title: Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Suzanne Smets against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-107/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 181 /21
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                against the European Parliament
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                       ( Case T-108/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /44 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission 's decision of 18 June 1996                                       (Language of the case: French)
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give
     consideration to the possible application of                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
     Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities on 11 April 1997 by Cornelis Volger,
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   residing at Heffingen, Luxembourg, represented by Jean
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                      Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange.
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  — annul the decision of 3 September 1996 assigning him
Case T-16/97 0 ).                                                            non-active status as from the evening of 31 January
                                                                             1996 , and
O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 11 April 1997 by Suzanne Smets                        The applicant has already contested the appointing
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   authority's decision of 1 December 1995 , notified by letter
                         ( Case T-107/97 )                              of 27 December 1995 , by which he was assigned non
                                                                        active status backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted
                           ( 97/C 181 /43 )                             the allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff
                                                                        Regulations ( Case T-176/96 (')).
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                        In the present case, the applicant is challenging the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       decision of the President of the European Parliament of
Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 1997                   3 September 1996, that the moment on which the decision
by Suzanne Smets, residing in Brussels, represented by                  to assign him non-active status is to take effect as from
Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for                the evening of 31 January 1996 and that the allowance
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,                  provided for in Annex IV to the Staff Regulations is to be
21 Rue de Nassau .                                                      granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant submits that, by not communicating the
                                                                        contested decision to him until seven months after it came
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting her request                 into force, the Parliament has failed to comply with its
     to be regraded,                                                    obligation under Article 25 of the Staff Regulations to
                                                                        communicate at once any decision adversely affecting an
— annul the Commission's                decision   rejecting  her       official . He further argues that such decision cannot
     administrative complaint,                                          produce any retroactive effect without infringing the
                                                                        principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        In addition, he claims, the decision to assign him non
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     active status was adopted in infringement of Article 41 of
                                                                        the Staff Regulations and of the duty to have regard for
                                                                        an official 's interests, and took no account of his personal
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  interests .
Case T- 16/97 ( M.
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        C ) OJ No C 388 , 21 . 12 . 1996 , p . 10 et seq.


1.5.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 121/15
       Removal from the register of Case C-373/96 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-220/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/31)                                                      (1999/C 121/34)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-373/96 (reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-220/97: Commission of the
ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze         European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany.
v. Merkur Chemical Srl.
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-98/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/32)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-394/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of                                    (1999/C 121/35)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-98/97 (reference for a preliminary        By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Torino): CIF Srl v.      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Ministero delle Finanze.                                              from the register of Case C-394/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 1, 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-72/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/33)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-395/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-72/98 (reference for a preliminary                               (1999/C 121/36)
ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lyon): SA
Gougenheim Imprimerie Publicité v. Directeur des Services             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Fiscaux du Rhône.                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 151, 16.5.1998.                                              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.


title: Case T-385/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Valero Jordana v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Action for annulment — Action for Damages — Promotion — Award of priority points)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2009 — Valero Jordana v Commission
   (Case T-385/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Action for annulment - Action for Damages - Promotion - Award of priority points)
   2009/C 113/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gregorio Valero Jordana (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Merola and I. Van Schendel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, initially, and V. Joris and G. Berscheid, Agents, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, subsequently)

      Re:

   Annulment of:

               —

               the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service of the Commission awarding the applicant only one DG priority point under the 2003 promotion exercise, communicated on 7 July 2003 and confirmed by decision of the appointing authority notified on 16 December 2003;

               —

               the decision of the appointing authority to award the applicant a total of 20 points under the 2003 promotion exercise, notified on 16 December 2003; the merit list of officials in grade A5 under the 2003 promotion exercise, published in Administrative Notices No 6-2003 of 13 November 2003; the list of officials promoted to grade A4 under the 2003 exercise, published in Administrative Notices No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003; and the decision not to enter the applicant’s name on those lists;

               —

               the decision of the appointing authority not to grant to the applicant one additional priority point under the 2003 promotion exercise, as follows from the letter of 22 February 2007 and the decision of 17 April 2007; and

         damages amounting to EUR 5 000.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decisions fixing the total promotion points for Mr Gregorio Valero Jordana at 20 points and refusing to enter his name on the list of officials promoted to grade A4 under the 2003 promotion exercise;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


title: Case T-750/14: Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ELGO — Earlier EU word and figurative marks ERGO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Successive restrictions on the application for registration — Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Right to be heard — Rule 69 of Regulation No 2868/95)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 May 2016 — Ivo-Kermartin v EUIPO — Ergo Versicherungsgruppe (ELGO)
   (Case T-750/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ELGO - Earlier EU word and figurative marks ERGO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Successive restrictions on the application for registration - Article 43(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Right to be heard - Rule 69 of Regulation No 2868/95))
   (2016/C 232/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivo-Kermartin GmbH (Walzenhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 August 2014 (Case R 473/2014-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Ergo Versicherungsgruppe AG and Ivo-Kermartin GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ivo-Kermartin GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case C-94/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt by order of that tribunal of 5 March 1999 in the review procedure of ARGE Gewässerschutz v. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft

text:
C 160/6                   EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.6.1999
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (5); the period for
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.                                                     (Case C-93/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/13)
( 1) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
( 3) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 4) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 56.                                          the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
( 5) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                          Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission                               period all the measures needed to comply fully with
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                              Council Directive 96/22/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
                                 Republic                                       Directives 81/602/EEC (2) and 88/299/EEC (3), the Portu-
                                                                                guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                Treaty,
                             (Case C-92/99)
                                                                          — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                            (1999/C 160/12)
                                                                          Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                          The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (4); the period for
Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          implementing the Directive expired on 1 July 1997.
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                    ( 2) OJ L 222 , 7.8.1981, p. 32.
                                                                          ( 3) OJ L 128, 21.5.1988, p. 36.
                                                                          ( 4) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period all the measures needed to comply fully with
      Council Directive 96/23/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
      Directives 85/358/EEC (2) and 86/469/EEC (3) and
      Decisions 89/187/EEC(4) and 91/664/EEC (5), the Portu-
      guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Treaty,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga-
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         beamt by order of that tribunal of 5 March 1999 in the
                                                                          review procedure of ARGE Gewässerschutz v. Bundesmi-
                                                                                nisterium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                                (Case C-94/99)
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (6); the period for                                              (1999/C 160/14)
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.                                          European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabeamt
( 2) OJ L 191, 23.7.1985, p. 46.                                          (Federal Procurement Office), Austria, of 5 March 1999, which
( 3) OJ L 275, 26.9.1986, p. 36.                                          was received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
( 4) OJ L 66, 10.3.1989, p. 37.                                           preliminary ruling in the review procedure of ARGE Gewässer-
( 5) OJ L 368, 31.12.1991, p. 17.                                         schutz v. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft on
( 6) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the following questions:
                                                                          I.    Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit to an
                                                                                award procedure bodies which receive subsidies of any
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 160/7
     kind, either from the authority itself or from other              2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
     contracting authorities, which enable those bodies to
     tender in an award procedure at prices which are substan-              Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to stateless
     tially below those of their commercially active competitors,           workers and to members of their families who have
     infringe the principle of equal treatment of all tenderers             travelled directly to a Member State from a non-member
     and candidates in an award procedure?                                  country and have not moved within the Community?
II. Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit
     such bodies to an award procedure constitute covert               (1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
     discrimination, if the bodies which receive such subsidies            p. 416.
     without exception have the nationality of or are established
     in the Member State in which the contracting authority is
     also established?
III. Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit such
     bodies to an award procedure, even on the assumption
     that it does not discriminate against the other tenderers
     and candidates, constitute a restriction of the freedom to        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
     provide services which is not compatible with the pro-            gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of Issa
     visions of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 59 et seq.                      Chaaban v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
     thereof?
                                                                                (Case C-96/99)
IV. May the contracting authority conclude service contracts
     with bodies which are exclusively or at least predominantly                                (1999/C 160/16)
     in public ownership and provide their services exclusively
     or at least predominantly to the contracting authority or
     other State institutions, without making the service the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     subject of an award procedure in competition with com-            European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from
     mercially active tenderers in accordance with Directive           the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
     92/50/EEC (1)?                                                    received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Issa Chaaban v. Bundesanstalt
                                                                       für Arbeit on the following questions:
(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June
                                                                            1971 on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                            employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
                                                                            bers of their families moving within the Community apply
                                                                            to stateless persons and to members of their families if
                                                                            such persons have no right of free movement under the
                                                                            Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
                                                                            Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                     on the European Union?
gericht by order of 15 October 1998 in the case of
           Mervett Khalil v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                  2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                            Does Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply if the
                          (Case C-95/99)
                                                                            stateless person, his spouse, who is a national of a
                                                                            non-member country, and the other members of their
                         (1999/C 160/15)                                    family have travelled directly to a Member State from a
                                                                            non-member country and have not moved within the
                                                                            Community?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 15 October 1998 from                  3. If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:
the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a                      Is a family benefit such as child benefit under the German
preliminary ruling in the case of Mervett Khalil v. Bundesanstalt           Bundeskindergeldgesetz to be granted even if only the
für Arbeit on the following questions:                                      spouse who is a national of a non-member country is an
                                                                            employed person, while the stateless other spouse, from
1. Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)of 14 June                   whom the first spouse derives his right, is not herself an
     1971 on the application of social security schemes to                  employed person?
     employed persons, to self-employed persons and to mem-
     bers of their families moving within the Community apply
     to stateless persons and to members of their families if          (1) JO L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2; OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II),
     such persons have no right of free movement under the                 p. 416.
     Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European
     Community, as amended by the Treaty of 7 February 1992
     on the European Union?


title: Case T-583/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014  — Giand v OHIM — Flamagas (FLAMINAIRE)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/21

         Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Giand v OHIM — Flamagas (FLAMINAIRE)
   (Case T-583/14)
   2014/C 351/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Giand Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Flamagas, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 June 2014 in Case R 2117/2011-4, finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks referred to below;

               —

               Refer the case back to OHIM so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register Community Trade Mark No 8 6 80  746 in respect of all the goods covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Giand Srl

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘FLAMINAIRE’ for goods in Classes 16 and 34 — Community Trade Mark application No 8 6 80  746

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Flamagas, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: national and international word marks for goods in Classes 16 and 34

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Breach of the principle of ne bis in idem;

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion;

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the evidence.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1995 in Case T-168/94: Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Causal Link - Anti-dumping duties - Basic Regulation No 2423/88)

text:
28 . 10 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 286/ 13
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 such imports, declared invalid by the Court of Justice in its
Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich v. Commission               judgment of 22 October 1991 in Case C-16/90 Nölle v.
of the European Communities ( agents : Francisco Enrique             Hauptzollamt Bremen-Freihafen [ 1991 ] ECR 1-5163 — the
Gonzalez Diaz and Richard Lyal ), supported by French                Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, extended
Republic ( agents : Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and         composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President,
Jean-Marc Belorgey ) — application for annulment of the              D. P. M. Barrington, H. Kirschner, A. Kalogeropoulos and
Commission's decision of 29 July 1993 rejecting a                    V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
complaint relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86          18 September 1995 , in which it:
of the EEC Treaty and for immediate re-examination of the
complaint ( IV/33.374 ), the Court of First Instance ( First         1 . dismisses the application;
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz
Vilaça , President, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner, A.                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
gave a judgment on 18 September 1995 , the operative part
of which is as follows :                                             (') OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 .
1.   the Commission 's decision contained in the letter dated
     29 July 1993 rejecting the applicant's complaint of
     24 November 1989 (IV/33.374) is annulled;
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2 . the remainder of the application is dismissed;                                       of 18 September 1995
                                                                     in Case T-168/94: Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v.
3 . the Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the                Council of the European Union and Commission of the
     proceedings with the exception of those of the                                    European Communities (*)
     intervener, which are to be borne by the intervener.
                                                                     (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability of the
                                                                     Community — Causal Link — Anti-dumping duties —
(') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .                                                   Basic Regulation No 2423/88)
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/32 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             In Case T-168/94 : Blackspur DIY Ltd, having its registered
                     of 18 September 1995                            office in Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom), Steven Kellar,
                                                                     J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen, Manchester ( United
in Case T-167/94 : Detlef Nölle v. Council of the European           Kingdom ), represented by K. P. E. Lasok, Barrister, of the
          Union and Commission of the European                       Bar of England and Wales, and Charles Khan, Solicitor, with
                        Communities ( ] )                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
(Action to establish non-contractual liability —                     Maria Dennewald, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve, against
Admissibility — Basic anti-dumping Regulation (EEC)                  Council of the European Union ( Agents : Jorge Monteiro,
No 2423/88 — Breach — Anti-dumping Regulation (EEC)                  Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch ) and Commission of
No 725/89 — Invalidity — Liability by reason oflegislative           the European Communities ( Agent: Eric White ) —
measures — Principle of care — Right to a fair hearing —             application under Article 178 and the second paragraph of
                  Sufficiently serious breach)                       Article 215 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that the
                          ( 95/C 286/31 )                            Council and the Commission are liable to compensate the
                                                                     applicants for the loss they claim to have suffered as a result
                                                                     of the acts and defaults of those institutions in connection
               (Language of the case: German)                        with the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on imports of
                                                                     paint- and other brushes originating in the People's
In Case T-167/94 : Detlef Nölle, trading as ' Eugen Nölle', of       Republic of China — the Court of First Instance ( First
Remscheid ( Germany ), represented by Frank Montag and               Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz
Hans-Joachim Prieß, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels, against                 Vilaça, President, D. P. M. Barrington, H. Kirschner, A.
Council of the European Union (Agents : Jorge Monteiro,              Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Jürgen Huber, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg Berrisch) and               given a judgment on 18 September 1995 , in which it:
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Eric
White and Claus-Michael Happe ) — application under                   1 . dismisses the application;
Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
EEC Treaty for compensation for the damage allegedly
 suffered by the applicant undertaking by reason of the              2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs jointly and
adoption of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 725/89 of                       severally.
20 March 1989 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 imports of paint, distemper, varnish and similar brushes             (!) OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .
 originating in the People's Republic of China and
 definitively collecting the provisional anti-dumping duty on


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 25 April 1996 in Case C-87/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Public contracts - Transport sector - Directive 90/531/EEC)

text:
 No C 180/ 12         EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                      of 28 March 1996                                                        of 25 April 1996
 in Case C-318/94: Commission of the European                        in Case       C-274/93 : Commission of the European
      Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( ! )                     Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( ï )
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Public works contracts —           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
              Failure to publish a tender notice)                    implement Council Directive 86/609/EEC — Protection of
                          { 96/C 180/23 )                            animals used for experimental and other scientific
                                                                                purposes)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/24 )
               (Language of tbe case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Frencb)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-274/93 : Commission of the European
In Case C-318/94 : Commission of the European                        Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis ) v . Grand Duchy of
 Communities (Agents : Hendrik van Lier and, initially,              Luxembourg — application for a declaration that, by not
Angela Bardenhewer, and, subsequently, Claudia Schmidt)              adopting, within the prescribed period, all the measures
v. Federal Republic of Germany ( Agents : Ernst Roder and            necessary to comply with Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
Gereon Thiele ) — application for a declaration that, the            24 November 1986 on the approximation of laws,
Waterways and Navigation Office, Emden having awarded                regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
the public works contract for the dredging of the lower Ems          States relating to the protection of animals used for
between Papenburg and Oldersum by negotiated procedure               experimental and other scientific purposes, the Grand
without prior publication of a tender notice in the Official        Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     under Article 25 of that Directive and under Articles 5 and
Journal ofthe European Communities, the Federal Republic
of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council        189 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
Directive 71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971 concerning the                composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G.
coordination of procedures for the award of public works            Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn
contracts ( OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 682 ), as  and J. L. Murray, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ;
amended by Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989             H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
( OJ No L 210, 1989 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),         25 April 1996 , in which it:
composed of D. A. O. Edward ( President of the Chamber),
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), L. Sevon           1 . Dismisses the application as inadmissible.
and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 March               2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                          costs .
1996 , in which it:
                                                                    ( ] ) OJ No C 168 , 19 . 6 . 1993 .
1 . Declares that, the Waterways and Navigation Office,
    Emden having awarded the public works contract for
    the dredging of the lower Ems between Papenburg and
     Oldersum by negotiated procedure without prior
    publication of a tender notice in the Official Journal of                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    the European Communities, the Federal Republic of                                         ( Fifth Chamber )
    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
    Council Directive 71 /305/EEC of 26 July 1971                                            of 25 April 1996
    concerning the coordination of procedures for the               in     Case C-87/94: Commission of the European
    award of public works contracts, as amended by                               Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( J )
    Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989.
                                                                    (Public contracts — Transport sector — Directive
                                                                                90/531/EEC)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/25 )
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
    costs .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-87/94, Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities ( Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v. Kingdom of
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/ 13
Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder, assisted by Michel                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Waelbroeck and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for a                                    of 30 April 1996
declaration that, by taking into account, in the procedure
for the award of a public contract by the Société régionale         in Case C-308/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
wallonne du transport, amendments made to one of the                the Centrale Raad van Beroep ): Bestuur van de Sociale
tenders after the opening of those tenders, by admitting to                Verzekeringsbank v. J. M. Cabanis-Issarte ( 1 )
the procedure for the award of the contract a tenderer who          (Social security for migrant workers — Voluntary old-age
did not meet the selection criteria laid down in the contract       insurance — Surviving spouse of a worker — Equal
documents and by accepting a tender which did not meet the                                    treatment)
criteria for the award of the contract laid down in the                                    ( 96/C 180/26 )
contract documents, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 90/53 1 /EEC of
17 September 1990 on the procurement procedures of
entities operating in the water, energy, transport and
telecommunications sectors ( OJ No L 297, 1990, p. 1 ) and                         (Language of the case: Dutcb)
to comply with the principle of equal treatment, which
underlies all the rules on procedures for the award of public
contracts — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A.
O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevon ,                     published in the European Court Reports)
Judges; Advocate-General : C. O. Lenz; Registrar: H. A.
Riihl, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 25 April
1996, in which it:
                                                                    In Case C-308/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep for a
                                                                    preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
1 . Declares that, by taking into account, in the procedure         court between Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank and
     for the award of a public contract by the Société              J. M. Cabanis-Issarte on the interpretation of Articles 2 and
     régionale wallonne du transport, information on fuel           3 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
     consumption submitted by EMI in its supplementary              on the application of social security schemes to employed
     note of24 August 1 993 and, therefore, after the opening       persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
     offenders, by awarding the contract to EMI on the basis        families moving within the Community, as amended and
     of figures which did not correspond to the prescriptive        updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June
     requirements of Annex 23 of the special conditions for         1983 ( OJ No L 230, 1983 , p. 6 ), the Court, composed of
     calculating the notional penalty ofEMI for maintenance         G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
     costs in respect of engine and gearbox replacement, by         Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
     taking into account, when comparing the tenders for            Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
     Lots Nos 4, 5 and 6, the cost-saving features suggested        P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.
     by EMI without having referred to them in the contract         Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G.
     documents or in the tender notice, by using them to            Tesauro,    Advocate-General;     D.    Louterman-Hubeau,
     offset the financial differences between the tenders in        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     first place and those of EMI placed second, and by             judgment on 30 April 1996 in which it ruled :
     accepting some of EMI's tenders as a result of taking
     those features into account, the Kingdom ofBelgium has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
     90/531 /EEC of 17 September 1990 on the procurement            1 . Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,             No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial
     transport and telecommunications sectors.                          security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                        persons and to members of their families moving within
                                                                        the Community, as amended and updated by Council
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of2 June 1983, are to be
                                                                        interpreted as meaning that they may be relied on by the
2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     surviving spouse ofa migrant worker for the purpose of
                                                                        determining the rate of contribution in relation to a
                                                                        period of voluntary insurance completed under the
                                                                        old-age pension scheme of the Member State in which
P ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                       the worker was employed.
                                                                    2 . This judgment may not be relied on in support of claims
                                                                        concerning benefits relating to periods prior to the date
                                                                        ofdelivery ofthe judgment, except by persons who have,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 1997 in Case C-341/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/36/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 55/8                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
health conditions governing the placing on the market of              Administrativo (Portuguese Supreme Administrative
aquaculture animals and products (OJ L 175, 19.7.1993,                Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
p. 34), Council Directive 93/113/EC of 14 December 1993               before that court between FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portu-
concerning the use and marketing of enzymes, micro-                   guesa Ld..a and Subdirector-Geral das AlfaÃndegas; joined
organisms and their preparations in animal nutrition (OJ              as a party: MinisteÂrio PuÂblico Ð on the interpretation of
L 334, 31.12.1993, p. 17) and Council Directive 93/114/               Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
EC of 14 December 1993 amending Directive 70/524/EEC                  16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements
concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ L 334,                      (OJ L 188, 20.7.1985, p. 1) and Articles 27 and 28 of
31.12.1993, p. 24), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil         Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86 of 24 November
its obligations under those Directives and the EC Treaty              1986 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                          Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (OJ L 351, 12.12.1986,
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R.                  p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,             No 2281/88 of 25 July 1988 (OJ L 200, 26.7.1988, p. 20)
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                    Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
16 December 1997, in which it:                                        P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                      Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
1. declares that, by failing to bring into force within the           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and                     16 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993                      Article 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86 of
     introducing minimum Community measures for the                   24 November 1986 laying down provisions for the
     control of certain fish diseases, Council Directive 93/          implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 on
     113/EC of 14 December 1993 concerning the use and                inward processing relief arrangements, as amended by
     marketing of enzymes, micro-organisms and their                  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2281/88 of 25 July
     preparations in animal nutrition and Council Directive           1988, must be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits
     93/114/EC of 14 December 1993 amending Directive                 for re-export laid down therein may not be extended.
     70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the first subparagraph of Article 20(1) of                 (1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
     Directive 93/53/EEC, the first subparagraph of
     Article 8(1) of Directive 93/113/EC and the first
     subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/114/EC;
2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1997
                                                                      in    Case C-341/96: Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                      Directive 93/36/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                     prescribed period)
                     of 16 December 1997                                                       (98/C 55/14)
in Case C-325/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Eru Portuguesa Ld..a v. Subdirector-Geral das AlfaÃndegas;
            joined as a party: MinisteÂrio PuÂblico (1)
(Inward processing relief arrangements Ð Special                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
arrangements for milk sector products Ð Extension of the                       published in the European Court Reports)
                     time-limit for export)
                          (98/C 55/13)                                In Case C-341/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Claudia Schmidt) v. Federal
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd
                                                                      Kloke) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                      adopt within the prescribed period all the laws and
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        regulations necessary to comply with Council Directive
          published in the European Court Reports)                    93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
                                                                      the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993,
In Case C-325/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            p. 1) and, in the alternative, by failing to notify the
of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal                            Commission immediately of the measures adopted in
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/9
order to transpose that Directive, the Federal Republic of            Confederation concerning direct insurance other than life
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third          assurance (OJ L 205, 27.7.1991, p. 48) or, in the
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                         alternative, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
Article 34(1) of the Directive Ð the Court (Sixth                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                     under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,            composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.
J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly,                  Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), P. Jann
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L.
judgment on 16 December 1997, in which it:                            Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                      judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period all the laws and regulations necessary to                 1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June                    period the laws, regulations and administrative
     1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public                  provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     supply contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has                 91/371/EEC of 20 June 1991 on the implementation
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34(1) of               of the Agreement between the European Economic
     that Directive;                                                       Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning
                                                                           direct insurance other than life assurance, the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under that Directive;
2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                      2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 18 December 1997
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
       in Case C-360/95: Commission of the European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)                       in   Case    C-361/95: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
Directive 91/371/EEC Ð Implementation of the                          (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
Agreement between the European Economic Community                     Directive 92/49/EEC Ð Direct insurance other than life
and the Swiss Confederation on direct insurance other                                            assurance)
                       than life assurance
                                                                                (98/C 55/16)
                          (98/C 55/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-361/95: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca
In Case C-360/95: Commission of the European                          VilaÂ Costa) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ
Communities (Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca                  Navarro GonzaÂlez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) Ð
VilaÂ Costa) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ               application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and
Navarro GonzaÂlez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) Ð                    bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,               comply with Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
comply with Council Directive 91/371/EEC of 20 June                   administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
1991 on the implementation of the Agreement between                   than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC
the European Economic Community and the Swiss                         and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)


title: Case T-252/10: Action brought on 28 May 2010 — Cross Czech v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/51

         Action brought on 28 May 2010 — Cross Czech v Commission
   (Case T-252/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cross Czech a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Schollaert, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision No INFSO-02/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676 of 12 March 2010; and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision No INFSO-02/FD/GVC/Isc D (2010) 208676 of 12 March 2010, reference No 09-BA74-006, a letter confirming the findings of audit report B74-06 concerning the audit of the financial statements for the period from 1 February 2005 until 30 April 2008 for the projects eMapps.com, CEEC IST NET and TRANSFER EAST, concluded in the framework of the 6th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (2002-2006).
   In support of its submissions, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:
   The applicant contends that the contested decision constitutes an infringement of the Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, as it:

               —

               is based on incorrect and insufficient fact finding by the Commission;

               —

               reflects the incorrect application of the contracts relating to the projects in question, in particular in respect of the finding that the applicant committed a breach of these contracts;

               —

               is based on manifest errors of assessment of the facts relating to the alleged breach of the contracts relating to these projects, resulting in a failure to comply with the necessary legal standards and thus in an error of law;

               —

               is based on defects of reasoning; and

               —

               constitutes a breach of the applicant’s procedural rights in the procedure preceding the issuing of the contested decision and a breach of the principle of due care.


title: Case C-81/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Anacleto Cordero Alonso v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC — Amending Directive 2002/74/EC — Compensation for dismissal agreed during conciliation — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Spain) — Anacleto Cordero Alonso v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
   (Case C-81/05) (1)

   (Social policy - Protection of workers in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Amending Directive 2002/74/EC - Compensation for dismissal agreed during conciliation - Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution - Payment subject to the adoption of a judicial decision)
   (2006/C 261/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anacleto Cordero Alonso

      Defendant: Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León — Interpretation of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Articles 1 and 3 — Application of Community law — Primacy — Protection of workers already conferred by national law — Time-limit for transposing the relevant directive not yet expired — Interpretation by the Court of Justice not the same as that by the Spanish Constitutional Court — Equal treatment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Where, before the entry into force of Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Directive 80/987/EEC, a Member State has already conferred on employees a statutory entitlement to protection by a guarantee institution in the event of an employer's insolvency with regard to compensation for termination of the contract of employment, the application of that legislation to cases where the employer's insolvency occurred after the entry into force of that directive falls within the scope of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as amended by Directive 2002/74.

               2.

               Within the scope of Directive 80/987, as amended, the general principle of equality, as recognised in the Community legal order, requires that when, under national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings, statutory compensation payable on termination of an employment contract and fixed in a judgment is payable by a guarantee institution in the event of an employer's insolvency, compensation of the same nature, fixed in an agreement between the employee and the employer which was entered into under the supervision and with the approval of a court, must be treated in the same way.

               3.

               The national court must disapply a national rule which, in breach of the principle of equality as recognised in the Community legal order, precludes the payment by the competent guarantee institution of compensation on termination of a contract fixed in an agreement between the employee and the employer which was entered into under the supervision of and with the approval of a court.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover by order of that court of 13 July 1998 in the case of Tanja Kreil against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-285/98)

text:
5.9.98                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 278/31
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                   8 July 1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                         23 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Roman Angonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA
Ð annul the relevant part of Commission Decision 98/                     on the following question:
     358/EC (1) in so far as it applies negative corrections'
     in respect of supplementary levies for milk
     corresponding to sums the recovery of which is the                  Is it compatible with Article 48(1), (2) and (3) of the EC
     subject of proceedings before the competent national                Treaty and Article 3(1) and Article 7(1) and (4) of Council
     courts.                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) to make the admission
                                                                         of candidates to a competition organised to fill posts
                                                                         in a company governed by private law conditional on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      possession of the official certificate attesting to knowledge
                                                                         of local languages issued exclusively by a public authority
                                                                         of a Member State at a single examination centre (namely
Ð Infringement of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 8 of Council                      Bolzano), on completion of a procedure of considerable
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of 21 April 1970 on the                  duration (to be precise, of not less than 30 days, on
     financing of the common agricultural policy (2): the                account of the minimum lapse of time envisaged between
     Commission is entitled to exclude from its decision                 the written test and the oral test)?
     only expenses corresponding to incorrect application,
     and a fortiori non-application, of Community law. The
     sums covered to which the contested decision relates                (1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 II, p. 475.
     are the result neither of irregularities nor of negligence
     within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70.
     The corrections made by the Commission relate to
     amounts which have been challenged before the
     French administrative courts. The amounts in question
     will be payable as soon as an enforceable judgment
     has made it possible to recover them. On the other
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
     hand, Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 does not authorise
                                                                         gericht Hannover by order of that court of 13 July 1998
     the Commission to charge those sums to a Member
                                                                         in the case of Tanja Kreil against the Federal Republic of
     State when the latter has been unable to recover them
                                                                                Germany
     from the persons concerned.
                                                                                (Case C-285/98)
Ð The imposition by the Commission of a time limit for                                              (98/C 278/59)
     recovering the amounts demanded is contrary to the
     principle of sound administration as enunciated, in
     particular, in Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 729/
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     70.
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Second Chamber
                                                                         of the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Administrative
(1) Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the                   Court, Hannover) of 13 July 1998, received at the Court
    clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in          Registry on 24 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
    respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the Guarantee Section         case of Tanja Kreil against the Federal Republic of
    of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                         Germany on the following question:
    (OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28).
(2) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 I, p. 218.
                                                                         Is Council Directive 76/207/EEC (1) Ð in particular with
                                                                         regard to Article 2(2) of that Directive Ð infringed by the
                                                                         third sentence of paragraph 1(2) of the Soldatengesetz
                                                                         (Law on Soldiers) in the version of 15 December 1995
                                                                         (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 1737), last amended by the Law
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                        of 4 December 1997 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2846),
Circondariale di Bolzano by order of that court of 8 July                and paragraph 3a of the Soldatenlaufbahnverordnung
1998 in the case of Roman Angonese v. Cassa di                           (Regulations on soldiers' Careers) in the version published
                  Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (1)                           on 28 January 1998 (Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 326), under
                                                                         which women who enlist as volunteers may be appointed
                         (Case C-281/98)                                 only to duties in the medical and military-music services
                           (98/C 278/58)                                 and are excluded in any event from armed service?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Pretura
Circondariale di Bolzano (District Court, Bolzano) of


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Överklagandenämnden för Högskolan by order of that body of 14 October 1998 in the case of 1. Katarina Abrahamsson and 2. Leif Anderson against Elisabet Fogelqvist (Case C-407/98) (1999/C 1/18)

text:
C 1/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.1.1999
Reference      for      a     preliminary     ruling    from             authority's sphere of activity or the highest posts in
Överklagandenämnden för Högskolan by order of that                       that sphere?
body of 14 October 1998 in the case of 1. Katarina
Abrahamsson and 2. Leif Anderson against Elisabet
                                                                    (1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.
                           Fogelqvist
                       (Case C-407/98)
                         (1999/C 1/18)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
the      European       Communities       by      order    of       Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
Överklagandenämnden för Högskolan (Universities                     Divisional Court, by order of that court of 2 November
Appeals Board) of 14 October 1998, received at the Court            1998, in the case of Abbey National plc against
Registry on 26 October 1998, for a preliminary ruling in                        Commissioners of Customs and Excise
the case of 1. Katarina Abrahamsson and 2. Leif Anderson
against Elisabet Fogelqvist on the following question:                                      (Case C-408/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 1/19)
1. Do Articles 2(1) and 2(4) of Council Directive
    76/207/EEC (1) of 9 February 1976 on the
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    men and women as regards access to employment,                  European Communities by an order of the High Court of
    vocational training and promotion, and working                  Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,
    conditions preclude national legislation under which            Divisional Court, of 2 November 1998, which was
    an applicant of the underrepresented sex possessing             received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for
    sufficient qualifications for a public post is to be            a preliminary ruling in the case of Abbey National plc
    selected in priority over an applicant of the opposite          against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the
    sex who would otherwise have been selected (positive           following questions:
    special treatment') if there is a need for an applicant
    of the underrepresented sex to be selected and under
    which positive special treatment is not to be applied           1. Having regard to the terms of Article 17(2) of the
    only if the difference between the applicants'                       Sixth VAT Directive (1), do the words in Article 5(8)
    qualifications is so great that such treatment would be              thereof the recipient shall be treated as the successor
    contrary to the requirement of objectivity in the                    to the transferor' require that the recipient's supplies
    making of appointments?                                              should be treated as if they had been made by the
                                                                         transferor, for the purpose of determining the
                                                                         transferor's input tax deduction?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is
    positive special treatment not permissible in such a
    case even if application of the national legislation is         2. In the event of a transfer . . . of a totality of assets or
    restricted to appointments to either a limited number                part thereof' within Article 5(8) of the Sixth VAT
    of pre-determined posts (as under Regulation                         Directive, where the Member State, by virtue of
    1995/936) or posts created as part of a special                      national measures adopted pursuant to that article,
    programme adopted by an individual university                        considers that no supply of goods or services has taken
    under which positive special treatment may be                        place, may the taxpayer, upon the proper
    applied (as under Article 15(a) of Part 4 of                         interpretation of Article 5(8) and Article 17(2), deduct
    Högskoleförordningen)?                                               the whole of the input tax in respect of costs
                                                                         attributable to the transfer, if the taxpayer would, part
                                                                         from the application of Article 5(8), be obliged to
3. If the answer to Question 2 means that treatment like                 account for output tax on the transfer?
    positive special treatment is in some respect unlawful,
    can the rule, based on Swedish administrative practice
    and the second paragraph of Article 15 of Part 4 of             3. Where the economic activity of the transferor prior to
    Högskoleförordningen Ð approved by the Appeals                       the transaction falling within Article 5(8) has been
    Board Ð that an applicant belonging to the                           fully taxable, is input tax deductible in respect of a
    underrepresented sex must be given priority over a                   payment made in connection with the termination of
    fellow applicant of the opposite sex, provided that the              that activity?
    applicants can be regarded as equal or nearly equal in
    terms of merit, be regarded as being in some respect
                                                                    (1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
    contrary to Directive 76/207/EEC?                                   harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                        turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
                                                                        uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).
4. Does it make any difference in determining the
    questions set out above whether the legislation
    concerns lower-grade recruitment posts in an


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-386/04 Eridania SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector — Pricing system — Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 2004/2005 — Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 — Action for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/43

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 June 2005
   in Case T-386/04 Eridania SpA and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector - Pricing system - Regionalisation - Deficit areas - Classification of Italy - Marketing year 2004/2005 - Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 - Action for annulment - Natural and legal persons - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 217/94)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-386/04: Eridania Sadam SpA and Others, established in Bologna (Italy), Italia Zuccheri SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, established in Termoli (Italy), CO.PRO. B — Cooperativa produttori bieticoli Soc. coop. rl, established in Minerbio (Italy), SFIR — Società fondiaria industriale romagnola SpA, established in Cesena (Italy), represented by G. Pittalis, I. Vigliotti, G. M. Roberti, P. Ziotti and A. Franchi, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the Council of the European Union (Agent: F. Ruggeri Laderchi), — action for annulment of Article 1(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1216/2004 of 30 June 2004 fixing the derived intervention prices for white sugar for the marketing year 2004/2005 (OJ L 232, of 01.07.2004, p.25) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimae, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the Associazione nazionale bieticoltori, the Consorzio nazionale bieticoltori and the Associazione bieticoltori italiani.

               3.

               The applicants, in addition to bearing their own costs, shall pay those incurred by the Commission.

               4.

               The Council shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004


7.11.98           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                           C 340/29
      Removal from the register of Case T-26/98 (1)             European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                    (98/C 340/54)                               register of Case T-26/98: Hermanek & Rademacher
                                                                GmbH v. Commission of the European Communities.
           (Language of the case: German)
By order of 16 September 1998 the President of the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the            (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003 in Case C-361/01 P: Christina Kik v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 115 — Rules in force governing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Plea of illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
1.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 264/13
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                         D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                    N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas
(OJ 2001 L 200, p. 28) in so far as it concerns the Kingdom of               (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Spain, the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur),                 on 9 September 2003, in which it:
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2003, in which it:
                                                                             2.    Orders Ms Kik to pay the costs;
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                Council of the European Union and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 9 September 2003                                                            (Second Chamber)
in Case C-361/01 P: Christina Kik v Office for Harmonis-                                           of 11 September 2003
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)
                                                                             in Case C-22/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 115 — Rules in force
governing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) — Plea
        of illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)                                    implement Directive 1999/94/EC)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/22)
                         (2003/C 264/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-22/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-361/01 P, Christina Kik (represented by E. H. Pijnack-             (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
er Hordijk and S. B. Noë): Appeal against the judgment of the                (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by A. De Stefano): Application
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                  for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
T-120/99 Kik v OHIM [2001] ECR II-2235, seeking to have                      communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and
that judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings                administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühendahl,                         13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer
O. Montalto and J. Miranda de Sousa) supported by Com-                       information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and                     the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16),
N. Rasmussen), Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
and S. Vodina), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde)                  that directive, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
and Council of the European Union (Agent: G. Houttuin and                    R. Schintgen, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and
A. Lo Monaco), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                        N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate Gen-
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen             eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 September
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,                    2003, in which it:


title: Case C-328/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/22

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-328/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2009/C 44/37)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.


title: Case C-258/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 May 2016 — Finnair Oyj v Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia
   (Case C-258/16)
   (2016/C 260/37)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finnair Oyj

      Defendant: Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö Fennia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 31(4) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that, to preserve a right of action, it is necessary, in addition to giving notice of a complaint in due time, that the complaint be made in writing within the times provided for under Article 31(3)?

               2.

               If, to preserve a right of action, a complaint must be made in writing in due time, is Article 31(3) of the Montreal Convention to be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of writing may be fulfilled in an electronic procedure and also by the registration of the damage in the information system of the carrier?

               3.

               Does the Montreal Convention preclude an interpretation by which the requirement of writing is regarded as fulfilled where, with the knowledge of the passenger, a representative of the carrier records in writing the notice of complaint/the complaint either on paper or electronically in the carrier’s system?

               4.

               Does Article 31 of the Montreal Convention subject a complaint to further substantive requirements than that of giving notice to the carrier of the damage sustained?


title: Case T-405/14: Action brought on 31 May 2014  — Yavorskaya v Council and Others

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/41

         Action brought on 31 May 2014 — Yavorskaya v Council and Others
   (Case T-405/14)
   2014/C 261/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Elena Yavorskaya (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: D. Grisay, C. Hartman and Y.G. Georgiades, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Central Bank (ECB) and Eurogroup, represented by the Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action, based on non-contractual liability under Article 340 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, admissible;

               —

               Declare the action well founded on the ground that the measures imposed by the different institutions of the European Union on the Republic of Cyprus as regards the attachment of bank accounts constitute a sufficiently serious infringement of the fundamental principles of EU law, conferring rights on individuals, which constitutes a breach of Article 340 TFEU;

               —

               Hold that the actions of the European Union constitute serious and clear misconduct which has had the consequence that the applicant has suffered harm estimated, without prejudice, at the sum of EUR 3 2 99  855,45, subject to reduction or increase during the proceedings, in particular having regard to interest and costs which, if appropriate, are due;

               —

               Order the European Union to pay the sums set out above;

               —

               Order the European Union, in addition, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging non-contractual liability of the European Union and, more exactly, an infringement of the right of property and the principle of non-discrimination.
   The measures imposed by the European Union on the Republic of Cyprus led to the applicant’s accounts with the Laïki Bank being blocked, without any fair compensation having been paid to her in advance.
   The European Union thus manifestly and unreasonably infringed the applicant’s right of property and the principle of non-discrimination, since only deposits of less than EUR 1 00  000 made with the Laïki Bank were safeguarded under the European measures imposed on the Cypriot authorities.