title: Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Case T-22/95)

text:
No C 74/16             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25 . 3 . 95
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Winfried
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                             Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Munster, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
                                                                     Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare the action admissible and well founded,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 5 April          1 . order the defendants jointly to pay to the applicant
    1994 appointing the applicant to grade A7, step 5, and               SLOM I compensation for the period from 16 October
    the implicit refusal to appoint her to grade A6,                      1985 to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 53 550,
                                                                         together with interest thereon at 8% from 19 May
— annul the implied decision rejecting the complaint                      1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings;
    submitted by the applicant on 4 July 1994, which was
    received in the Secretariat-General of the Commission            2 . joint the present action to that already pending in Case
    on 4 July 1994,                                                      T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
                                                                         Commission and also stay the proceedings.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
The applicant, an official in grade A7, step 5 , contests the        Case T-20/94 .
decision of the appointing authority refusing to appoint her
to grade A6.
She pleads, first, an infringement of Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff
Regulations, and also contends that there has been a
manifest error of assessment in the present case, in that her
appointment takes into account neither her considerable
professional experience in the field in which she has been           Action brought on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger
established nor her significant intellectual and human               against Council of the European Union and Commission of
qualities.                                                                            the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-22/95 )
The applicant further asserts that Article 5 ( 3)of the Staff                                ( 95/C 74/32 )
Regulations and the principle of equality of treatment of
officials have been disregarded, inasmuch as she was
appointed to grade A7 whilst , other officials possessing                          (Language of the case: German)
qualifications and professional experience inferior to, or at
best equivalent to, her own were appointed to grade A6 in
the context of a recruitment competition based on tests or           An action against the Council of the European Union and
on qualifications and tests.                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 9 February 1995 by Therese Schweiger,
                                                                     Ampfing (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by
                                                                     Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten,
                                                                     Frank Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte,
                                                                     Munster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
Action brought on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau
against Council of the European Union and Commission of
                 the European Communities                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
                        (Case T-20/95 )
                          ( 95/C 74/31 )                             1 . order the defendants jointly to pay the applicant
                                                                         SLOM I compensation for the period from 2 April 1984
                                                                         to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 193 229 ,
              (Language of the case: German)                             together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May
                                                                         1992, and jointly to pay the costs of the proceedings as
                                                                         well as those of the assessor in the amount of DM
An action against the Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       3 663,43 ;
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 February 1995 by Burghardt Wetterau,               2 . join the present action to that already pending in Case
Sontra-Lindenau (Federal Republic of Germany),                           T-77/93 Hülseberg and Others v. Council and
represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,                      Commission and also stay the proceedings .
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 3 . 95         | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 74/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case T-248/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/35 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-248/94 : Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian
Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-24/95 )
                           ( 95/C 74/33 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-249/94 ( )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/36 )
An action against the Council of the European Union and                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Communities on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Jacobsen, Jarplund-Weding ( Federal Republic of Germany),             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
represented by Dr. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                 T-249/94: Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Communities .
of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendants to pay compensation to the
     applicant for the period of five milk years from 1 April
     1988 in the amount of DM 24 540, together with                          Removal from the register of Case T-250/94 ( )
     interest of 8% from 17 December 1983 .                                                       ( 95/C 74/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-20/94 .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-250/94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-l 24/93 ( )
                            ( 95/C 74/34 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-251/94 ( x )
               (Language of the case: German)                                                     ( 95/C 74/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 20 January 1995 the President of the First
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First                  By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-l 24/9 3 : Georg Werner v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                              T-251 /94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
 (M OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case C-40/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union — Method of adjustment — Article 65 of the Staff Regulations — Articles 1 and 3 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Exception clause — Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Council’s discretion — Adjustment differing from that proposed by the Commission — Review clause allowing for intermediate adjustment of remunerations)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 November 2010 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-40/10) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union - Method of adjustment - Article 65 of the Staff Regulations - Articles 1 and 3 to 7 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Exception clause - Article 10 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Council’s discretion - Adjustment differing from that proposed by the Commission - Review clause allowing for intermediate adjustment of remunerations)
   2011/C 30/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and D. Waelbroeck, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and A. Neergaard, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: B. Weis Fogh, Agent), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and B. Klein, Agents), Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and S. Chala, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas and R. Krasuckaitė, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Seeboruth, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto (OJ 2009 L 348, p. 10) — Failure to respect the method for the adjustment of salaries and pensions for a reference period — Breach of Article 65 of the Staff Regulations of officials and of Articles 1 and 3 to 7 of Annex XI thereto — Discretion of the Council — Protection of legitimate expectations and the ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ principle — Review clause allowing the intermediate adjustment of remuneration

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 2 and 4 to 18 of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Articles 2 and 4 to 17 of Regulation No 1296/2009 until the entry into force of a new regulation adopted by the Council of the European Union in order to ensure compliance with this judgment;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Parliament to bear their own coasts.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case T-378/09: Action brought on 30 September 2009 — SPAR v OHIM — SPA Group Europe (SPA GROUP)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/58

         Action brought on 30 September 2009 — SPAR v OHIM — SPA Group Europe (SPA GROUP)
   (Case T-378/09)
   2009/C 282/109
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SPAR Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Schenefeld) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: SPA Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG (Nürnberg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 July 2009 in case R 123/2008-1 for being incompatible with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1);

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the opposition and appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: SPA Group Europe Ltd & Co. KG

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SPA GROUP’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 41 and 44 (Application No 4 038 171)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German figurative mark ‘SPAR’ for goods and services in Classes 1 to 36 and 38 to 41 (No 30 108 039.9) and the figurative German mark ‘SPAR’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 39 (No 30 404 087.8)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the two marks at issue

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 26 January 1996 by Donald George Gage and David John Gage against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-11/96)

text:
No C 133/24          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4. 5 . 96
adversely affect the possibility for a part transferee of the       Action brought on 6 February 1996 by John Carvel and
land to produce a proper quantity of milk on it for up to ten       Guardian Newspapers Limited against the Council of the
years from the expiry of that period.                                                       European Union
                                                                                ( Case T-19/96 )
SLOM III producers are a clearly defined group. Just as the                                    ( 96/C 133/56 )
Community legislature has recognized that it must treat
differently those producers who held on to their entire
holdings thoughout the period of their non-marketing                                (Language of the case: English)
schemes and those who transferred a part of it, treating them
as two separate groups for SLOM allocation purposes, the
Community authorities must know that for that group of              An action against the Council of the European Union was
part-transferors there exists a corresponding separate and          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 6 February 1996 by John Carvel and
distinct group of 'part-transferees'.
                                                                    Guardian Newspapers Limited, represented by Onno
                                                                    W. Brouwer and Frédéric P. Louis, with an address for
The applicant finally contends that his legitimate                  service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
expectation that he would be able to resume milk                    11 , rue Goethe .
production at the end of the non-marketing scheme with
which he had agreed to comply, has been frustrated by the
Council and the       Commission's     failure  to  introduce       The applicants claim that the Court should:
SLOM III quota until 1993 .
                                                                    — annul the decision of the Council whereby the Council
                                                                         refuses access to the text of the decisions adopted by the
                                                                        Justice and Home Affairs             Council of 29      and
                                                                         30 November 1993 ,
                                                                    — order the Council to pay the applicants' costs pursuant
                                                                         ot Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
Action brought on 26 January 1996 by Donald George                       First Instance .
Gage and David John Gage against the Council of the
European Union and the Commission of the European
                         Communities                                Pleas in law and main arguments
                       ( Case T-11 /96 )
                          96/C 133/55                               The same applicants as in Case T-194/94 resolved by
                                                                    judgment of 19 October 1 995 , challenge the Council's
                                                                    decision in its letter of 27 November 1995 , refusing to
              (Language of the case: English)                       distribute to them the text of the decisions adopted by the
                                                                    Justice and Home Affairs Council of 29 and 30 November
                                                                    1993 .
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was brought              In the abovementioned judgment, the Court of First
before the Court of First Instance of the European                  Instance found that the defendant, by refusing to send to the
Communities on 26 January 1 996 by Donald George Gage               applicants documents relating to a Justice and Home Affairs
and David John Gage, represented by Alan Maclean and                Council, as well as documents relating to an Agricultural
Joanne Keddie, Dawson & Co, 2 New Square, Lincoln's                 Council, had failed to balance the interest it may have in
Inn, London WC2A 3RZ, England .                                     keeping the said documents confidential, in order to
                                                                    safeguard the confidentiality of its proceedings, with the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         interest of the applicants in gaining access to those
                                                                    documents. The contested decision in the present case was
                                                                    taken in order to comply with that judgment.
— order damages against the Council and/or the
    Commission as per a report of D R Gasson, included in
    the application, and                                            The applicants submit first of all that the decision
                                                                    constituted by the Council's letter of 27 November 1995
— order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the                infringes Council Decision 93/731 , in so far as the defendant
    costs .                                                         institution, contrary to the wording of that Decision, which
                                                                    lays down rules on access to documents, sent to the
                                                                    applicants a press release containing a list of the decisions
Pleas in law and main arguments                                     taken at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs
                                                                    Council on 29 and 30 November 1993 , instead of providing
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those           them with the actual text of the documents they had
in Case T- 1 0/96 Benjamin Laurence Lay.                            requested .
                                                                    As a second ground for annulment, the applicants submit
                                                                    that the Council did not provide the applicants with any


title: Case C-435/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/28

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-435/08)
   (2008/C 301/43)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Simonsson and M. Owsiany-Hornung, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by excluding all recreation craft from the scope of the regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 13 December 2002 on detailed conditions for the safety of navigation by marine vessels, which transposed into national law certain provisions of Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC (1), and by adopting the provisions in paragraph 3.3 of the regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 12 May 2003 on the transmission of information by the owner of a vessel carrying dangerous or polluting cargo, which transposed into national law Article 13 of Directive 2002/59/EC and enables owners of vessels sailing from Polish ports, if at the time of leaving port the name of the port of destination or the anchorage is not known, not to transmit the general information concerning the vessel and information on its cargo (specified in Annex I(3) to Directive 2002/59/EC) until the time of fixing the vessel's route, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 13 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 13 of Directive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC.
   The Republic of Poland has incorrectly implemented Article 2 of Directive 2002/59/EC, which excludes from its scope ‘fishing vessels, traditional ships and recreational craft with a length of less than 45 metres’.
   Point 2 of paragraph 2.1 of the regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 13 December 2002 on detailed conditions for the safety of navigation by marine vessels, which transposed into national law certain provisions of the directive, goes further in this respect, excluding all recreational craft from its scope. The Commission considers that such a limitation of the scope of the directive is contrary to the provisions of Article 2.
   The Republic of Poland has further failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2002/59/EC. Article 13(1) of the directive lays down that the ‘operator, agent or master of a ship, irrespective of its size, carrying dangerous or polluting goods and leaving a port of a Member State shall, at the latest at the moment of departure, notify the information indicated in Annex I(3) to the competent authority designated by that Member State’.
   A similar obligation is laid down by paragraph 3.1 of the regulation of the Minister for Infrastructure of 12 May 2003 on the transmission of information by the owner of a vessel carrying dangerous or polluting cargo. However, paragraph 3.3 of that regulation states that ‘if at the time of leaving port the name of the port of destination or the anchorage is not known, the information … is to be transmitted at the latest at the time of fixing the vessel's route’.
   That possibility is not limited to the specific case mentioned in Article 13(2) of the directive (‘a ship … coming from a port located outside the Community and bound for a port of a Member State or an anchorage located in a Member State's territorial waters’). The divergence relating to the time of transmission of the information is in the Commission's view contrary to Article 13 of the directive.

      (1)  OJ L 208, 5.8.2002, p. 10.


title: Case T-160/03: Action brought on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Management Consultants, Patrick Mc Mullin and Seamus O'Grady against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 200/24               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          23.8.2003
Action brought on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Management                          tance tenders, the applicants claim that the Commission incor-
Consultants, Patrick Mc Mullin and Seamus O'Grady                          rectly awarded the contract to this consortium after the second
   against the Commission of the European Communities                      evaluation took place.
                          (Case T-160/03)                                  The applicants also claim that the Commission allowed the
                                                                           second evaluation committee to consider previous experience
                                                                           in TACIS projects in breach of paragraph 3 of Annex III of
                          (2003/C 200/43)                                  regulation 1279/1996 and discredited the previous successful
                                                                           work of the applicants.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2003 by AFCon Manage-
ment Consultants, Bray, Ireland, Patrick Mc Mullin, Bray,
Ireland and Seamus O'Grady, Bray, Ireland, represented by                  Action brought on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm
Mr B. O'Conner, Solicitor and Mr I. Carreño, lawyer.                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-177/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     require the Commission to pay the Applicants damages in                                       (2003/C 200/44)
      respect of the loss suffered by reason of the Commission's
      failure to properly manage the tender procedure of TACIS                                (Language of the case: German)
      project FDRUS 9902, all sums to be increased with
      compensatory interest, to be calculated as part of the
      damage, from the day on which the damage materialised;
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
—     order default interest payable at the appropriate rate on            nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the Applicant's claim for damages;                                   European Communities on 22 May 2003 by Andreas Strohm,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, Belgium, represented by C. Illig, lawyer.
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     order the defendant to appoint the applicant to adminis-
                                                                                trative grade A4 in the promotion scale with retroactive
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  effect from 1.1.2002;
                                                                           —     find, in the alternative, that the failure to grant seven
The applicants were among the ten short-listed companies
                                                                                additional points when determining the seniority of the
invited to submit a tender for the TACIS project FDRUS
                                                                                applicant was unlawful and that this error had an effect
9902. Due to a conflict of interest between another compe-
                                                                                on the selection resulting from a comparative assessment
titor and a member of the evaluation committee, a first
                                                                                of qualifications, as a result of which the applicant is,
evaluation in the latter's favour was cancelled. A second
                                                                                with regard to service-, salary- and benefit rights, less well
evaluation followed, which resulted in the contract to imple-
                                                                                off than if he had been upgraded to the A4 as of
ment the TACIS project being signed with this competitor.
                                                                                1.1.2002;
The applicants claim that the Commission acted unlawfully                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
during the tender procedure FDRUS 9902. They submit they
have been unfairly denied the implementation of this contract
and have suffered substantial financial loss and damage
including the loss sustained in the tender procedure, loss of
profit, lost of profile and harm to their reputation.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants submit the Commission should, after cancelling
the first tender evaluation, have excluded the other consor-               The applicant relies on the allegedly erroneous application of
tium's tender from the second evaluation or have sanctioned it.            the Commission's promotion guidelines and on breach of the
                                                                           principles of equal treatment, equal opportunity and adminis-
                                                                           trative legitimacy.
Due to the uncompliance of this consortium with the
Commission's rules and regulations governing technical assis-


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2000 in Case T-32/00: Messe München GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark— "electronica" — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Fee for appeal — Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
21.4.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 118/35
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 14 December 2000                                                        of 5 December 2000
in Case T-352/99: M v Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                                   in Case T-32/00: Messe München GmbH v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Officials — Sick leave — Leave regarded as unauthorised
— Deduction from annual leave entitlement — Articles 59
and 60 of the Staff Regulations — Refusal of medical                      (Community trade mark— ‘electronica’ — Absolute ground
certificate — Absence of fewer than 4 days — Effects of                   for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptiveness
                      medical examination)                                — Articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                                                                            Fee for appeal — Article 44 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                        (2001/C 118/99)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/100)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-352/99: M, an officials of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by
J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar,          In Case T-32/00: Messe München GmbH, established in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of               Munich, Germany, represented by M. Graf of the Munich Bar,
Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, against            Mitscherlich & Partner, 33 Sonnenstraße, Munich, against
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application              and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and A. von
for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 February                  Mühlendahl) — application for annulment of the Decision of
1999 considering the applicant’s absences from 8 to                       the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
17 December 1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been                      the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 December
unauthorised and deducting them from annual leave                         1999 (Case R 177/1998-2) refusing registration of the sign
entitlement — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge                   ‘electronica’ as a Community trade mark — the Court of First
Chamber: R.M. Moura Ramos); G. Herzig, administrator, for                 Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 December 2000, in                    R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,
which it:                                                                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                          5 December 2000, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 9 February 1999
      considering the applicant’s absences from 8 to 17 December
      1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been unauthorised and           1.    Dismisses the action;
      deducting them from annual leave entitlement
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
2.    The Commission shall bear all the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: Case C-169/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 3 April 2017 — Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino v Administración del Estado

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 3 April 2017 — Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-169/17)
   (2017/C 195/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Productores de Ganado Porcino

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 34 [TFEU] and 35 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Article 8(1) of Royal Decree 4/2014 of 10 January approving the quality standard for Iberian meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin, which makes the use of the term ‘ibérico’ on products processed or marketed in Spain subject to the breeders of Iberian pigs in intensive farming systems (de cebo) increasing the total minimum unobstructed floor area per animal of more than 110 kg to 2 m2, even if it can — if appropriate — be demonstrated that the aim of that measure is to improve the quality of the products covered by the legislation?

               2.

               Are Article 3(1)(a) of Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs (1), and Article 12 thereof, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as Article 8(1) of Royal Decree 4/2014 of 10 January approving the quality standard for Iberian meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin, which makes the use of the term ‘ibérico’ on products prepared or marketed in Spain subject to the breeders of Iberian pigs in intensive farming systems (de cebo) increasing the total minimum unobstructed floor area per animal of more than 110 kg to 2 m2 — even if the aim of the national legislation is to improve the quality of the products, and not specifically to provide better protection for pigs.
               If the answer to the previous question is in the negative, is Article 12 of Directive [2008/120/EC], in conjunction with Articles 34 and 35 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a provision such as Article 8(1) of Royal Decree 4/2014 requiring the producers of other Member States, with the aim of improving the quality of the products processed and marketed in Spain — and not of providing better protection for pigs –, to fulfil the same conditions for rearing the animals as the Spanish producers in order that the products obtained from their pigs may use the sales descriptions which are regulated by that Royal Decree?

               3.

               Are Articles 34 [TFEU] and 35 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 8(2) of Royal Decree 4/2014 of 10 January approving the quality standard for Iberian meat, ham, shoulder ham and loin, which imposes a minimum slaughter age of 10 months for pigs from which products in the de cebo category are made, with the aim of improving the quality of those products?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 47, p. 5.


title: Case T-392/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Iran Transfo v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2013 — Iran Transfo v Council
   (Case T-392/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 189/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Iran Transfo (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, agents)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns Iran Transfo;

               2.

               Orders the effects of Decision 2011/299, in so far as it concerns Iran Transfo, to be maintained for a period which may not exceed two months and ten days from the date of delivery of this judgment;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Iran Transfo;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case C-250/99 P: Appeal brought on 3 July 1999 by Degussa-Hüls AG against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94, T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94, T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 352/14              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.12.1999
   of those undertakings continues to be taken into account               Appeal brought on 3 July 1999 by Degussa-Hüls AG
   by the Commission in determining the significance of the               against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the
   alleged infringement. The 1988 and 1994 decisions thus                 Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
   concern alleged agreements and/or concerted practices                  First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
   between a group whose members were different in 1994                   Cases T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
   from 1988. A third difference concerns developments by                 T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
   1994 decision of the limitation of the Commission’s action             T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maat-
   in order to justify its legal ability to take a new decision.          schappij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell Inter-
                                                                          national Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM
                                                                          Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG,
                                                                          Société Artésienne de Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial
   The Court of First Instance wrongly endorses the Com-                  Chemical Industries plc, Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and
   mission’s argument that, in its judgment of 15 June 1994,                     the Commission of the European Communities
   the Court of Justice limited the scope of the annulment of
   the 1988 decision to a simple lack of authentication,                                          (Case C-250/99 P)
   whereas the judgment annulled the decision for infringe-
   ment of both the rules on authentication and the col-                                           (1999/C 352/23)
   legiality principle.
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
                                                                          by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
   It was essential in this case to adopt a new decision and
                                                                          T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
   open an administrative proceeding accordingly by reason
                                                                          T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
   of the principle that Commission decisions must be
                                                                          T-329/94 and T-335/94 between Limburgse Vinyl Maatschap-
   individual decisions.
                                                                          pij NV, Elf Atochem SA, BASF AG, Shell International
                                                                          Chemical Company Ltd, DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV,
                                                                          Wacker-Chemie GmbH, Hoechst AG, Société Artésienne de
                                                                          Vinyle, Montedison SpA, Imperial Chemical Industries plc,
— Error of law in that the Court of First Instance did not hold           Hüls AG and Enichem SpA, and the Commission of the
   that the Commission’s adoption of a new decision opened                European Communities was brought before the Court of
   procedural rights for the benefit of the applicants. Contrary          Justice of the European Communities on 3 July 1999 by
   to the findings of the Court of First Instance, it was of little       Degussa-Hüls AG, represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt,
   importance whether or not the new decision contained                   of Messrs Freshfields Deringer, Cologne, with an address for
   new objections by comparison with the old one. The 1994                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11
   decision being a new decision, the Commission could not                Rue Goethe.
   purely and simply resume the objections from a previous
   annulled decision without effecting fresh notification to
   the parties concerned in accordance with Regulation                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
   17/62. Further, the right of the accused undertakings to
   submit their written comments and participate in hearings              1. set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
   was not acknowledged.                                                      Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) on
                                                                              20 April 1999 in Case T-329/94 in so far as it dismisses
                                                                              the appellant’s claim (paragraph 4 of the operative part)
                                                                              and orders the appellant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                              the costs of the Commission (paragraph 5 of the operative
   It was also wrong that no reference was made to the                        part);
   Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Domi-
   nant Positions, and wrong for the Court of First Instance,             2. annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Commission Decision
   by establishing a link to the hearing of the parties which                 94/599/EC of 27 July 1994 (1) relating to a proceeding
   had a completely different subject-matter, purportedly to                  pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/31.865 —
   deny, without foundation, that there was an obligation to                  PVC), in so far as they concern the appellant;
   that effect.
                                                                          3. order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
                                                                              at first instance and of the appeal.
   Compliance with the procedure laid down by Regulations
   17/62 and 99/63 would have allowed account to be taken                 Pleas in law and main arguments
   of the latest state of the Community case-law on access to
   the file, as required by Commission Notice 97/C 23/03 of               — Error of law in relation to the general principle requiring
   23 January 1997 (OJ 1997 C 23,p.3).                                        proceedings to be of a reasonable duration: the Court of
                                                                              First Instance disregarded, first of all, the fact that the total
                                                                              duration of the proceedings, which lasted 16 years, cannot
                                                                              be regarded as reasonable. Furthermore, it was wrong to
                                                                              take the view that the duration of the administrative
                                                                              proceeding was reasonable. Finally, the excessive length of
                                                                              the judicial proceedings constitutes in itself an infringe-
                                                                              ment of the parties’ right to have the matter decided within
                                                                              a reasonable time.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.12.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 352/15
   The Court of First Instance was wrong to assume that the            — Error of law in respect of the Court’s assessment of the
   administrative phase of the proceedings lasted only ten                 breach of the rights of the defence resulting from the
   months, covering the period from the service of the                     granting of inadequate access to the documentation: con-
   statement of objections to the adoption of the decision,                trary to the verification carried out by the Court of First
   since it wrongly left out of account the duration of the first          Instance, the question whether the documents which were
   judicial proceedings. The Commission accepted that the                  not disclosed by the Commission during the administrative
   judicial proceedings brought against the 1988 decision                  procedure were in fact of an exonerating nature, as the
   should be limited to the procedural defects pleaded,                    Court of First Instance held them to be after the event,
   without indicating its intention to base a new decision on              cannot be decisive. In carrying out an ex post facto
   the old proceeding. It thereby consciously accepted that                assessment of those documents in the course of the judicial
   the appellant might bring a second action before the Court              proceedings, the Court of First Instance substituted its own
   of First Instance and, if necessary, before the Court of                view concerning their exonerating nature in place of that
   Justice, with a view to obtaining a decision on the substance           of the Commission; this cannot take the place of the
   of the case which would ultimately not be forthcoming                   opportunity, denied to the undertakings, to defend them-
   until over 20 years after the conduct alleged against the               selves with the help of those documents during the course
   appellant had taken place.                                              of the proceedings before the Commission.
                                                                       — Infringement of Article 253 EC (formerly Article 190 of
   The Court of First Instance wrongly took the view that the              the EC Treaty).
   breach of the general principle of law requiring proceedings
   to be of a reasonable duration did not in itself affect the         (1) OJ L 239 of 14.9.1994, p. 14.
   validity of the decision. In the absence of any recognition         (2) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999, p. 1.
   of the illegality of a decision adopted after a reasonable          (3) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1999, p. 15.
   period of time, the basic law relating to undertakings
   would exist only on paper. Having regard to the primary
   importance attached to fundamental rights in Community
   law, such a situation is unacceptable.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 6 July 1999 by ENICHEM SpA against
   The view of the law taken by the Court of First Instance —
   according to which the legal consequences of a breach of            the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999 by the Third
   the right to expect proceedings to be of a reasonable               Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
   duration are limited, where it cannot be shown that there
                                                                       T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
   has been any infringement of the rights of the defence, to
                                                                       T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
   specific claims for damages — cannot be justified, having
   regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice of                   T-329/94 and T-335/94 between LVM NV, Elf Atochem
   17 December 1998 in Case C-185/95 Baustahlgewebe (2).               SA, BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd,
                                                                       DSM NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie
   Even though the Court of First Instance may not have
                                                                       GmbH, Hoechst AG, S.A.V., Montedison SpA, I.C.I. plc,
   been obliged to accept the appellant’s argument that the
                                                                       Hüls AG and Enichem SpA and the Commission of the
   Commission’s decision should be annulled, it should at
   least have reduced the fine imposed on the appellant.                                   European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-251/99 P)
— Error of law with regard to the adoption of the 1994
   decision: the Court of First Instance wrongly considered                                    (1999/C 352/24)
   that the validity of the preparatory steps taken prior to the
   adoption of the 1988 decision remained unaffected by the            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 April 1999
   annulment of that decision, and that the Commission was             by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
   therefore entitled to base the 1994 decision on those steps         First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
   without carrying out a fresh administrative proceeding.             T-305/94, T-306/94, T-307/94, T-313/94, T-314/94,
                                                                       T-315/94, T-316/94, T-318/94, T-325/94, T-328/94,
                                                                       T-329/94 and T-335/94 between LVM NV, Elf Atochem SA,
   It cannot be concluded from the case-law of the Court of            BASF AG, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, DSM
   Justice (Case C-415/96 (3) judgment of 12.11.1998)                  NV and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Wacker-Chemie GmbH,
   referred to by the Court of First Instance that procedural          Hoechst AG, S.A.V., Montedison SpA, I.C.I. plc, Hüls AG
   acts the regularity of which cannot be inferred from the            and Enichem SpA and the Commission of the European
   grounds contained in the judgment, or the regularity of             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
   which, in any event, was called in question but not                 European Communities on 6 July 1999 by Enichem SpA, a
   examined, remain valid.                                             company whose registered office is in Milan (Italy), represented
                                                                       by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome Bar, and Francesca Maria
                                                                       Moretti, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service in
   Furthermore, the Court of First Instance disregards the             Luxembourg at Studio Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place
   scope of the Commission’s obligation to base its decision           Winston Churchill L-1450 Luxembourg.
   on a proper procedure conducted in accordance with the
   rules laid down in respect of formal and procedural                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
   requirements. In the present case, compliance with those
   rules would have meant, in particular, that the appellant           — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in so
   should have been heard and that the hearing officer and                 far as it is contested by the applicant, and annul the
   the Advisory Committee should have been involved.                       Commission’s decision accordingly;


title: Case C-409/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 2 August 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) Teleos plc 2) Unique Distribution Ltd 3) Synectiv Ltd 4) New Communications Ltd 5) Quest Trading Company Ltd 6) Phones Interntional Ltd 7) AGM Associates Ltd 8) DVD Components Ltd 9) Fonecomp Ltd 10) Bulk GSM 11) Libratech Ltd 12) Rapid Marketing Services Ltd 13) Earthshine Ltd 14) Stardex (UK) Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 2 August 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) Teleos plc 2) Unique Distribution Ltd 3) Synectiv Ltd 4) New Communications Ltd 5) Quest Trading Company Ltd 6) Phones Interntional Ltd 7) AGM Associates Ltd 8) DVD Components Ltd 9) Fonecomp Ltd 10) Bulk GSM 11) Libratech Ltd 12) Rapid Marketing Services Ltd 13) Earthshine Ltd 14) Stardex (UK) Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   (Case C-409/04)
   (2004/C 300/52)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), dated 2 August 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) Teleos plc 2) Unique Distribution Ltd 3) Synectiv Ltd 4) New Communications Ltd 5) Quest Trading Company Ltd6) Phones Interntional Ltd 7) AGM Associates Ltd 8) DVD Components Ltd 9) Fonecomp Ltd 10) Bulk GSM 11) Libratech Ltd 12) Rapid Marketing Services Ltd 13) Earthshine Ltd 14) Stardex (UK) Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:

               1.

               In the relevant circumstances, is the term ‘despatched’ in Article 28a(3) (1) (intra-Community acquisition of goods) to be understood as meaning that intra-Community acquisition takes place when:

                           a.

                           the right to dispose of the goods as owner passes to the purchaser and the goods are supplied by the supplier by placing them at the disposal of the purchaser (who is registered for VAT in another Member State), on an ex works contract of sale whereby the purchaser assumes responsibility for removing the goods to a different Member State from that of supply, at a secure warehouse located in the supplier's Member State, and where the contractual documents and/or other documentary evidence state that the intention is that the goods should then be transported onwards towards a destination in another Member State, but the goods have not yet physically left the territory of the Member State of Supply; or

                           b.

                           the right to dispose of the goods as owner passes to the purchaser and the goods commence, but do not necessarily complete, their journey towards a different Member State (in particular, if the goods have not yet physically left the territory of the Member State of supply); or

                           c.

                           the right to dispose of the goods as owner has passed to the purchaser and the goods have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply on their journey towards a different Member State?

               2.

               Is Article 28cA(a) to be interpreted as meaning that supplies of goods are exempt from VAT where:

                           —

                           the goods are supplied to a purchaser who is registered for VAT in another Member State; and

                           —

                           the purchaser contracts to purchase the goods on the basis that, after he has acquired the right to dispose of the goods as owner in the supplier's Member State, he will be responsible for transporting the goods from the supplier's Member State to a second Member State; and:

                                       a.

                                       the right to dispose of the goods as owner has passed to the purchaser and the goods have been supplied by the supplier by placing them at the disposal of the purchaser, on an ex works contract of sale whereby the purchaser assumes responsibility for removing the goods to a different Member State from that of supply, at a secure warehouse located in the supplier's Member State, where the contractual documents and/or other documentary evidence state that the intention is that the goods should then be transported onwards towards a destination in another Member State, but the goods have not yet physically left the territory of the Member State of Supply; or

                                       b.

                                       the right to dispose of the goods as owner has passed to the purchaser and the goods have commenced, but not necessarily completed, their journey towards a different Member State (in particular, the goods have not yet physically left the territory of the Member State of supply); or

                                       c.

                                       the right to dispose of the goods as owner has passed to the purchaser and the goods have left the territory of the Member State of supply on their journey towards a second Member State; or

                                       d.

                                       the right to dispose of the goods as owner has passed to the purchaser and the goods can also be shown to have actually arrived in the Member State of destination?

               3.

               In the relevant circumstances, where a supplier acting in good faith has tendered to the competent authorities in his Member State, after submission of a repayment claim, objective evidence which at the time of its receipt apparently supported his right to exempt goods under Article 28cA(a) and the competent authorities initially accepted that evidence for the purpose of exemption, in what circumstances (if any) may the competent authorities in the Member State of supply nevertheless subsequently require the supplier to account for VAT on those goods where further evidence comes to their attention that either (a) casts doubt upon the validity of the earlier evidence or (b) demonstrates that the evidence submitted was materially false, but without the knowledge or the involvement of the supplier?

               4.

               Is the answer to question 3 above affected by the fact that there was evidence that the purchaser made returns to the tax authorities in the Member State of destination, where those returns included as intra-Community acquisitions the purchases the subject matter of these claims, the purchaser entered an amount purporting to represent acquisition tax and also claimed the same amount as input tax in accordance with Article 17(2)(d) of the Sixth Directive?

      (1)  of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).


title: Case C-506/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2012 — Portuguese Republic v Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA, European Commission (Appeal — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Remission of import duties — Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries — Fraud committed by an employee of the company liable)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2012 — Portuguese Republic v Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA, European Commission
   (Case C-506/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 and Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Remission of import duties - Consignments of tobacco and ethyl alcohol for third countries - Fraud committed by an employee of the company liable)
   2012/C 133/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação SA (represented by: M. López Garrido, advogada), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission, by which that court annulled Commission Decision REM 05/2004 of 6 July 2005 informing the Portuguese authorities that the remission of import duties for the applicant was not justified in relation to a certain amount and that import duties could not be reimbursed to it in relation to another amount since the fact that the applicant was unaware that one of its employees was acting fraudulently did not constitute a special situation which may justify the remission and reimbursement of import duties to it.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case T-632/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014  — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment entitlements scheme — Loyal cooperation — Fairness — Proportionality — National reserve — Award criteria — Flat-rate financial correction — Risk for the Fund — Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 — Wine sector — Distillation schemes and schemes for payments for the use of certain musts — Aid for restructuring and for the conversion of vineyards)

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-632/11) (1)

   ((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment entitlements scheme - Loyal cooperation - Fairness - Proportionality - National reserve - Award criteria - Flat-rate financial correction - Risk for the Fund - Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 - Wine sector - Distillation schemes and schemes for payments for the use of certain musts - Aid for restructuring and for the conversion of vineyards))
   (2014/C 448/22)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Chalkias and S. Papaïoannou, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Marcoulli, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2011 L 270, p. 33), in so far as that decision concerns the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2011/689/EU of 14 October 2011 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the grant of entitlements from the national reserve to new farmers;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission and the Hellenic Republic are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case T-517/13: Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández ( ‘QUO VADIS’ )

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/19

         Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (‘QUO VADIS’)
   (Case T-517/13)
   2013/C 352/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Éditions Quo Vadis (Carquefou, France) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Francisco Gómez Hernández (Jacarilla, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2013 given in Case R 1166/2012-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 33 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8 871 758

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark No 92 422 947 for the word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 and French trade mark No 1 257 750 for the word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods in Class 16

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case T-139/11: Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Gnango v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/23

         Action brought on 11 March 2011 — Gnango v Council
   (Case T-139/11)
   2011/C 130/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Loba Emmanuel Patrice Gnango (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Loba Emmanuel Patrice GNANGO, Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, published on 15 January 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are not justified in fact,

               —

               consequently,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011;

                           —

                           alternatively, order that the name of Mr Loba Emmanuel Patrice GNANGO be removed from the lists annexed to that regulation and to that decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-137/11 Guiai Bi Poin v Council.


title: Case C-131/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/26

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 1 March 2016 — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.
      (Case C-131/16)
      (2016/C 211/33)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik

         Defendant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Can Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (1) be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority can be required to invite economic operators which have not submitted within the prescribed period (that is to say, the period specified for submitting tenders) ‘declarations or documents’ requested by the contractor proving that the tendered supplies, services or works satisfy the requirements laid down by the contracting authority (that term also covering samples of the subject-matter of the contract), or which submitted ‘declarations or documents’ requested by the contracting authority containing errors, to submit ‘declarations or documents’ (samples) which are missing or which correct errors within a specified additional period, without laying down a prohibition under which supplemented ‘declarations or documents’ (samples) cannot alter the content of the tender?

                  2.

                  Can Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors be interpreted as meaning that the contracting authority can retain the deposit lodged by the economic operator if that operator, in response to the contracting authority’s invitation to supplement the tender, did not submit ‘documents or declarations’ (samples) proving that the tendered supplies, services or works satisfy the requirements laid down by the contracting authority, where that supplementation would result in a change to the content of the tender, or did not consent to the contracting authority’s correction of the tender, which made it impossible to select the tender submitted by the economic operator as being the most advantageous?

                  3.

                  Must Article 1(3) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts, be interpreted as meaning that ‘a particular contract’, as referred to in the passage concerning the ‘interest in obtaining a particular contract’, means ‘a particular procedure for the award of a public contract carried out’ (in this case: that published in the notice of 3 June 2015), or ‘the particular subject-matter of the contract’ (in this case: the service relating to the digitisation of the contracting authority’s archive documents), irrespective of whether, as a consequence of an appeal being granted, the contracting authority will be required to annul the procedure for the award of a public contract and may possibly be required to initiate a subsequent procedure for the award of a public contract?

         (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.


title: Case C-363/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio — Greece) — Epitropos tou Elegktikou Sinedriou sto Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou v Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou — Ipiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou (Request for a preliminary ruling — Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU — Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature — National court of auditors ruling on prior authorisation of public expenditure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio — Greece) — Epitropos tou Elegktikou Sinedriou sto Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou v Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou — Ipiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou
   (Case C-363/11) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Concept of ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU - Proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature - National court of auditors ruling on prior authorisation of public expenditure - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 46/13
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Elegktiko Sinedrio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Epitropos tou Elegktikou Sinedriou sto Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou

      Defendant: Ipourgio Politismou kai Tourismou — Ipiresia Dimosionomikou Elenchou

      Third party: Konstantinos Antonopoulos

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Elegktiko Synedrio — Interpretation of clause 4(1) of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) and Article 153 TFEU — Employment condition or working condition — Meaning — Conditions of remuneration for time engaged in trade union activities, as leave for trade union business — Inclusion

      Operative part of the judgment

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Elegktiko Sinedrio (Greece) made by decision of 1 July 2011 is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-569/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Gitana SA v OHIM — Teddy (GITANA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark GITANA — Earlier Community figurative mark KiTANA — Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Gitana SA v OHIM — Teddy (GITANA)
   (Case T-569/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark GITANA - Earlier Community figurative mark KiTANA - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity or similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration)
   2013/C 336/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gitana SA (Pregny-Chambésy, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Benech, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Teddy SpA (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2011 (Case R 1825/2007-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda and Gitana SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gitana SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012.


title: Case T-323/12: Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristaleria (ECOSE)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/26

         Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Knauf Insulation Technology v OHIM — Saint Gobain Cristaleria (ECOSE)
   (Case T-323/12)
   2012/C 295/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Knauf Insulation Technology (Visé, Belgium) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Saint Gobain Cristaleria, SL (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 17 April 2012 in case R 259/2011-5 insofar as it has declared the opponent’s opposition successful against the CTM application for part of the goods and services applied for;

               —

               Order the defendant and — if applicable — the Opponent to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ECOSE’, for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 40 — Community trade mark application No W00993849

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 2556409 of the word mark ‘ECOSEC FACHADAS’, for goods in classes 17 and 19

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the contested decision for the remainder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-610/13: Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Ecolab USA/OHMI (GREASECUTTER)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/33

         Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Ecolab USA/OHMI (GREASECUTTER)
   (Case T-610/13)
   2014/C 24/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ecolab USA (St. Paul, United States) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The appellant requests the Court to decide as follows:

               —

               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 September 2013 (Case R 1704/2012-2) is overturned insofar as the EU-designation of International registration no. 1103198 GREASECUTTER is rejected.

               —

               The defendant shall bear its own costs as well as the costs of the plaintiff.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GREASECUTTER’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 — International Registration No W 1103198

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused protection of the International Registration designating the European Union

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-123/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Smartbook v OHIM (SMARTBOOK) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark SMARTBOOK — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Smartbook v OHIM (SMARTBOOK)
   (Case T-123/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark SMARTBOOK - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 31/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Smartbook AG (Offenburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Milbradt, A. Schwarz and F. Reiling, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Qualcomm, Inc. (Dover, Delaware, United States) (represented by: A. Renck, A. Leister and V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2011 (Case R 799/2011-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign SMARTBOOK as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Smartbook AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2004 in Case C-472/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Siomab SA v Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l'environnement (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of dispatch to verify the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment based on an incorrect classification — Objection procedure)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 19 October 2004
   in Case C-472/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles): Siomab SA v Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l'environnement (1)

   (Environment - Waste - Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on shipments of waste - Competence of the authority of dispatch to verify the classification of the purpose of a shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment based on an incorrect classification - Objection procedure)
   (2004/C 300/32)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-472/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (Belgium), made by decision of 20 December 2002, received at the Court on 27 December 2002, in the proceedings between Siomab SA and Institut bruxellois pour la gestion de l'environnement — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 October 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community, as amended by Commission Decision 98/368/EC of 18 May 1998 and Commission Decision 1999/816/EC of 24 November 1999, is to be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State has recourse, under Article 6(8) of that regulation, to the specific procedure whereby the competent authority of dispatch transmits the consignment note for a shipment of waste for recovery, that authority, if it considers it necessary to object to the shipment on the ground that it has been incorrectly classified by the notifier, may not reclassify the shipment on its own initiative and is required to transmit that document to the other competent authorities and the consignee. It is then for that authority to inform the notifier and the other competent authorities concerned of its objection by any appropriate means before the end of the period laid down in Article 7(2) of the Regulation at the latest.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case F-39/13: Action brought on 29 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/60

         Action brought on 29 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-39/13)
   2013/C 207/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision fixing the applicant’s accredited pension rights acquired before entry into service at the Commission on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 (‘the GIP’) and the decision rejecting the complaint.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejections her complaint of 24 January 2013 relating to the application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force at the time of her application for transfer of her pension rights;

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for the Administration and Settlement of Individual Entitlements of 11 July 2012, applying the actuarial values resulting from the new GIP;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.