and unlawfully attributes conduct of third parties which is incapable of being attributed, in breach of the principle nulla poena sine lege.
   By its second plea, the applicant alleges, in the alternative, breach of the duty to state reasons pursuant to Article 296(2) TFEU, on account of the lack of an individualised statement of reasons for the contested decision.
   By its third plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision should be annulled because the applicant did not participate in the alleged infringements on the relevant product and geographic markets concerned by the decision and because it has not been established that it engaged in a cartel infringement.
   By its fourth plea, the applicant asserts that a fine has been unlawfully imposed jointly and severally on the applicant and its subsidiaries in France, Belgium and Austria. Such joint and several imposition infringes the principle nulla poena sine lege laid down in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence, laid down in Article 49(3) of the Charter in conjunction with Article 48(1) thereof, and infringes Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

   By its fifth plea, the applicant claims that the amount of the fine was miscalculated. The applicant asserts in this respect that, in its calculation, the defendant included turnover of the applicant which from the outset could not be connected with the objections raised.
   By its sixth plea, the applicant alleges that the excessive length of the procedure and the failure to take account thereof in the calculation of the fine amounts to a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   By its seventh plea, the applicant alleges errors of assessment when the fine was calculated in the evaluation of the applicant’s alleged involvement in the infringement. In this respect, the applicant states that, even on the assumption that an infringement of Article 101 TFEU did occur, as the Commission contends, the fine would be excessive and disproportionate. In the applicant’s submission, the Commission infringed the principle of the proportionality of the penalty to the offence codified in Article 49(3) in conjunction with Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Furthermore, the Commission was not entitled in the present case to impose the maximum fine of 10 % of the group’s turnover.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-327/13: Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014  — Mallis et Malli v Commission and ECB (Action for annulment — Cyprus stability support programme — Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus — Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/22

         Order of the General Court of 16 October 2014 — Mallis et Malli v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-327/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Cyprus stability support programme - Declaration of the Eurogroup concerning the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus - Erroneous identification of the defendant in the application - Inadmissibility))
   (2014/C 448/28)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Constantinos Mallis (Larnaca, Cyprus) and Elli Constantinou Malli (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents); and European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: A. Sáinz de Vicuña Barroso, N. Lenihan and F. Athanasiou, acting as Agents, and by W. Bussian, W. Devroe and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the declaration of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013 concerning, inter alia, the restructuring of the banking sector in Cyprus.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Constantinos Mallis and Elli Constantinou Malli are ordered to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank (ECB).

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-159/93 and others

text:
No C 46/ 18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17 . 2 . 96
the notice of competition and are habitually contained in all          Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
notices of vacancy or competition — was intended to enable             from the register of Cases T-159/93 : Heinrich Kroger v.
a certain candidate, selected in advance by the appointing             Commission of the European Communities, T- 160/93 : Paul
authority, to take part in the competition and to be                   Hay v. Commission of the European Communities,
appointed; the applicant concludes from this that the                  T-162/93 : Hugo Bumann v. Commission of the European
contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers.                  Communities, T-171 /93 : Hermann Weiland v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities, T-179/93 : Heidrun
He also observes that he was awarded < > ne mark less than the
                                                                       Bormann v. Commission of the European Communities,
candidate placed first on the list, by reason of the latter's          T-201 /93 : Jürn-Wulf Hoper v. Commission of the European
knowledge of a third language, although knowledge of third             Communities, T-202/93 : Fritz Voß v. Commission of the
and fourth languages was not included in the notice of                 European Communities, T-217/93 : Kurt Fröhlich jun . v.
competition amongst the conditions to be fulfilled by the              Commission of the European Communities and T-225/93 :
candidates . Consequently, by assessing the candidates                 Eberhard Kloth v. Commission of the European
according to their knowledge of third and fourth languages,            Communities .
the selection board infringed the terms of the notice of
competition.                                                           í 1 ) OJ No C 161 , 27 . 6 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
The applicant states, moreover, that he manifestly possesses
greater qualifications, experience and competence as
regards the post to be filled than the candidate who was
ultimately appointed . He considers , therefore, that, in giving
preference to the latter's application for the post in question,
the appointing authority committed a manifest error of                 Designation of a President of Chamber and assignment of
assessment .
                                                                                Judges to Chambers
                                                                                96/C 46/36
 Lastly, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of
 non-discrimination, contending that one of the members of             At its plenary conference on 11 January 1996 the Court
 the selection board had formerly been his direct hierarchical         of First Instance adopted the following decisions in
 superior and that he had had problems with him in the past;           consequence of the departure from office of Judge
 he considers that, in those circumstances, that member of             Barrington, President of Chamber, and the taking-up of
 the selection board was not able to view him objectively and           office by Judge Cooke .
 impartially, and that that attitude could have influenced the
 judgment of the other members of the selection board.                 Judge Lenaerts is designated President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber and of the Fourth Chamber, Extended
                                                                        Composition, and Judge Cooke is assigned to the Third
                                                                        Chamber, Extended Composition, the Fourth Chamber and
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, for the period
       Removal from the register of Case T- 103/93 ( )                  from 11 January 1996 to 30 September 1996 .
                             ( 96/C 46/34 )
                                                                        Consequently, the composition of the Chambers decided on
                (Language of the case: German)                          19 September 1995 ( OJ No C 274 , 19 . 10 . 1995 , p. 11 ) is
                                                                        altered as follows .
 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
 Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
 Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        Mr Briët, President of Chamber, Mr Vesterdorf, Ms Lindh,
 from the register of Case T-103/93 : Jan Dietrich Arfmann v.
  Commission of the European Communities .                              Mr Potocki and Mr Cooke, Judges .
                                                                        Fourth Chamber:
  (') OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 .
                                                                        Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh and
                                                                        Mr Cooke, Judges.
                                                                         Fourth Chamber, Extented Composition:
  Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-159/93 and                 Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                                others (M                                Ms Lindh, Mr Azizi and Mr Cooke, Judges.
                               96/C 46/35 )
                                                                         For cases in which the written procedure was completed and
                 (Language of the case: German)                          a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before
                                                                         11 January 1996, the Third Chamber, Extended
  By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First                Composition, shall continue to sit with the same
  Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 composition as before .


title: Case T-386/15: Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Jordi Nogues/OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/34

         Action brought on 10 July 2015 — Jordi Nogues/OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
   (Case T-386/15)
   (2015/C 320/51)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Jordi Nogues, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: M. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Parés, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘BADTORO’ — Application for registration No 10 975 027

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 April 2015 in Case R 2570/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75, 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009, in conjunction with Articles 65(6), 96, 106(4) and (6) and 135 of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-69/99: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Identification of waters affected by pollution — Specifying of surface freshwaters)

text:
21.4.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           transposition measures relating to the whole of its territory and
                                                                                by failing correctly to implement the aforesaid provision, the
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                        French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive;
                         of 7 December 2000                                  2.   Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
in Case C-38/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
                           Hunting periods)
                            (2001/C 118/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             of 7 December 2000
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-69/99: Commission of the European Communi-
In Case C-38/99: Commission of the European Communities                      ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French                                                  Ireland (1)
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — appli-
cation for a declaration that, by failing correctly to transpose
Article 7 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103 p. 1), by                      Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pol-
omitting to communicate all the transposition measures                       lution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources —
relating to the whole of its territory and by failing correctly to           Identification of waters affected by pollution — Specifying
implement the aforesaid provision, the French Republic has                                        of surface freshwaters)
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                                                 (2001/C 118/02)
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000,                                    (Language of the case: English)
in which it:
                                                                             In Case C-69/99: Commission of the European Communities
1.    Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 7(4) of       (Agent: R. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and
      Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the                    Northern Ireland (Agents: M. Ewing and D. Wyatt, QC) —
      conservation of wild birds, by omitting to communicate all the         application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            21.4.2001
measures necessary to comply with its obligations under                    equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5 of Council Directive                    employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection                   conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural           composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the United Kingdorn has failed              ris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
to fulfil its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty           Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
— the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken
(Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,                1.     National provisions governing the date of admission to the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in                            practical legal training which is a necessary prerequisite of
which it:                                                                         access to employment in the civil service fall within the scope of
                                                                                Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations                implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the                  women as regards access to employment, vocational training
      obligations laid down in Article 3(1) and (2) and Article 5                 and promotion, and working conditions.
      of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
      concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by      2.     National provisions such as those at issue in the main
      nitrates from agricultural sources, the United Kingdom of Great             proceedings do not constitute discrimination directly based on
      Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations           sex.
      under that directive;
                                                                           3.     National provisions such as those at issue in the main
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                     proceedings constitute indirect discrimination based on sex.
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                           4.     Directive 76/207 does not preclude national provisions such as
                                                                                those at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as such
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                        provisions are justified by objective reasons and prompted solely
                                                                                by a desire to counterbalance to some extent the delay resulting
                                                                                from the completion of compulsory military or civilian service.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 7 December 2000
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-79/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Julia Schnor-                                            of 7 December 2000
                       bus v Land Hessen (1)
                                                                           in Case C-213/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Equal treatment for men and women — Rules on access to                    the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto, Portugal): José
practical legal training in Land Hesse — Priority for                      Teodoro de Andrade v Director da Alfândega de Leixões,
 applicants who have completed military or civilian service)                                intervener: Ministério Público (1)
                           (2001/C 118/03)                                 (Release of goods for free circulation — Expiry of the period
                                                                           within which a customs-approved use must be assigned —
                                                                           Procedure for putting goods up for sale or levying an ad
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                        valorem duty)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/04)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-79/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungsge-
richt Frankfurt am Main (Administrative Court, Frankfurt am                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Main), Germany for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                      in the European Court Reports)
pending before that court between Julia Schnorbus and Land
Hessen - on the interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC             In Case C-213/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of               the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal Fiscal


title: Case T-191/14: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council (Common Customs Tariff — Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products — Objection to existing suspensions — Equivalence of products — Procedure for handling objections)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Lubrizol France v Council
   (Case T-191/14) (1)

   ((Common Customs Tariff - Regulation concerning the suspension of autonomous duties on certain agricultural and industrial products - Objection to existing suspensions - Equivalence of products - Procedure for handling objections))
   (2017/C 104/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lubrizol France SAS (Rouen, France) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor, B. Hartnett, Barrister, and A. Bochon, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by A. Caeiros and M. Clausen, and subsequently by A. Caieros and A. Lewis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1387/2013 of 17 December 2013 suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1344/2011 (OJ 2013 L 354, p. 201), to the extent that those measures deprived the applicant of its entitlement to three duty suspensions which it previously enjoyed under TARIC Codes 2918 2900 80, 3811 2900 10 and 3811 9000 30.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Lubrizol France SAS to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-343/14 P: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2015 — Adler Modemärkte AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blufin SpA (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Application for registration of the Community word mark MARINE BLEU — Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark BLUMARINE — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Conceptual comparison)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/9

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 May 2015 — Adler Modemärkte AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Blufin SpA
   (Case C-343/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Application for registration of the Community word mark MARINE BLEU - Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark BLUMARINE - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Conceptual comparison))
   (2015/C 320/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Adler Modemärkte AG (represented by: J.-C. Plate, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, Agent), Blufin (represented by: F. Caricato and F. Cicogna, avvocati)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Adler Modemärkte AG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-137/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/30

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-137/06)
   (2006/C 131/55)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 18 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 189, p. 12


title: Case T-321/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels — Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/31

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 July 2015 — GSA and SGI v Parliament
   (Case T-321/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels - Rejection of the bid made by a tenderer and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
   (2015/C 320/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Gruppo Servizi Associati SpA (GSA) (Rome, Italy) and Security Guardian’s Institute (SGI) (Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: E. van Nuffel d’Heynsbroeck, avocat)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: P. López-Carceller and B. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, in essence, for suspension of operation, first, of the decision of 12 June 2015 in which the Parliament declared non-compliant the tender submitted by the applicants in respect of the tendering procedure for service contract EP/DGSAFE/UIB/SER/2014-014 for the provision of fire security, assistance to persons and external surveillance at the European Parliament’s site in Brussels, and, secondly, the decision by which that contract was awarded to the company Securitas.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The order of 25 June 2015 in Case T-321/15 R is cancelled.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-36/10: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the LIEN 97-2011 contract — Response to an initial request — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Manifestly inadmissible — Implied refusal of access — Interest in bringing proceedings — Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/21

         Order of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission
   (Case T-36/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the LIEN 97-2011 contract - Response to an initial request - Period allowed for bringing proceedings - Manifestly inadmissible - Implied refusal of access - Interest in bringing proceedings - Explicit decision adopted after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 152/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV (Rosbach, Germany) (represented by: initially, H. Kaltenecker, subsequently R. Bôhm, and lastly H. Kaltenecker, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and T. Scharf, agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: initally B. Weis Fogh and V. Pasternak Jørgensen and, subsequently, V. Pasternak Jørgensen, C. Yang and S. Juul Jørgensen, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the Commission’s decisions of 9 October 2009 and 1 December 2009 refusing Internationaler Hilfsfonds full access to the file relating to the LIEN 97-2011 contract.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               In so far as it is directed against the Commission’s decision of 9 October 2009, the action for annulment is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the heads of claim in the action brought by Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV for annulment of the implied decision of the European Commission rejecting its request of 15 October 2009 for access to documents relating to the LIEN 97-2011 contract.

               3.

               Internationaler Hilfsfonds shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission relating to the heads of claim for annulment, in so far as they are directed against the Commission’s decision of 9 October 2009.

               4.

               The Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Internationaler Hilfsfonds relating to the heads of claim for annulment, in so far as they are directed against the Commission’s decision of 1 December 2009.

               5.

               The Kingdom of Denmark shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-377/03: Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Technologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
24.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 21/39
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal as inad-            Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal:                       missible as a result of a failure
                              to comply with the time-limit
                              prescribed for lodging appeals.
                                                                          Competition notice CONSEIL/A/270 stated that candidates
                                                                          were required to have a perfect command of one of the
Pleas in law:                 —     infringement of Article 6 of          official languages of the European Communities, a very good
                                    the European Convention on            knowledge of either English or French and an adequate
                                    Human Rights in that notifi-          knowledge of the other of those two languages. However,
                                    cation by fax does not satisfy        candidates choosing French or English as the language of
                                    the requirement for security          which they had a perfect command were required to show
                                    of notification in proceed-           evidence of a very good knowledge of the other of those two
                                    ings.                                 languages and also an adequate knowledge of a third official
                                                                          language. By his first plea, the applicant claims that this
                              —     in the alternative, infringe-         provision discriminates between, on the one hand, anglophone
                                    ment of Rules 55, 61 and 65           and francophone candidates and, on the other, other candi-
                                    of Commission Regulation              dates. In that context, he relies on breach of the principle of
                                    No 2868/95 and of                     equal treatment and also of subparagraph f of the first
                                    Article 59 of Regulation              paragraph of Article 28 of the Staff Regulations. By his second
                                    No 40/94.                             plea, the applicant claims that, at the third written test,
                                                                          candidates were asked to write a brief account of the role of
                                                                          the Secretariat General of the Council, in breach of the
                                                                          competition notice, which provided for an account of the
                                                                          activities of the Council. The third plea refers to the Council’s
                                                                          refusal to grant the applicant access to the corrected copy of
                                                                          his third written test. The applicant pleads infringement of
                                                                          Article 255(1) EC and also breach of the obligation to state
                                                                          reasons and of the principles of good management and good
                                                                          administration.
Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hen-
       drickx against Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-376/03)
                         (2004/C 21/81)
                                                                          Action brought on 17 November 2003 by ATI Tech-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         nologies Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-377/03)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 10 November 2003 by Michel Hendrickx,                                               (2004/C 21/82)
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                           (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     annul the decisions of the Selection Board for competition          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      CONSEIL/A/270 to award him an eliminatory mark for                  European Communities on 17 November 2003 by ATI
      written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests;            Technologies Inc., established in Thornhill (Canada), represen-
                                                                          ted by Chantal Silvia Moreau, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg.
—     order the Council to pay the applicant symbolic damages
      of one euro for the non-pecuniary harm sustained;
                                                                          Asociación de Técnicos de Informatica — ATI was also a party
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/40               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         24.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision given by the Fourth Board of Appeal             —     join this action to Case T-314/03 for the purposes of the
      of the defendant on 16 July 2003 in Case R 339/2002-4;                   written procedure and the oral procedure;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Commission of
                                                                               30 September 2003 requiring Musée Grevin to reimburse
                                                                               the sums allegedly wrongly paid to it;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.
Applicant for Com-           ATI Technologies Inc.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark         Word mark ‘ATI’ — Application
sought:                      No 362 863 lodged in respect of             Pleas in law and main arguments
                             goods and services in Class 9
                             (electronic components etc.).
Proprietor of mark or        Asociación de Técnicos            de        The applicant received grants from the Commission within the
sign cited in the oppo-      Informatica — ATI.                          framework of a project to create a joint venture with a Polish
sition proceedings:                                                      undertaking. By decision of 8 July 2003, the Commission
                                                                         sought repayment of the sums paid to the applicant.
Mark or sign cited in        Graphic mark ‘ati’ registered in
opposition:                  respect of services in Class 42.
                                                                         The applicant brought proceedings challenging that decision
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the application for              (Case T-314/03, OJ 2003 C 275, p. 49). At the same time, the
sition Division:             registration.                               applicant submitted documents to the Commission fully
                                                                         substantiating the proper use of the Community funds, and
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal.                    asked it to reconsider its decision. In the decision contested in
Appeal:                                                                  this case, the Commission confirmed its decision of 8 July
                                                                         2003.
Pleas in law:                Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-
                             lihood of confusion).
                                                                         In support of its application, the applicant alleges, first, a
                                                                         breach of Regulation No 1 (1), in that the contested decision
                                                                         was written in English and not in French. It also alleges a
                                                                         failure to respect the limitation period of four years laid down
                                                                         in Article 3 of Council Regulation No 2988/95 (2). The
                                                                         applicant alleges moreover a breach of the principle of
                                                                         collegiate responsibility and that the person who signed the
                                                                         contested decision lacked competence.
Action brought on 18 November 2003 by Musée Grevin
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant also alleges that the decision lacks any legal
                        (Case T-378/03)                                  basis, contains a manifest error of assessment, fails to satisfy
                                                                         the obligation to state reasons and, lastly, is in breach of the
                                                                         principle of proportionality.
                         (2004/C 21/83)
                  (Language of the case: French)                         (1) Council Regulation No 1 determining the languages to be used by
                                                                             the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition
                                                                             1952-1958, p. 59).
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December
                                                                             1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    interests (OJ 1995 L 312, pp. 1-4).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 November 2003 by Musée
Grevin, having its registered office in Paris, represented by
Bernard Geneste and Olivia Davidson, lawyers.


title: Case T-12/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Polimeri Europa v Commission (No need to give a decision)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — Polimeri Europa v Commission
   (Case T-12/07) (1)

   (No need to give a decision)
   (2008/C 223/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Polimeri Europa SpA (Brindisi, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, F. amato and V Bottka, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin (represented by: S. Kon and L. Farell, lawyers)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision COMP/F/2/1095 of 6 November 2006, taken in the context of a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F//38.638 BR/ESBR) to forward to Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin, admitted to the administrative procedure as an interested third party, the non-confidential version of the statement of objections of 6 April 2006 addressed to the applicant.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to give a decision in this action;

               2.

               Polimeri Europa SpA is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission and by Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin in these proceedings, and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 56, of 10.3.2007.


title: Case C-361/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 June 2016 by Franmax UAB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2016 in Case T-21/15: Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (DINO)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/6

         Appeal brought on 29 June 2016 by Franmax UAB against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 26 April 2016 in Case T-21/15: Franmax v EUIPO — Ehrmann (DINO)
   (Case C-361/16 P)
   (2017/C 078/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Franmax UAB (represented by: E. Saukalas, advokatas)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Ehrmann AG Oberschönegg im Allgäu
   By order of 8 November 2016 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-382/17: Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/27

         Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-382/17)
   (2017/C 277/40)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and L. Nicolae, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to develop, implement and maintain a quality management system for the operational parts of the flag-State-related activities of its administration, certified in accordance with the applicable international quality standards, by 17 June 2012, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of Directive 2009/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on compliance with flag State requirements;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 8(1) of the Directive clearly lays down that by 17 June 2012 the Member States must develop, implement and maintain the quality management system referred to.
   It is now June 2017 and the Portuguese Republic has still not complied with Article 8(1).
   By acting in that manner, the Portuguese administration is undermining the objectives pursued by the Directive, jeopardising maritime safety and the protection of the environment. In addition, the conduct of the Portuguese administration carries the risk of creating an unfair competitive advantage for the Portuguese fleet in relation to other Member States’ fleets.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 131, p. 132.


title: Case T-107/07 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Career development report — Appraisal year 2003 — Assessment of facts — Burden of proof and production of evidence — Appeal inadmissible — Appeal unfounded)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-107/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Career development report - Appraisal year 2003 - Assessment of facts - Burden of proof and production of evidence - Appeal inadmissible - Appeal unfounded)
   (2008/C 107/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti and S. Martin. lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and K. Herrmann, agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2007 in Case F-42/05 Rossi Ferreras v Commission, not yet published in ECR, for the annulment of that judgment.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               orders Mr Francisco Rossi Ferreras to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Thionville by judgments of that court of 21 March 1997 in the cases of Marc Charreire v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle and Jean Hirtsmann v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle (Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/13
    receiving such allowance) contrary to Articles 48(2)           Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle (Case C-28/
    and 51 of the EC Treaty?                                       98) and Jean Hirtsmann v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux
                                                                   de la Moselle (Case C-29/98) on the following question:
                                                                   Whether, having regard (Case C-28/98) to the date of
                                                                   approval of the plaintiff's Chevrolet vehicle of 33 CV
                                                                   fiscal power rating, registration number 6707 ZK 57, and
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabe-           (Case C-29/98) to the date of approval of the plaintiff's
amt by order of that body of 27 January 1998 in the case           Jeep vehicle of 23 CV fiscal power rating, registration
of Bietergemeinschaft: 1. Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA,             number 1438 XX 57, and having regard to the tax
2. Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH against Amt                diagrams and figures submitted by the plaintiff and the
               der Salzburger Landesregierung                      observations submitted by the authorities, the system of
                        (Case C-27/98)                             taxation applied corresponds to objective criteria free
                                                                   from any discriminatory effect and not falling within the
                         (98/C 94/25)                              scope of Article 95 of the Treaty.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt
(Federal Procurement Office) of 27 January 1998, received
at the Court Registry on 2 February 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Bietergemeinschaft
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 35th Civil
(contractor grouping): 1. Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA,
                                                                   Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin by order of that court
2. Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH against Amt
                                                                   of 4 November 1997 in the case of VR-Leasing GmbH
der Salzburger Landesregierung (Government Office of
                                                                                against Margit Bertram
the Land Salzburg) on the following question:
                                                                                (Case C-30/98)
Is Article 18 of Directive 93/37/EEC ( ), according to
                                           1                                                (98/C 94/27)
which contracts are to be awarded on the basis of the
criteria laid down in Chapter 3 of Title IV, taking into
account Article 19, after the suitability of the contractors       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
not excluded under Article 24 has been checked by                  European Communities by order of the 35th Civil
contracting authorities in accordance with the criteria of         Chamber of the Landgericht Berlin (Berlin Regional
economic and financial standing and of technical                   Court) of 4 November 1997, received at the Court
knowledge or ability referred to in Articles 26 to 29, to be       Registry on 5 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
interpreted as requiring contracting authorities to accept a       the case of VR-Leasing GmbH against Margit Bertram on
tender even if it is the only tender still remaining in the        the following question:
tendering procedure? Is Article 18 sufficiently specific and
precise for it to be relied on by individuals in proceedings
under national law and, as part of Community law, to be            Do Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of
used to oppose provisions of national law?                         20 December 1985 (1), on protection of the consumer in
                                                                   respect of contracts negotiated away from business
(1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                     premises, cover a husband who, acting as a negotiator on
                                                                   behalf of a leasing company, causes his wife to sign a
                                                                   declaration of suretyship in their private residence?
                                                                   (1) OJ L 372, 31.12.1995, p. 31.
References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Thionville by judgments of that court
of 21 March 1997 in the cases of Marc Charreire v. Direc-
teur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle and Jean
 Hirtsmann v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la Moselle
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                (Cases C-28/98 and C-29/98)                        München (Finance Court, Munich) by order of that court
                         (98/C 94/26)                              of 22 January 1998 in the case of Peter Luksch v. Haupt-
                                                                        zollamt Weiden (Principal customs office, Weiden)
                                                                                (Case C-31/98)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgments of the Civil                                              (98/C 94/28)
Chamber of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Thionville
(Regional Court, Thionville) of 21 March 1997, which
were received at the Court Registry on 3 February 1998,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for preliminary rulings in the cases of Marc Charreire v.          European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 April 2005 in Case T-431/03: Liam O'Bradaigh v Commission of the European Communities (Public service — Reopening of an internal competition — Non-entry on the list of suitable candidates)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 April 2005
   in Case T-431/03: Liam O'Bradaigh v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Public service - Reopening of an internal competition - Non-entry on the list of suitable candidates)
   (2005/C 171/33)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-431/03: Liam O'Bradaigh, a member of the temporary staff of the European Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), residing in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of the selection board for internal competition COM/TB/99 awarding the applicant, for his oral test, a mark insufficient for his name to be entered on the list of suitable candidates drawn up following the competition, the Court of First Instance (Single Judge: J. Pirrung); I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 April 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ No C 47 of 21.02.04.


title: Case T-458/12: Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Générations futures v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/42

         Order of the General Court of 5 March 2015 — Générations futures v Commission
   (Case T-458/12) (1)

   (2015/C 146/56)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.


title: Case C-249/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by a judgment of the Cour du travail de Liège, section de Neufchâteau, of 9 June 2004 in the case of José Allard against the Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (INASTI)

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by a judgment of the Cour du travail de Liège, section de Neufchâteau, of 9 June 2004 in the case of José Allard against the Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (INASTI)
   (Case C-249/04)
   (2004/C 190/23)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du travail de Liège (Employment Court, Liège), section de Neufchâteau, of 9 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of José Allard against the Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (INASTI) on the following questions:

               1.

               Do Articles 13 et seq. of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (1) preclude a contribution such as the reduction contribution under Royal Decree No 289 of 31 March enacting certain temporary measures for the reduction of the income of self-employed persons with a view to reducing the public debt burden and ensuring the financial equilibrium of social security schemes for self-employed persons from being calculated in such a way as to include in income from an occupation the income which a self-employed person has obtained by carrying on an occupation in the territory of a Member State other than the State of taxation in circumstances where the self-employed person may not, as a result of paying that contribution, claim any social or other benefit at the expense of that State?

               2.

               Do the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Community, and in particular Articles 39 and 43 thereof (formerly Articles 48 and 52), preclude a contribution calculated on that basis from being imposed on self-employed persons who exercise their right to freedom of movement?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6, Annex 1)