title: Case C-319/01: Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 289/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.10.2001
Action brought on 14 August 2001 by the Commission                     wright and Joëlle Adda, acting as Agents, with an address for
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                     service in Luxembourg.
                            Belgium
                        (Case C-319/01)                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2001/C 289/34)                                —     declare that, by omitting to take all the measures necess-
                                                                             ary in order to ensure the full and proper transposition
                                                                             of Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b)
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                         and (c) and 23(2), in conjunction with Annexes II, IV, V
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                      and VI, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on 14 August 2001 by the Commission of the European                          on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen and Joelle                       and flora (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply
Adda, acting as Agents.                                                      with its obligations under that directive and under the
                                                                             third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing
                                                                             the European Community;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           —     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending
      Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of         Pleas in law and main arguments
      certain public and private projects on the environment (1),
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under that directive;                                            The Commission observes that the time-limit for transposition
                                                                       of the directive expired on 5 June 1994 without Belgium
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   having transposed, by means of provisions establishing a
                                                                       precise legal framework, the provisions listed above, save as
                                                                       regards the ‘Bruxelles-Capitale’ region, which on 26 October
                                                                       2000 adopted a decree with regard to the conservation of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        natural habitats and wild fauna and flora. As regards the
                                                                       concepts defined in Article 1 of the directive, these need to be
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          transposed on account of their importance for the purposes of
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 of the EC         interpreting the other provisions of the directive. Lastly, as
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary          regards Articles 15 and 16(1) of the directive, the Commission
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic          considers that a Member State may not decline to transpose
law in such a way that, before the expiry of the period                those provisions unless it has waived in advance its right to
prescribed for doing so, they are fully effective. That period,        avail itself of the derogation possibilities afforded therein.
which is laid down in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC,
expired on 14 March 1999 without Belgium having
implemented all its provisions throughout the national terri-          (1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
tory.
(1) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-224/99 (1)
Action brought on 28 August 2001 by the Commission                                               (2001/C 289/36)
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                            Belgium
                                                                       By order of 19 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                        (Case C-324/01)                                the register of Case C-224/99: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v French Republic.
                        (2001/C 289/35)
                                                                       (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice on 28 August 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Richard Wain-


title: Case C-155/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 2 April 2010 — Williams and others v British Airways plc

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/23

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom made on 2 April 2010 — Williams and others v British Airways plc
      (Case C-155/10)
      (2010/C 161/32)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Williams and others

         Defendant: British Airways plc

         Questions referred

                  (i)

                  Under (a) articles 7 of Council Directives 93/104/EC (1) and 2003/88/EC (2) and (b) clause 3 of the European Agreement annexed to the Council Directive 2000/79/EC (3): (1) to what, if any, extent does European law define or lay down any requirements as to the nature and/or level of the payments required to be made in respect of periods of paid annual leave; and (2) to what, if any, extent may Member States determine how such payments are to be calculated?

                  (ii)

                  In particular, is it sufficient that, under national law and/or practice and/or under the collective agreements and/or contractual arrangements negotiated between employers and workers, the payment made enables and encourages the worker to take and to enjoy, in the fullest sense of these words, his or her annual leave; and does not involve any sensible risk that the worker will not do so?

                  (iii)

                  Or is it required that the pay should either (a) correspond precisely with or (b) be broadly comparable to the worker's ‘normal’ pay?

            Further, in the event of an affirmative answer to question (iii)(a) or (b):

                  (iv)

                  Is the relevant measure or comparison (a) pay that the worker would have earned during the particular leave period if he or she had been working, instead of on leave, or (b) pay which he or she was earning during some other, and if so what, period when he or she was working?

                  (v)

                  How should ‘normal’ or ‘comparable’ pay be assessed in circumstances where (a) a worker's remuneration while working is supplemented if and to the extent that he or she engages in a particular activity, (b) where there is an annual or other limit on the extent to which, or time during which, the worker may engage in that activity, and that limit has been already exceeded or almost exceeded at the time(s) when annual leave is taken, so that the worker would not in fact have been permitted to engage in that activity had he been working, instead of on leave?

         (1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time, OJ L 307, p. 18

         (2)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, OJ L 299, p. 9

         (3)  Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 302


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2002 in Case C-188/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe): Bülent Kurz, né Yüce, v Land Baden-Württemberg (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Scope — Registration as duly belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish national pursuing gainful activity in the course of vocational training — Effects of an expulsion order)

text:
11.1.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 7/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    On a proper construction of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80
                                                                                of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association,
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                           adopted by the Association Council established by the Associ-
                                                                                ation Agreement between the European Economic Community
                                                                                and Turkey, a Turkish national:
                      of 19 November 2002
                                                                                —     who was authorised to enter the territory of a Member
in Case C-188/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                State with a visa ‘valid only for the purpose of vocational
the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe): Bülent Kurz, né Yüce,
                                                                                training’,
                v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)
                                                                                —     who subsequently received a temporary residence authoris-
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Freedom of move-
                                                                                ation restricted to vocational training activity with a
ment for workers — Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the
                                                                                specific employer, and
Association Council — Scope — Registration as duly
belonging to the labour force of a Member State — Turkish
national pursuing gainful activity in the course of vocational                     —     who, in this context, has lawfully pursued a genuine and
           training — Effects of an expulsion order)                                     effective economic activity for that employer in return for
                                                                                which he has received remuneration corresponding to the
                                                                                work performed,
                           (2003/C 7/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                  is a worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of
                                                                                that Member State and legally employed there for the purposes
                                                                                of the said provision.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  Where such a Turkish national has thus worked for that
                                                                                employer for an uninterrupted period of at least four years, he
                                                                                enjoys in the host Member State, in accordance with the third
In Case C-188/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                         indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, the right of free
EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany) for a                             access to any paid employment of his choice and a corresponding
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                          right of residence.
court between Bülent Kurz, né Yüce, and Land Baden-
Württemberg, on the interpretation of Article 6(1) and the                   2.    Where a Turkish national who fulfils the conditions laid down
second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of                               in a provision of Decision No 1/80 and therefore enjoys the
19 September 1980 on the development of the Association,                           rights which it confers has been expelled, Community law
adopted by the Association Council established by the Associ-                      precludes application of national legislation under which issue
ation Agreement between the European Economic Community                            of a residence authorisation must be refused until a time-limit
and Turkey, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                                has been placed on the effectts of the expulsion order.
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger,                     (1 ) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 19 November 2002, in which it has
ruled:


title: Case C-359/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Irtel Srl v Comune di Venegono Inferiore

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 19 July 2010 — Irtel Srl v Comune di Venegono Inferiore
   (Case C-359/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Irtel Srl

      Defendant: Comune di Venegono Inferiore

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the correct application of Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC (1) preclude the provisions of national law laid down in Article 32(7)(a) of Legislative Decree No 185 of 29 November 2008, added by Converting Law No 2 of 28 January 2009 and subsequently amended by Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, under which:

                           —

                           the award of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue to persons who fail to satisfy the minimum financial requirement of fully paid up share capital in the sum of EUR 10 million is to be null and void;

                           —

                           persons entered in the relevant register of private persons authorised to carry out activities relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other revenue of the provinces and municipalities are required to bring their share capital up to the minimum figure in question, pursuant to Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 446 of 15 December 1997, as subsequently amended;

                           —

                           it is prohibited to acquire new contracts or participate in tender procedures for the operation of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue until the abovementioned requirement to adjust share capital has been met; and

                     companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership are excluded from those provisions?

               2.

               Does the correct application of Articles 3, 10, 43, 49 and 81 of the Treaty establishing the European Community preclude the provisions of national law laid down in Article 32(7)(a) of Legislative Decree No 185 of 29 November 2008, added by Converting Law No 2 of 28 January 2009 and subsequently amended by Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, under which:

                           —

                           the award of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue to persons who fail to satisfy the minimum financial requirement of fully paid up share capital in the sum of EUR 10 million is to be null and void;

                           —

                           persons entered in the relevant register of private persons authorised to carry out activities relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other revenue of the provinces and municipalities are required to bring their share capital up to the minimum figure in question, pursuant to Article 53(3) of Legislative Decree No 446 of 15 December 1997, as subsequently amended;

                           —

                           it is prohibited to acquire new contracts or participate in tender procedures for the operation of services relating to the assessment and collection of taxes and other local authority revenue until the abovementioned requirement to adjust share capital has been met; and

                     companies in which all or a majority of the share capital is in public ownership are excluded from those provisions?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: Case T-286/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014  — Intel v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Microprocessors market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Loyalty rebates — ‘Naked’ restrictions — Classification as abuse — As-efficient-competitor analysis — Commission’s international jurisdiction — Obligation on the Commission to investigate — Limits — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration — Overall strategy — Fines — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Intel v Commission
   (Case T-286/09) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Microprocessors market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Loyalty rebates - ‘Naked’ restrictions - Classification as abuse - As-efficient-competitor analysis - Commission’s international jurisdiction - Obligation on the Commission to investigate - Limits - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration - Overall strategy - Fines - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))
   2014/C 245/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Intel Corp. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented initially by K. Bacon, Barrister, M. Hoskins, N. Green QC, S. Singla, Barrister, I. Forrester QC, A. Parr, R. Mackenzie, Solicitors, and D. Piccinin, Barrister, and subsequently by I. Forrester, A. Parr, R. Mackenzie and D. Piccinin)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, N. Khan, V. Di Bucci and M. Kellerbauer, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Association for Competitive Technology, Inc (Washington, DC, United States) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir) (Paris, France) (represented initially by J. Franck, and subsequently by E. Nasry, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C (2009) 3726 final of 13 May 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 [EC] and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C-3/37.990 — Intel) or, alternatively, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Intel Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, with the exception of the Commission’s costs incurred in connection with the intervention of the Association for Competitive Technology, Inc., and the costs incurred by Union fédérale des consommateurs — Que choisir (UFC — Que choisir);

               3.

               Orders the Association for Competitive Technology to bear its own costs and to pay the Commission’s costs incurred in connection with its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case T-29/07: Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/27

         Action brought on 9 February 2007 — Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements v Council
   (Case T-29/07)
   (2007/C 69/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Lactalis Gestion Lait and Lactalis Investissements (Laval, France) (represented by: A. Philippart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               rule that the first subparagraph of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC, read in the light of the fourth recital in the preamble, requires the Member States to abolish and replace cumulative multi-stage turnover taxes which distort competition and hinder trade between Member States;

               —

               rule that subparagraph 3 of Article 1 of Directive 67/227/EEC, read in the light of the eighth recital in the preamble, prohibits Member States (old or new) from maintaining or introducing measure providing for flat-rate equalisation of turnover taxes on importation or exportation in trade between Member States;

               —

               rule that Article 1 of First Directive 67/227/EEC replaces cumulative multi-stage taxes with the common system of value added tax and that henceforward the maintenance or introduction of cumulative multi-stage taxes which distort competition and hinder trade must be prohibited;

               —

               rule that contrary to the objective that it set, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, by repealing First Directive 67/227/EEC, gives, with the exception of Article 2 defining the characteristics of VAT, an incomplete and incorrect image of the existing VAT legislation and jeopardises the harmonisation of laws on turnover tax;

               —

               rule that by removing all references to the principle of principle of the prohibition on cumulative multi-stage taxes and thereby enabling the maintenance and reintroduction of turnover taxes of such a kind as to distort competition and hinder trade between Member States, the Council infringes the objectives set by Articles 3 and 93 EC and directly and individually affects the applicants' interests;

               —

               annul Article 411/1 of Directive 2006/112/EC in so far as it repeals recitals 4 and 8 and subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1 of Council Directive 67/227/EEC and clearly infringes Articles 3 and 93 EC;

               —

               order the Council to reimburse the irrecoverable expenses incurred in these proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicants seek annulment of Article 411/1 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) in so far as it repeals subparagraphs 1 and 3 of Article 1 of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (2) providing for the abolition and prohibiting the maintenance or introduction of cumulative multi-stage taxes.
   The applicants claim that by adopting such a directive, the Council infringes the objectives of the Treaty set out in Articles 3 and 93 EC which provide for the harmonisation of laws on turnover taxes. The applicants also submit that the repeal of Directive 67/227/EEC by Directive 2006/112/EC calls into question the principle of the prohibition on cumulative multi-stage taxes which the applicants argue are, by their very nature, of such a kind as to distort the conditions of competition and hinder trade between Member States.

      (1)  OJ L 347, 2006, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 71, 2006, p. 1301.


title: Case T-224/16: Action brought on 10 March 2016 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/34

         Action brought on 10 March 2016 — Messe Friedrichshafen v EUIPO — El Corte Inglés (Out Door)
   (Case T-224/16)
   (2016/C 232/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH (Friedrichshafen, Germany) (represented by: W. Schulte Hemming, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Messe Friedrichshafen GmbH

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in black, yellow and orange containing the word element ‘Out Door’ — Application for registration No 6 938 864

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 February 2016 in Case R 2302/2011-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses the registration of the trade mark ‘Out Door’ (Registration No: 006938864) in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 45;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it refuses the trade mark ‘Out Door’ (Registration No: 006938864) in respect of the following goods and services in class 35:

                  ‘arranging and conducting of congresses, conferences, seminars and workshops, trade fairs and exhibitions for commercial and advertising purposes, including on the Internet and other electronic media; organisation of participation in exhibitions; sales promotion and brokering of trade, service and business contacts and commercial transactions for consumer goods and industrial products on the Internet and other electronic media, including by means of a virtual trade fair; providing and rental of floor space and exhibition stands, including associated equipment (included in this class); advertising for exhibitors; decoration of exhibition stands and platforms’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-428/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 September 2014  — DHL Express (Italy) srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 18 September 2014 — DHL Express (Italy) srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-428/14)
   (2014/C 462/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: DHL Express (Italy) srl, DHL Global Forwarding (Italy) SpA

      Respondents: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Other parties to the proceedings

   Schenker Italiana SpA
   Agility Logistics srl

      Questions referred

   On a proper construction of Article 101 TFEU, Article 4(3) TEU and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1), does it follow that:

               1.

               national competition authorities [NCAs] may not, in their own implementation practices, deviate from the instruments defined and adopted by the European Competition Network (‘ECN’) and, in particular, from the Model Leniency Programme, in a case such as that at issue before the referring court, without running counter to the findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment of 14 June 2011 in Case C-360/09 [Pfleiderer]?

               2.

               a legal link exists between the main application for immunity that an undertaking has submitted or is about to submit to the Commission and the simplified application for immunity submitted by that undertaking to an NCA in respect of the same cartel, with the effect that — notwithstanding the provision made under paragraph 38 of the Commission Notice on cooperation within the Network of Competition Authorities — the NCA is obliged, under § 22 of the 2006 ECN Model Leniency Programme (now § 24 according to the numbering of the 2012 ECN Model Leniency Programme) and the related Explanatory Note 45 (now Explanatory Note 49 according to the numbering of the 2012 Model Leniency Programme), to take the following steps: (a) to assess the simplified application in the light of the main application for immunity, examining whether the simplified application accurately reflects the content of the main application; and (b) failing which — if the NCA believes that the simplified application received is narrower in material scope than the main application submitted by the same undertaking, on the basis of which the Commission has granted conditional immunity to that undertaking — to contact the Commission, or that undertaking, in order to ascertain whether, following the submission of the simplified application, the Commission has identified, through its internal investigations, actual and specific examples of conduct in the sector purportedly covered by the main application for immunity but not by the simplified one?

               3.

               pursuant to § 3 and § 22 to § 24 of the 2006 ECN Model Leniency Programme and Explanatory Notes 8, 41, 45 and 46 and taking account of the amendment introduced by paragraphs 24 to 26 of the 2012 ECN Model Leniency Programme and Explanatory Notes 44 and 49, an NCA which at the material time applied a leniency programme as described in the main proceedings could, with regard to a given secret cartel in respect of which the first undertaking has submitted or was about to submit to the Commission a main application for immunity, legitimately take receipt of: (a) only a simplified application for immunity from that undertaking; or (b) also additional simplified applications for immunity from various undertakings that had initially submitted to the Commission ‘unacceptable’ applications for immunity or applications for a reduction in the fine, in particular where the main applications submitted by the latter undertakings were made after the first undertaking was granted conditional immunity?

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


title: Case C-276/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Firenze(Italy) lodged on 11 June 2007 — Nancy Delay v Università degli Studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Italian Republic

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di appello di Firenze(Italy) lodged on 11 June 2007 — Nancy Delay v Università degli Studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Italian Republic
   (Case C-276/07)
   (2007/C 211/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte di appello di Firenze, Sezione delle controversie del lavoro
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nancy Delay

      Defendants: Università degli Studi di Firenze, Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS), Italian Republic
   Question referred
   On a proper construction of Article 39 of the founding Treaty and secondary acts (in particular, the interpretations given in Cases C-212/99 and C-119/04), are the rules valid which are applied to so-called ‘exchange assistants’, who were previously bound by fixed-term contracts (under Law No 62/1967), and who, when such contracts are replaced by contracts of indefinite duration, are not guaranteed the protection of all their rights from the date of their original recruitment, in respect not only of salary increases but also of seniority and the payment by the employer of social security contributions?


title: Case T-375/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2007 — Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie v Commission (State aid — Measures to promote the use of insulating materials produced from renewable raw materials — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market — Preliminary investigation procedure — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Notion of party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC — Commission's duty to initiate the inter partes procedure)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/44

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 September 2007 — Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie v Commission
   (Case T-375/03) (1)

   (State aid - Measures to promote the use of insulating materials produced from renewable raw materials - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the common market - Preliminary investigation procedure - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Notion of party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC - Commission's duty to initiate the inter partes procedure)
   (2007/C 269/78)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche Gruppe der Eurima — European Insulation Manufacturers Association (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: T. Schmidt-Kötters, D. Uwer and K. Najork, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and M. Niejahr, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially, W.-D. Plessing, M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, and subsequently W.-D. Plessing and C. Schulze-Bahr, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1473 final of 9 July 2003 declaring the measures which the German authorities propose to take to promote the use of insulating materials produced from renewable raw materials compatible with the common market (State aid No 694/2002).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie eV Deutsche Gruppe der Eurima — European Insulation Manufacturers Association to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.


title: Case T-81/16: Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (A pair of curved strips positioned on the side of a tyre) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a pair of curved strips on the side of a tyre — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 July 2017 — Pirelli Tyre v EUIPO (A pair of curved strips positioned on the side of a tyre)
   (Case T-81/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for an EU trade mark consisting of a pair of curved strips on the side of a tyre - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 277/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: T.M. Müller and F. Togo, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2015 (Case R 1019/2015-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of a pair of curved strips on the side of a tyre as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pirelli Tyre SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 June 1998 in Case T-148/97: David T. Keeling v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) - Decision of the President of the Office concerning the organisation of the Boards of Appeal - Action for annulment - Article 173 of the EC Treaty - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 258/34              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.8.98
Champagne (France), represented by FrancËois Sarda, of              Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            Registrar, made an order on 30 June 1998, the operative
at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-             part of which is as follows:
Croix, v Council of the European Union (Agent: John
Carbery), supported by Commission of the European                   1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action in this
Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð application for                case.
annulment of Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                  2. There is no need to adjudicate             either on the
(EEC) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                       applications to intervene by the          Foreign Trade
market in beef and veal (OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 50)                 Association and the ConfeÂdeÂration      EuropeÂenne de
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed                 l'Industrie de la Chaussure, or on        the applicants'
of: J. Azizi, President, and R. García-Valdecasas and M.                application for confidential treatment.
Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
25 June 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:            3. The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and
                                                                        one-half of the costs of the applicants, who are
                                                                        ordered to bear the remainder thereof.
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                    4. The applicants to intervene are ordered to bear their
2. The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall be               own costs.
    jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the
    Council. The Commission shall bear its own costs.               (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997 and OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 June 1998
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           in Case T-148/97: David T. Keeling v Office for
          (First Chamber, Extended Composition)                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                       of 30 June 1998                                                        Designs) (1)
in Case T-73/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear                  (Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Supplies Ltd v Commission of the European                           Marks and Designs) Ð Decision of the President of the
                       Communities (1)                              Office concerning the organisation of the Boards of
                                                                    Appeal Ð Action for annulment Ð Article 173 of the EC
(Dumping Ð Textile footwear originating in the People's                               Treaty Ð Inadmissibility)
Republic of China and Indonesia Ð Commission
                                                                                (98/C 258/60)
Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty Ð
Action for annulment Ð Subsequent regulation imposing                              (Language of the case: English)
 a definitive anti-dumping duty Ð No need to adjudicate)
                        (98/C 258/59)                               In Case T-148/97: David T. Keeling, member of a Board
                                                                    of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
               (Language of the case: English)                      Market (Trade Marks and Designs), residing in Alicante
                                                                    (Spain), represented by Arthur Alan Dashwood, Barrister,
                                                                    of the Bar of England and Wales, instructed by Edward
In Case T-73/97: British Shoe Corporation Footwear
                                                                    Lewis, Solicitors, with an address for service in
Supplies Ltd, with its registered office in Leicester (United
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22
Kingdom), Clarks International Ltd, with its registered
                                                                    Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde, against Office for Harmonisation in
office in Somerset (United Kingdom), Deichmann-Schuhe
                                                                    the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Agents:
GmbH & Co. Vertriebs KG, with its registered office in
                                                                    Oreste Montalto and JoaÄo Paulo Miranda de Sousa) Ð
Essen (Germany), Groupe AndreÂ SA, with its registered
                                                                    application for annulment of Decision No ADM-97-3 of
office in Paris, Reno Versandhandel GmbH, with its
                                                                    the President of the Office for Harmonisation in the
registered office in Thaleischweiler-Froschen (Germany),
                                                                    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February
Leder & Schuh AG, with its registered office in Graz
                                                                    1997 concerning the organisation of the Boards of Appeal
(Austria), represented by Alasdair Bell and Mark Powell,
                                                                    Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges;
the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
                                                                    H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 1998, the
the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                    operative part of which is as follows:
Nicholas Khan) Ð application for the annulment of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 165/97 of 28 January                  1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
1997 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on
imports of certain footwear with textile uppers originating         2. The applicant shall bear the costs.
in the People's Republic of China and Indonesia (OJ L 29
of 31.1.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court of First Instance (First            (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura


title: Case C-20/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2013 — Daniel Unland v Land Berlin

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2013 — Daniel Unland v Land Berlin
   (Case C-20/13)
   2013/C 86/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Daniel Unland

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Land judges?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a judge on establishment of the status of judge, and the subsequent rise in that basic pay, is dependent on his age constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience and/or interpersonal skills?

               4.

               If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the judges’ having enforced that claim in good time?

               6.

               If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative: does it follow from the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law that a transitional law — under which existing judges are placed on a step of the new system solely according to the amount of the basic pay they attained under the old (discriminatory) law on remuneration on the transition date, and according to which further progression to higher steps is thereupon calculated essentially according to the periods of experience attained since the entry into force of the transitional law, irrespective of the judge’s absolute period of experience — constitutes a perpetuation of the existing age discrimination, continuing until the highest pay step is reached in each case?

               7.

               If Question 6 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law conflict with a justification of this unrestricted, continuing difference in treatment by the legislative aim whereby the transitional law is to protect not (only) the acquired rights of existing judges existing on the transition date but (also) the expectation of the lifetime income in the respective pay grade that was forecast to be paid under the old law on remuneration, and new judges are to be paid better than existing judges?
               Can the continuing discrimination against existing judges be justified by the fact that the regulatory alternative (individual placement also of existing judges according to periods of experience) would involve increased administrative expenditure?

               8.

               If such justification is rejected in Question 7: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, until a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has been implemented also for existing judges, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective and continuing remuneration of existing judges at the highest pay step in their pay grade?

               9.

               If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative and Question 6 is answered in the negative: does it follow from the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law that a provision of a transitional law which secures faster pay progression from a certain pay step onwards for existing judges who had reached a certain age at the time of transition than for existing judges who were younger on the transition date constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               10.

               If Question 9 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law conflict with a justification of this difference in treatment by the legislative aim of protecting not the acquired rights existing on the transition date but only the expectation of the lifetime income in the respective pay grade that was forecast to be paid under the old law on remuneration?

               11.

               If such justification is rejected in Question 10: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, until a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has been implemented also for existing judges, permit a legal consequence other than that of securing — retrospectively and on a continuing basis — the same pay progression for all existing judges as the favoured judges referred to in Question 9?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-375/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2007/64/EC — Payment services in the internal market — Framework contracts — Prior general information — Obligation to provide that information on paper or on another durable medium — Information transmitted by means of the electronic mailbox of an online banking website)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG v Verein für Konsumenteninformation
   (Case C-375/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2007/64/EC - Payment services in the internal market - Framework contracts - Prior general information - Obligation to provide that information on paper or on another durable medium - Information transmitted by means of the electronic mailbox of an online banking website))
   (2017/C 078/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BAWAG PSK Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft und Österreichische Postsparkasse AG

      Defendant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 41(1) and 44(1) of Directive 2007/64/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on payment services in the internal market, amending Directives 97/7/EC, 2002/65/EC, 2005/60/EC and 2006/48/EC and repealing Directive 97/5/EC, as amended by Directive 2009/111/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, read in conjunction with Article 4(25) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that changes to the information and conditions, provided for under Article 42 of that directive, and changes to the framework contract as well, which are transmitted by the payment service provider to the user of those services through the electronic mailbox of an online banking website, may not be considered to have been provided on a durable medium within the meaning of those provisions, unless these two conditions are met:

               —

               that that website allows the user to store information addressed to him personally in such a way that he may access it and reproduce it unchanged for an adequate period, without any unilateral modification of its content by that service provider or by another professional being possible; and

               —

               if the payment service user is obliged to consult that internet website in order to become aware of that information, the transmission of that information is accompanied by active behaviour on the part of the provider aimed at drawing the user’s attention to the existence and availability of that information on that website.

         In the event of the payment service user being obliged to consult such a website in order to become aware of the relevant information, that information is merely made available to that user within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 36(1) of Directive 2007/64, as amended by Directive 2009/111, when the transmission of that information is not accompanied by such active behaviour on the part of the payment service provider.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case C-222/11 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Performing Science LLC (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 7(1)(d) — Word sign ‘5 HTP’ — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/12

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 December 2011 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Performing Science LLC
   (Case C-222/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 7(1)(d) - Word sign ‘5 HTP’ - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2012/C 73/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc (represented by: J. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Performing Science LLC

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2011 in Case T-190/09 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Performing Science (5 HTP) relating to an action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 April 2009 (Case R 595/2008-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Performing Science LLC and Longevity Health Products, Inc. — Distinctive character of the word sign 5 HTP

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Longevity Health Products Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 1999 in Case T-21/98: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Compatibility of the status of an official with that of a member of the temporary staff - Resignation - Obligation to state reasons - Call for expressions of interest)

text:
C 100/18             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.4.1999
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise Parmentier,
                                                                   of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    of 11 February 1999                            Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
in Case T-244/97: Chantal Mertens v. Commission of the             Rue de Cessange, v. Commission of the European
                 European Communities (1)                          Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian
                                                                   Currall) Ð application for annulment of the Commission's
(Officials Ð Competitions Ð Conditions for admission Ð             decision of 11 March 1997 rejecting the candidature of
                         Evidence)                                 the applicant, an official of the institution, for a post
                      (1999/C 100/34)                              advertised in the context of a procedure for the selection
                                                                   of temporary staff Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                   Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
                                                                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 1999,
In Case T-244/97: Chantal Mertens, an official of the              in which it:
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Zellik (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 11 March 1997
the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8-10 Rue Mathias                     rejecting the candidature of Carlos Alberto Leite
Hardt, v. Commission of the European Communities                       Mateus for the vacant post advertised under reference
(Agent: Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for                   No NPPR/2002/96.
annulment of the implicit decision rejecting the complaint
lodged by the applicant on 28 January 1997 and, in so far
as may be necessary, of the decisions of the selection             2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
board in competition COM/C/3/95, notified to the
applicant on 13 January and 22 August 1997, refusing to            (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
include her name in the list of suitable candidates for that
competition, together with annulment of the decision
notified to the applicant on 9 June 1997 by the Director-
General of the Directorate-General for Personnel and
Administration Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.
Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
11 February 1999, in which it:
                                                                                of 11 February 1999
1. Dismisses the application.                                      in Case T-79/98: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez v.
                                                                   European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal
                                                                                Products (EMEA) (1)
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                   (Temporary staff Ð Grading Ð Professional experience Ð
 1
                                                                   Manifest error of assessment Ð Acquired rights Ð Duty
( ) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.
                                                                   to have regard for the welfare and interests of staff Ð
                                                                   Reasonable career prospects Ð Equality of treatment and
                                                                    non-discrimination Ð Absence of a statement of reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/36)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 11 February 1999
                                                                   In Case T-79/98: Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, a
in Case T-21/98: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus v.                    member of the temporary staff of the European Agency
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, residing in
(Officials Ð Compatibility of the status of an official with       London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis and FrancËoise
that of a member of the temporary staff Ð Resignation Ð            Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Obligation to state reasons Ð Call for expressions of              in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
                          interest)                                30 Rue de Cessange, v. European Agency for the
                                                                   Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) (Agents:
                      (1999/C 100/35)                              Marino Riva, Frances Nuttall, Denis Waelbroeck and
                                                                   Olivier Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the
               (Language of the case: French)                      decision fixing the applicant's grade as grade A 7, step 3,
                                                                   upon his engagement as a member of the temporary staff
                                                                   Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed
In Case T-21/98: Carlos Alberto Leite Mateus, an official          of: M. Jaeger, President, and K.- Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
of the Commission of the European Communities,                     Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the


title: Case T-430/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Dascalu v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Review of classification in grade and step — Application of the Court of Justice's case-law — Articles 5 and 31(2), the second paragraph of Article 32 and Articles 45 and 62 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2007 — Dascalu v Commission
   (Case T-430/03) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Review of classification in grade and step - Application of the Court of Justice's case-law - Articles 5 and 31(2), the second paragraph of Article 32 and Articles 45 and 62 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 95/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Iosif Dascalu (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoest, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, L. Lozano Palacios and H. Krämer, originally, and then by C. Berardis-Kayser and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the Commission's decisions of 23 December 2002 and 14 April 2003 altering the applicant's classification in grade, in so far as they fix his classification in step on recruitment in Grade A6, first step, fix 5 October 1995 as the date on which they were to take pecuniary effect and do not re-establish the applicant's career in grade and, so far as may be necessary, an application for annulment of the decisions rejecting the applicant's complaints and, second, an application seeking compensation for the damage allegedly caused by those decisions.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 14 April 2003 in so far as it fixes 5 October 1995 as the starting point of its pecuniary effects.

               2.

               Rules that the Commission is to undertake a comparative examination of the applicant's merits and those of the officials promoted to Grade A5 since 16 April 1993, and then to Grade A4 since 16 January 1998.

               3.

               Following that examination and if the Commission should be unable to award the applicant such promotion in grade as may appear justified, invites the parties to seek agreement as to appropriate compensation, taking into account, if appropriate, the application for damages by way of compensation made by the applicant.

               4.

               Rules that the parties are to inform the Court within three months of the delivery of this judgment of the content of any agreement they may have reached, failing which, of their conclusions, with figures, as to the assessment of the loss sustained.

               5.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               6.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.


title: Joined Cases T-392/03, T-408/03, T-414/03 and T-435/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2008 — Regione Siciliana v Commission (Action for annulment — ERDF — Withdrawal of financial aid — Recovery of sums already paid — Claims for payment of default interest — Compensation — Regional or local entity — No direct concern — Admissibility)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 September 2008 — Regione Siciliana v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-392/03, T-408/03, T-414/03 and T-435/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - ERDF - Withdrawal of financial aid - Recovery of sums already paid - Claims for payment of default interest - Compensation - Regional or local entity - No direct concern - Admissibility)
   (2008/C 313/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Regione Siciliana (Italy) (represented by: G. Aiello and A. Cingolo, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March, L. Flynn and G. Wilms, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   Case T-392/03: application to annul the Commission's letter of 6 October 2003, as far as it concerns the procedure for recovery of sums paid by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) in respect of the infrastructure project ‘Dam across the Gibbesi’ and the earlier and derivative acts; Case T-408/03: application for annulment of of the letter of 6 October 2003 as far as it concerns the procedure for the recovery of sums paid by the ERDF for the infrastructure projects ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Plain of Catania’ and the earlier and derivative acts, including the Commission's letter of 13 August 2003 and 14 August 2003; Case T-414/03: application for annulment of the letter of 6 October 2003 in so far as it concerns the procedure for the recovery of sums paid by the ERDF of the infrastructure project ‘Messine-Palermo Motorway’ and the earlier and derivative acts, including Commission debit note No 3240406591 of 25 September 2002, and in Case T-435/03: application to annul the Commission's letter of 24 October 2003 relating to the offsetting of Commission credits and debt connected to the ERDF assistance ‘Porto Empedocle’, ‘Dam across the Gibbesi’, ‘Messine-Palermo’, ‘Aragona Favara’ and ‘Plain of Catania’ together with the earlier and derivative acts.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The actions are dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Regione Siciliana is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.


C 333/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.11.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/98 (1)                ordered the removal from the register of Case C-345/98:
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.
                       (1999/C 333/50)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
By order of 21 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-331/98: Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-20/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/53)
                                                                     By order of 30 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case    C-39/99 (1)              the register of Case C-20/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg):
                       (1999/C 333/51)                               Karl-Heinz Meinert v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Salzburg-
                                                                     Umgebung.
By order of 22 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-39/99: Commission of the European             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-106/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/98 (1)                By order of 5 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                     the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
                       (1999/C 333/52)                               register of Case C-106/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
By order of 29 June 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case C-315/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014  — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2014 — Marchon Germany GmbH v Yvonne Karaszkiewicz
   (Case C-315/14)
   2014/C 329/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Defendant and appellant: Marchon Germany GmbH

      Applicant and respondent: Yvonne Karaszkiewicz

      Question referred

   Must the first indent of Article 17(2)(a) [of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents] (1) be interpreted as precluding the application of a national provision under which ‘new customers’ can also be customers acquired by the commercial agent who have already maintained business relations with the principal for products sold by him from a range of products but not for products whose sole representation the principal has entrusted to the agent?

      (1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.


title: Case F-23/11 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — AY v Council (Civil service — Officials — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Promotion — 2010 promotion procedure — Consideration of comparative merits — Decision not to promote the applicant)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — AY v Council
   (Case F-23/11 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Promotion - 2010 promotion procedure - Consideration of comparative merits - Decision not to promote the applicant))
   (2014/C 431/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AY (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A.F. Jensen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Council’s decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted to Grade AST 9 under the 2010 promotion procedure and compensation for the non-material harm suffered. Case T-167/12 P referred back by the General Court after appeal.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that AY is to bear his own costs incurred in Cases F-23/11, T-167/12 P and F-23/11 RENV respectively and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F-23/11;

               3.

               Declares that the Council of the European Union is to bear its own costs incurred in Cases T-167/12 P and F-23/11 RENV.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30/07/2011, p. 31.


title: Case C-681/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/11

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 23 December 2013 — Diageo Brands BV v Simiramida-04 EOOD
      (Case C-681/13)
      (2014/C 71/18)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Diageo Brands BV

         Respondent: Simiramida-04 EOOD

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Must Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) be interpreted as meaning that that ground for refusal is also applicable in a case where the decision of the court of the Member State of origin is manifestly contrary to European Union law, and that fact has been recognised by that court?

                  2.

                              (a)

                              Must Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that successful reliance on that ground for refusal is precluded by the fact that the party which has recourse to that ground for refusal failed to make use of the legal remedies available in the Member State of origin of the decision?

                              (b)

                              If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative, would the position be different if the utilisation of the legal remedies in the Member State of origin of the decision was pointless because it has to be assumed that it would not have led to any different decision?

                  3.

                  Must Article 14 of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that that provision is also applicable to the costs incurred by the parties in the context of proceedings for damages brought in a Member State if the claim and the defence relate to the alleged liability of the defendant by reason of the seizures which it made and the notices which it served with a view to enforcing its trade mark rights in another Member State, and in that connection a question arises concerning the recognition in the former Member State of a decision of the court in the latter Member State?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

         (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45).


title: Case C-441/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 5(3) — Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Copyright — Dematerialised content — Placing online — Determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage — Criteria)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/7

      Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Pez Hejduk v EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH
      (Case C-441/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 5(3) - Special jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict - Copyright - Dematerialised content - Placing online - Determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage - Criteria))
      (2015/C 107/08)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Handelsgericht Wien

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Pez Hejduk

         Defendant: EnergieAgentur.NRW GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of an allegation of infringement of copyright and rights related to copyright guaranteed by the Member State of the court seised, that court has jurisdiction, on the basis of the place where the damage occurred, to hear an action for damages in respect of an infringement of those rights resulting from the placing of protected photographs online on a website accessible in its territorial jurisdiction. That court has jurisdiction only to rule on the damage caused in the Member State within which the court is situated.

         (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2005 in Case T-287/03 Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA) v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — No disclosure of a document emanating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/18

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 June 2005
   in Case T-287/03 Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA) v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - No disclosure of a document emanating from a Member State without the prior consent of that State)
   (2005/C 229/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-287/03: Società imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl (SIMSA), established in Portici (Italy), represented by M. Calabrese, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di Bucci and P. Aalto) — Application for the annulment of the Commission decision refusing the applicant access to certain documents concerning a State aid scheme declared compatible with the common market by the Commission decision of 12 July 2000 [SG (2000) D105754 — Aid No 715/99] — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Švaby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 4. 10. 2003


title: Case F-50/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission (Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2004 appraisal exercise — General implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/40

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission
   (Case F-50/06) (1)

   (Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2004 appraisal exercise - General implementing provisions of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 26 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 96/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career development report for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls Ms Lebedef-Caponi's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 2.7.2006, p. 27.


title: Case C-388/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Ancona v Regione Marche (Structural Funds — European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) — Financial contribution from a Structural Fund — Criteria for the eligibility of expenditure — Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Article 30(4) — Principle of durability of the operation — ‘Substantial modification’ of an operation — Award of a concession contract without advertisement or a competitive tendering procedure)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Italy) — Comune di Ancona v Regione Marche
   (Case C-388/12) (1)

   (Structural Funds - European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) - Financial contribution from a Structural Fund - Criteria for the eligibility of expenditure - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Article 30(4) - Principle of durability of the operation - ‘Substantial modification’ of an operation - Award of a concession contract without advertisement or a competitive tendering procedure)
   2014/C 9/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comune di Ancona

      Defendant: Regione Marche

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per le Marche — Interpretation of Article 30(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1) — Withdrawal and recovery of Community financial aid — Concept of ‘Substantial modification’ — Relationship between, first, the condition for modifying the use of the operation or detailed rules for its exercise and, second, the condition for modifying the condition of lack of undue advantage on the part of an undertaking or public body — Functional modification — Condition of compliance of the financed operations with European Union provisions concerning public works contracts — Partial change of use of the works financed and concession of the management thereof to a private operator outside a procedure for awarding public works contracts

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 30(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds must be interpreted as meaning that the modifications referred to in that provision include, not only those that take place during the performance of a project, but also those that take place afterwards, in particular in the course of the project’s management, provided that those modifications take place within the five-year period specified in that provision.

               2.

               Article 30(4) of Regulation No 1260/1999 must be interpreted as meaning that in order to undertake an assessment as to whether the grant of the concession generates substantial revenue for the contracting authority or undue advantage for the concessionaire, it is not first necessary to establish whether the works under concession have undergone a substantial modification.

               3.

               Article 30(4) of Regulation No 1260/1999 must be interpreted as referring both to physical modifications — where the works carried out are not as specified in the project approved for funding — and to modifications affecting function, it being understood that, in the case of a modification consisting in the use of works for activities other than those originally envisaged in the project submitted for funding, such a modification must be capable of significantly reducing the capacity of the operation in question to attain its designated objective.

               4.

               In circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, EU law does not preclude the award, without a call for tenders, of a public service concession relating to works, provided that that award is consistent with the principle of transparency, observance of which, without necessarily entailing an obligation to call for tenders, must make it possible for an undertaking located in the territory of a Member State other than that of the contracting authority to have access to appropriate information regarding that concession before it is awarded, so that, if that undertaking so wishes, it would be in a position to express its interest in obtaining that concession — it being for the referring court to determine whether that was the position in the case before it.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29.9.2012.


title: Case C-447/11 P: Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by Caffaro Srl under special administration (formerly Caffaro Srl) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-192/06 Caffaro v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/28

         Appeal brought on 31 August 2011 by Caffaro Srl under special administration (formerly Caffaro Srl) against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-192/06 Caffaro v Commission
   (Case C-447/11 P)
   2011/C 311/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Caffaro Srl, under special administration (formerly Caffaro Srl) (represented by: A. Santa Maria, C. Biscaretti di Ruffia and E. Gambaro, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal and, accordingly, annul Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 in so far as it imposed on Caffaro Srl, jointly and severally with SNIA SpA, a fine of EUR 1 078 million or, in the alternative;

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal and, as a consequence, annul the parts of the decision covered by such pleas put forward in the present notice of appeal as the Court may find to be acceptable and well founded;

               —

               In the alternative, reduce to a nominal amount or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the appellant, taking account of the legal grounds and facts put forward in the present notice of appeal;

               —

               In the further alternative, refer the matter back to the General Court for a fresh decision in accordance with any guidance and criteria which the Court is minded to provide in the present appeal proceedings;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first ground of appeal, Caffaro alleges breach of Article 101 TFEU, Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, (1) and the Commission Guidelines on the method of setting fines, (2) incorrect legal characterisation, distortion of the facts and some of the evidence, breach of the duty to state reasons and lack of reasoning and contradictory reasoning in the part of the judgment under appeal in which the General Court dismissed as irrelevant Caffaro’s situation of economic dependence in the market concerned and the harm suffered by it specifically as a result of the cartel.
   By its second ground of appeal, Caffaro alleges that the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment and Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 as well as the Commission Guidelines on the method of setting fines, with regard to the reference year taken into account by the Commission in the decision in connection with what is referred to as ‘different treatment’. In particular, the complaint relates to the attribution to all the participants in the purported infringement (except Caffaro) of market shares for 1999.
   By the third ground of appeal, Caffaro claims that the General Court erred as regards the claim that the fact that the appellant did not participate in the unlawful contracts of 26 November 1998 did not have any effect on the duration of Caffaro’s participation. In particular, Caffaro alleges breach of Article 23(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and the Commission Guidelines on the method of setting fines with regard to duration, failure to state adequate reasons, incorrect appraisal of the facts and breach of the obligation to state reasons.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, which relates to the claim that the Commission’s action is out of time and therefore time-barred, Caffaro alleges misapplication of Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003, distortion and incorrect legal characterisation of the facts, misuse of power, breach of the general principles of European Union law, breach of its rights of defence and failure to state adequate reasons in the judgment under appeal. In particular, Caffaro contends that the General Court failed to take account of the Commission’s lack of action for a year after the act interrupting the limitation period, before sending to the appellant a request for information, without carrying out any investigation and without providing any express reasons.
   Lastly, by the fifth ground of appeal, Caffaro alleges that the judgment under appeal failed to state adequate reasons and incorrectly assessed the attenuating circumstances on which Caffaro relied before the Commission. The appellant submits that the General Court also acted in breach of the rules of procedure and incorrectly assessed some of the evidence, to its detriment.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1. p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3.


title: Case F-73/10: Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Coedo Suárez v Council

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/63

         Action brought on 3 September 2010 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case F-73/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/101
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ángel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the defendant rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation and his claim for compensation for material and non-material damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation and, if necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the claim in full;

               —

               with regard to compensation for material damage, order the defendant to pay the sum, fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, of EUR 450 000, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment;

               —

               with regard to compensation for non-material damage, order the defendant, as the principal claim, properly to reinstate the applicant and to pay him a symbolic Euro or, in the alternative, to pay him the sum, fixed provisionally and ex aequo et bono, of EUR 300 000, together with late payment interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-459/14: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Fadil Cocaj v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/23

         Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Fadil Cocaj v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-459/14) (1)

   (2015/C 398/31)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.