title: Case F-97/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/85

         Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-97/15)
   (2015/C 294/104)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the final decision to transfer the pension rights of the applicant into the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations to be unlawful;

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 October 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-431/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Liberbank S.A. v Rafael Piris del Campo

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria (Spain) lodged on 7 August 2015 — Liberbank S.A. v Rafael Piris del Campo
   (Case C-431/15)
   (2015/C 354/24)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria — Section 4

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Liberbank S.A.

      Other party to proceedings: Rafael Piris del Campo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a ‘floor clause’ inserted in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void compatible with the principle that unfair terms are not to be binding on the consumer and with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               2.

               Is the maintenance of the effects of a floor clause, inserted in a consumer contract, which is declared unfair and therefore null and void, compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               3.

               Is the limitation on the retroactive effects of a ruling that a floor clause in a consumer contract is unfair and therefore null and void because it is considered that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy and good faith compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

               4.

               If the reply to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to assume, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term in a consumer contract, that there is a risk of serious disruption to financial public policy or must that risk be assessed and evaluated in the light of the specific economic data from which it is inferred that granting retroactive effects to a ruling that an unfair term is null and void has macroeconomic consequences?

               5.

               In turn, in an individual action for nullity of an unfair term inserted in a consumer contract, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 [on unfair terms in consumer contracts] to assess the risk of serious disruption to financial public policy in the light of the economic consequences of individual actions brought by a large number of consumers? Or, on the contrary, is that risk to be assessed in the light of the financial effect on the economy of the specific individual action brought by the consumer?

               6.

               If the reply to the third question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts to make an abstract assessment of the conduct of any seller or supplier in order to evaluate good faith?

               7.

               Or, on the contrary, must that good faith be examined and assessed in each specific case, in the light of the specific conduct of the seller or supplier when concluding the contract and inserting the unfair term in the contract, in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case C-171/09: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 2 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/28

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 2 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-171/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/49

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.


title: Case C-10/10: Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/38

         Action brought on 8 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-10/10)
   2010/C 63/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by authorising tax deductibility for donations to research and educational institutions only in the case of institutions established within Austria, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC and Article 40 EEA;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the Commission’s view, donations to research and educational institutions which pursue non-commercial objectives come under the free movement of capital under Article 56 EC. The Austrian Government allows tax deduction only in the case of donations made to such institutions which are established in Austria, but not in the case of donations made to similar institutions in other Member States or in other States of the European Economic Area. This, the Commission submits, constitutes a breach of Article 56 EC and of Article 40 EEA.
   In justification of this rule, the Republic of Austria argues that this amounts, in substantive terms, to a permissible restriction of the favourable treatment of donations which releases the State from what would otherwise be an obligation on it to provide finance. This, it contends, follows inter alia from the judgment in Case C-396/04 Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer. (1)

   The Commission takes issue with that justification. The provisions in dispute, it argues, draw a distinction on purely geographical grounds and irrespective of the purpose of the beneficiary institutions. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the interaction, claimed by the Republic of Austria, between direct State financing and the favourable tax treatment accorded to donations made by private individuals. Even if the interaction claimed by the Republic of Austria did exist, it would not, in the Commission’s view, justify any restriction of the free movement of capital as it does not involve a qualified interest relating to the tax system within the terms of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-204/90 Bachmann. (2)

      (1)  Judgment in Case C-386/04 Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer [2006] ECR I-8203.

      (2)  Judgment in Case C-204/90 Bachmann [1992] ECR I-249.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 13 July 1995 in Case C-341/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark)): Danvaern Production A/S and Schuhfabriken Otterbeck GmbH & Co (Brussels Convention - Special jurisdiction - Article 6 (3) - Counterclaim - Set-off)

text:
No C 268/2            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 10 . 95
Ricardo Gosalbo Bono and Pieter Van Nuffel ) —                          2 , orders the European Parliament to pay the costs. The
application for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )                   Council shall bear its own costs.
No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products
— the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                     (') OJ No C 159 , 11 . 6 . 1993 .
President, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris,
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G.
Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:
1 , dismisses the application;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2 , orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                                               of 13 July 1995
                                                                        in Case C-341/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
3 , orders the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic and               the Vestre Landsret ( Denmark )): Danvaern Production A/S
      the Commission to bear their own costs .                                   and Schuhfabriken Otterbeck GmbH & Co ( 1 )
                                                                        (Brussels Convention — Specialjurisdiction — Article 6 (3)
                                                                                — Counterclaim — Set-off)
(•) OJ No C 260 , 9 . 10 . 1992 .
                                                                                95/C 268/04
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                        of 13 July 1995
in Case C-156/93 : European Parliament v. Commission of
                 the European Communities (')                           In Case C-341 /93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
 (Legislation on organicproduction ofagriculturalproducts               of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice
 — Respectivepowers ofthe Council and the Commission —                  of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction
                Prerogatives of the Parliament)                         and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                          ( 95/C 268/03 )                               Matters by the Vestre Landsret ( Denmark ) for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                        Danvaern Production A/S and Schuhfabriken Otterbeck
                (Language of the case: English)                         GmbH & Co — on the interpretation of Articles 6(3 ) and
                                                                        22 of the said Convention of 27 September 1968 ( OJ No
                                                                        L 304, p . 36 ), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
 In Case C-156/93 : European Parliament ( agent: Jorge                   1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland
 Campinos ) v. Commission of the European Communities                    and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
 ( agents: Christiaan Timmermans, David Gilmour and José                Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p . 1 and — as amended — p . 77 ) and
 Luis Iglesias Buhigues) supported by Council of the                    the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
 European Union ( agents: Jean-Claude Piris and Michael                  Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388 , p . 1 and — as amended —
 Bishop ) — application for the annulment of Commission                  OJ No C 97, p . 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.
 Regulation ( EEC ) No 207/93 of 29 January 1993 defining                Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler, C.
 the content of Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2092/91                Gulmann and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.
 on organic production of agricultural products and                      Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
 indications referring thereto on agricultural products and              Edward ( Rapporteur), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and L.
 foodstuffs and laying down detailed rules for implementing              Sevón, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
 the provisions of Article 5 ( 4 ) thereto ( OJ No L 25 , p. 5 ) or,     Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it
 in the alternative, the annulment of the contested parts                rules :
 thereof — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
 President, F. A. Schockweiler, P.J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur)
 and P. Jann ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N.            Article 6 (3) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
 Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, G.                  Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in Civil and
 Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,                Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of
 Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the                    9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which              Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
 it :
                                                                         and Northern Ireland and by the Convention of25 October
                                                                          1 982 on the Accession ofthe Hellenic Republic, applies only
  1,   dismisses the action :                                            to claims by defendants which seek the pronouncement ofa
 ---pagebreak---   14 . 10 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/3
  separate judgment or decree. It does not apply to the                proceedings or . . . an equivalent document ' within the
  situation where a defendant raises, as a pure defence, a claim       meaning ofArticle 27 (2) ofthe Convention of2 7 September
  which he allegedly has against the plaintiff. The defences           1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement ofJudgments in
  which may be raised and the conditions under which they              Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the
  may be raised are governed by national law.                          Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the
                                                                       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
. C ) OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Third Chamber)
                           of 13 July 1995
  in Case C-474/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
  the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Zwolle (Netherlands )):                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        Hengst Import BV and Anna Maria Campese (')                                           (Fourth Chamber )
  (Brussels Convention — Article 27 (2) — Concept of                                            of 13 July 1995
  document instituting the proceedings or equivalent                   in Case C-l 16/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                               document)
                                                                       the Social Security Commissioner, London ): Jennifer
                            ( 95/C 268/05 )                                          Meyers v. Adjudication Officer ( ! )
                                                                       (Equal treatment for men and women — Directive
                                                                        76/207/EEC — Conditions governing access to
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                           employment — Working conditions — Family credit)
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/06 )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  In Case C-474/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol
  of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice         In Case C-l 16/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
  of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction               of the EC Treaty from the Social Security Commissioner,
  and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial             London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
  Matters by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Zwolle                    before that court between Jennifer Meyers and the
  ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings          Adjudication Officer, on the interpretation of Council
  pending before that court between Hengst Import BV and               Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
  Anna Maria Campese on the interpretation of Article 27 ( 2 )         implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
  of the abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968                and women as regards access to employment, vocational
   ( OJ No L 304, p. 36 ) as amended by the Convention of              training and promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No
  9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of                    L 39 , p. 40 ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:
  Denmark , Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain            P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber,
  and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p. 1 and — amended                C. N. Kakouris and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
  text — p. 77) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:              Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
   C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de             Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it
  Almeida (Rapporteur) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; F. G.               rules :
  Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has
  given a judgment on 13 July 1995, in which it rules:
                                                                        a benefit with the characteristics and purpose of family
   the decreto ingiuntivo within the meaning ofBook IV ofthe            credit is concerned with both access to employment and
   Italian Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 633 to 656),               working conditions and falls, therefore, within the scope of
   together with the application instituting the proceedings,           Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
   must be regarded as 'the document which instituted                   implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men


title: Case C-294/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J.Z.

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi (Poland) lodged on 25 May 2016 — Criminal proceedings against J.Z.
   (Case C-294/16)
   (2016/C 296/27)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   J.Z.

      Question referred

   Must Article 26(1) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) (2002/584/JHA), in conjunction with Article 6(1) and (3) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘detention’ also covers measures applied by the executing State, in connection with a curfew, consisting in the electronic monitoring of the place of residence of the person to whom the arrest warrant applies?

      (1)  OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1.


title: Case T-280/06: Action brought on 4 October 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/62

         Action brought on 4 October 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-280/06)
   (2006/C 294/123)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul memorandum No 06626 of 24 July 2006 of the European Commission — Directorate General Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments of the Commission which differ from the sum requested. Ref. ROP Sicily Programme (No CCI 1999 IT 61 PO 011);

               —

               annul all related and prior measures, and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.


title: Joined Cases T-60/04 to T-64/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Applications for a Community word mark BUD — Appellation of origin registered under the Lisbon Agreement — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/20

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 June 2007 — Budějovický Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)
   (Joined Cases T-60/04 to T-64/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Applications for a Community word mark BUD - Appellation of origin registered under the Lisbon Agreement - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Rejection of the opposition)
   (2007/C 170/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, (České Budějovice, Czech Republic) (represented by: F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and I. de Medrano Caballero, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Saint Louis, Missouri, United States) (represented by: initially V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, A. Pohlmann, D. Ohlgart and B. Goebel, and subsequently V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, D. Ohlgart and B. Goebel, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against five decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2003 (Cases R 107/2003-2, R 111/2003-2, R 114/2003-2, R 115/2003-2 and R 122/2003-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik and Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications in Joined Cases T-60/04 to T-64/04;

               2.

               Orders Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case T-143/09 P: Appeal brought on 8 April 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/41

         Appeal brought on 8 April 2009 by Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission
   (Case T-143/09 P)
   2009/C 153/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by D. Martin and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Nicole Petrilli (Woluwé-Saint-Étienne, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the judgement of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli; and

               —

               order each of the parties to bear their own costs in connection with the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this appeal, the Commission seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 January 2009 in Case F-98/07 Petrilli v Commission by which the Tribunal annulled the Commission decision of 20 July 2007 dismissing Ms Petrilli’s request for her contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks to be extended.
   In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward three grounds of appeal alleging that:

               —

               the Tribunal should, according to the Commission, have declared the action inadmissible in view of the fact that the annulled decision contained no real and detailed examination of the applicant’s personal situation;

               —

               the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the six year rule contained in Decision C(2004) 1597/6 of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services (1) infringes Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities;

               —

               the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the unlawfulness of the six year rule alone sufficed for the Commission to incur non-contractual liability without checking in addition whether the Commission had manifestly and gravely infringed its wide discretion to assess the interest of the service in not renewing of Ms Petrilli’s contract.

      (1)  Administrative Notices No 75-2004 of 24 June 2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2001 in Case T-143/97: Gerhardus van den Berg v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Transfer of the quota to another holding)

text:
C 134/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.5.2001
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and pay those of the         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       Commission and of the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie.
                                                                                of 31 January 2001
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.97.
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-197/97 and T-198/97: Weyl Beef Prod-
                                                                           ucts BV and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                                                                           (Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
                                                                           Action for annulment — Rejection of a complaint —
                                                                           Community interest — Relationship between Article 85 and
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 87 EC))
                        of 31 January 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 134/34)
in Case T-143/97: Gerhardus van den Berg v Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European
                          Communities (1)                                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk —                   In Joined Cases T-197/99 and T-198/97: Weyl Beef Products
Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producer having                     BV, established at Enschede, Netherlands, represented by
entered into a non-marketing undertaking — Transfer of                     E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and S.B. Noë,
                   the quota to another holding)                           of the Rotterdam Bar, applicant in Case T-197/97, Exportslach-
                                                                           terij Chris Hogeslag BV, established at Holten, Netherlands,
                          (2001/C 134/33)                                  represented by A.P.J.M. de Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar, Gronin-
                                                                           ger Vleeshandel BV, established at Groningen, Netherlands, in
                                                                           liquidation, represented by J.J. van der Molen, liquidator
                                                                           appointed by the courts, represented initially by A.P.J.M. de
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           Bruyn, of the Zutphen Bar, and subsequently by P.E. Mazel, of
                                                                           the Leeuwarden Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
In Case T-143/97: Gerhardus van den Berg, residing in Dalfsen              at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix,
(Netherlands), represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the               applicants in Case T-198/97, against Commission of the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and G. van der Wal)
the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume, v Council                 supported by Produktschap voor Vee en Vlees and Stichting
of the European Union (Agents: A.-M. Colaert and J.-P. Hix)                Saneringsfonds Runderslachterijen, both established at
and Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van                  Rijswijk, Netherlands, represented by I.W. VerLoren van
Rijn) — application for compensation under Article 178 and                 Themaat, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in
the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Medernach, 8-10 Rue
Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC)                 Mathias Hardt — application in Case T-197/97, for annulment
for damage suffered by the applicant as a result of his having             of the Commission’s decision of 23 April 1997 (case
been prevented from marketing milk by virtue of Council                    No IV/35.591/F-3 — Weyl/PVV+SSR) rejecting an application
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting                       made by the applicant on 14 June 1995 and, in Case
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in               T-198/97, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk              23 April 1997 (case No IV/35.634/F-3 — Hogeslag-Gronin-
products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as supplemented by                  ger/PVV+SSR) rejecting an application made by the applicants
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984                      on 30 June 1995 — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional           Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68               and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
(OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth               Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001, in which
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos               it:
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 January 2001,                1.    Dismisses the actions;
in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs as well as those
1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;                                incurred by the Commission;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.                                                 (1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.97.


title: Case T-9/07: Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM — PepsiCo (Representation of a circular promotional item) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item — Prior design — Ground for invalidity — Conflict — No different overall impression — Meaning of conflict — Product at issue — Degree of freedom of the designer — Informed user — Article 10 and Article 25(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 March 2010 — Grupo Promer Mon Graphic v OHIM — PepsiCo (Representation of a circular promotional item)
   (Case T-9/07) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a circular promotional item - Prior design - Ground for invalidity - Conflict - No different overall impression - Meaning of ‘conflict’ - Product at issue - Degree of freedom of the designer - Informed user - Article 10 and Article 25(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2010/C 113/61
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA (Sabadell, Spain) (represented by: R. Almaraz Palmero, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: PepsiCo Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 October 2006 (Case R 1001/2005-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA and PepsiCo Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 27 October 2006 (Case R 1001/2005-3);

               2.

               Orders OHIM and PepsiCo Inc. to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Grupo Promer Mon Graphic SA in the proceedings before the General Court;

               3.

               Orders OHIM and PepsiCo to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by Grupo Promer Mon Graphic in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case T-27/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Medicines Agency (EMA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/32

         Appeal brought on 20 January 2015 by European Medicines Agency (EMA) against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F-2/12, Hristov v Commission and EMA
   (Case T-27/15 P)
   (2015/C 118/41)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov, European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 13 November 2014 in Case F 2/12 Hristov v Commission and EMA,

               —

               refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, for a ruling on the other pleas in support of the appeal,

               —

               reserve the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law:

               —

               the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by attributing to the principle of good administration a scope which it does not have;

               —

               in the alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed the principle of proportionality by failing to determine, before making the annulment, whether the failure to observe the principle of good administration could have affected the contents of the contested decision;

               —

               in the further alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal, in any event, infringed EU law by failing to balance the respective interests and failing to limit the effects of its judgments;

               —

               in the final alternative, the Civil Service Tribunal infringed EU law by holding that the unlawfulness of the Commission’s decision necessarily led to the decision adopted by the EMA being unlawful.


title: Case C-266/10: Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Hannelore Adams v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — Hannelore Adams v Germanwings GmbH
   (Case C-266/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/16
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case C-272/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts — Failure to implement within the prescribed time-limit)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-272/07) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts - Failure to implement within the prescribed time-limit)
   (2008/C 209/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, Agents,)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed time-limit, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, in failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


4.5.2002              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 109/39
      Removal from the register of Case C-105/98 P (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-295/99 (1)
                       (2002/C 109/66)                                                   (2002/C 109/69)
By order of 27 November 2001 the President of the Court of        By order of 12 October 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-105/98 P: Günther Bühring v           from the register of Case C-295/99: Kingdom of Belgium v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the               Commission of the European Communities.
European Communities
                                                                  (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-461/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-24/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/70)
                       (2002/C 109/67)
                                                                  By order of 1 February 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 18 February 2002 the President of the Court of        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-461/99: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-24/99: Commission of the              European Communities v Ireland.
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-77/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-140/99 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/71)
                       (2002/C 109/68)
                                                                  By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
By order of 6 December 2001 the President of the Court of         from the register of Case C-77/00 (Referral for a preliminary
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany)): Urlaubs
from the register of Case C-140/99: Commission of the             — und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v Viscondense
European Communities v French Republic.                           Construçoes, Lda.
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.                                        (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.


title: Case T-500/13: Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Seatech International and Others v Commission

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/16

         Action brought on 13 September 2013 — Seatech International and Others v Commission
   (Case T-500/13)
   2013/C 377/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Seatech International, Inc. (Cartagena, Colombia); Tuna Atlantic, Ltda (Cartagena); and Comextun, Ltda (Cartagena) (represented by: F. Foucault, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 672/2013 of 15 July 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 468/2010 establishing the EU list of vessels engaged in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, in so far as it designates the Marta Lucia R as a ship that engages in IUU fishing.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants claim that the Marta Lucia R was removed from the list of ships considered to be engaging in illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, held by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, and that it should therefore be similarly removed from the European Union list of vessels engaged in IUU fishing.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 December 2013 in Case E-17/13 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/44/EC — Failure to implement)

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 6 December 2013
   in Case E-17/13
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/44/EC — Failure to implement)
   2014/C 88/13
   In Case E-17/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 16b, first indent, of Annex IX and point 4, first indent, of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 6 December 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 16b, first indent, of Annex IX and point 4, first indent, of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to implement Article 2 of the Act within the time prescribed;

               2.

               orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-46/97: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1992)

text:
4.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 316/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 11 July 2000                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-473/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                             of 13 July 2000
the Kammarrätten i Stockholm): Kemikalieinspektionen
                      v Toolex Alpha AB (1)
                                                                           in Case C-46/97: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Free movement of goods — National general prohibition on
the use of trichloroethylene — Article 36 of the EC Treaty
            (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC))                                    (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1992)
                          (2000/C 316/04)                                                            (2000/C 316/05)
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-46/97: Hellenic Republic (Agents: P. Mylonopoulos
In Case C-473/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              and I. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communities
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Kammarrätten i                 (Agents: M. Condou-Durande) — application for partial annul-
Stockholm, Sweden, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings             ment of Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 November
pending before that court between Kemikalieinspektionen and                1996 amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance of the
Toolex Alpha AB — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and                 accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC                  expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
and 30 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,             Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón,             respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996 L 323,
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet,                   p. 26), in the part relating to Greece — the Court (Sixth
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)                 Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kap-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  teyn, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris,
11 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                       Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
                                                                           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in
                                                                           which it:
National legislation which lays down a general prohibition on the
use of trichloroethylene for industrial purposes and establishes a
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
system of individual exemptions, granted subject to conditions, is
justified under Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 30 EC) on grounds of the protection of health of humans.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Joined Cases C-25/14 and C-26/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union des syndicats de l’immobilier (UNIS) v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others (C-25/14), Beaudout Père et Fils SARL v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération générale agro-alimentaire — CFDT and Others (C-26/14) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Principles of equality and of non-discrimination — Obligation of transparency — Scope of that obligation — National collective agreements — Social protection scheme supplemental to the general scheme — Appointment by the social partners of an insurer responsible for managing that scheme — Extension of that scheme by ministerial order to all employees and employers of the sector concerned — Limitation of the temporal effects of a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Union des syndicats de l’immobilier (UNIS) v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others (C-25/14), Beaudout Père et Fils SARL v Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération générale agro-alimentaire — CFDT and Others (C-26/14)
   (Joined Cases C-25/14 and C-26/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Principles of equality and of non-discrimination - Obligation of transparency - Scope of that obligation - National collective agreements - Social protection scheme supplemental to the general scheme - Appointment by the social partners of an insurer responsible for managing that scheme - Extension of that scheme by ministerial order to all employees and employers of the sector concerned - Limitation of the temporal effects of a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice))
   (2016/C 068/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Union des syndicats de l’immobilier (UNIS) (C-25/14), Beaudout Père et Fils SARL (C-26/14)

      Defendants: Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Syndicat national des résidences de tourisme (SNRT) and Others (C-25/14), Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Formation professionnelle et du Dialogue social, Confédération nationale de la boulangerie et boulangerie-pâtisserie française, Fédération générale agro-alimentaire — CFDT and Others (C-26/14)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The obligation of transparency, which flows from Article 56 TFEU, precludes the extension by a Member State, to all employers and employees within a sector, of a collective agreement concluded by the employers’ and employees’ respective representatives for a sector, under which a single economic operator, chosen by the social partners, is entrusted with the management of a compulsory social insurance scheme established for employees, where the national rules do not provide for publicity sufficient to enable the competent public authority to take full account of information which has been submitted concerning the existence of a more favourable offer.
   The effects of the present judgment do not concern the collective agreements under which a single body was appointed to manage a supplementary social insurance scheme and which a public authority has, before the date of delivery of the present judgment, made binding on all employers and employees within a sector, without prejudice to legal proceedings brought before that date.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-379/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  25 October 2005  — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark Cloppenburg — Absolute grounds for refusal to register — Descriptive character — Geographical origin — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 October 2005 — Peek & Cloppenburg KG v OHIM
   (Case T-379/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark Cloppenburg - Absolute grounds for refusal to register - Descriptive character - Geographical origin - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 330/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented originally by U. Hildebrandt, subsequently by P. Lange, P. Wilbert and A. Auler and, subsequently by P. Lange, P. Wilbert, A. Auler and J. Steinberg, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented originally by D. Schennen and G. Schneider, and subsequently by A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 August 2003 (R 105/2002-4), concerning the application for registration of the word sign Cloppenburg as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 August 2003 (R 105/2002-4);

               2)

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.


title: Case T-318/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Consorzio del vino nobile di Montepulciano and Others v Commission

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/23

         Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Consorzio del vino nobile di Montepulciano and Others v Commission
   (Case T-318/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/32
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Consorzio del vino nobile di Montepulciano (Montepulciano, Italy), Contucci di Alamanno Contucci & C. Società Agricola Sas (Montepulciano, Italy), Villa S. Anna Società Semplice Agricola di Fabroni Anna S. E M. Società Semplice (Montepulciano, Italy), Il Conventino Società Agricola per Azioni (Montepulciano, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro, S. Cianciullo, G. Brini and G. Nazzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the contested regulation is invalid or inapplicable, or in any event annul the amendment made by it to Annex XV to Commission Regulation (EC) No 607/2009, in so far as it incorrectly identifies the technical error to be corrected as merely the inclusion of the ‘Montepulciano’ grape variety denomination in Part B of that annex, applying the system of derogations under Article 62(3) and (4) of Regulation 607/09 to the protected designation of origin ‘Vino Nobile di Montepulciano’, without having regard to the specific nature of that designation.

               —

               In the alternative, declare that the contested regulation is invalid or inapplicable, or in any event annul the amendment made by it to Annex XV, in so far as, in order to move the ‘Montepulciano’ grape variety denomination to part A of that annex for the purposes of Article 62(3) of Regulation (EC) 607/2009, which relates to grape names which consist of or contain a protected designation of origin, the contested regulation indentified the protected designation of origin as the single word ‘Montepulciano’, deleting the traditional term ‘Vino Nobilie di’, which has formed an essential part of the designation since it was recognised.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is directed against Regulation No 401/2010, (1) in so far as, by adopting that regulation in order to correct the error of including the ‘Montepulciano’ variety name in Part B of Annex XV to Regulation No 607/2009, (2) the Commission moved the name to Part ‘A’ of Annex XV and at the same time deleted the traditional term ‘Vino Nobile di Montepulciano’ from the first column of the table in the annex.
   In so doing, the defendant categorised as the mere movement of text a substantive change which has a much more significant effect than that permitted by the scope of Article 62(3) of Regulation No 607/2009. The defendant thereby also manifestly misused its powers, using that provision inappropriately for purposes beyond those pursued by it, to the detriment of producers of Vino Nobile di Montepulciano and the Consorzio del Vino Nobile and, generally, to that of consumers and the market.
   The applicants also allege infringement of Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement. In that connection, it is submitted that the surreptitious deletion of the traditional term ‘Vino Nobile’ from the protected designation of origin ‘Vino Nobile di Montepulciano’ is not a sufficient or appropriate measure for pursuing the aims set out in the TRIPS Agreement, since it increases the likelihood of confusion, in particular on the part of Community consumers who are not Italian, who would be easily misled by labelling which makes no distinction as to the use of the term ‘Montepulciano’. Thus, there would be an insufficiently clear distinction between the various products designated by that term, when used either as an indication of provenance from the homonymous geographical area without the traditional term, or as an indication of the variety name, preceding rather than following the geographical indication.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EU) No 401/2010 of 7 May 2010 amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 607/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (OJ 2010 L 117, p. 13).

      (2)  Commission regulation (EC) No 607/2009 of 14 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, traditional terms, labelling and presentation of certain wine sector products (OJ 2009 L 193, p. 60).


title: Case C-132/02: Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 131/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.6.2002
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                   The Commission claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
—     declare that, by failing to communicate to the Com-                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      mission any information concerning the quality of bath-                  Commission Directive 2000/24/EC (1) of 28 April 2000
      ing waters in France for the 1999 bathing season, the                    amending the Annexes to Council Directives 76/895/
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the
      Article 13 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 Decem-                   fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on
      ber 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1);                    cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products
                                                                               of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables respectively,
                                                                               the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              under the EC Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission considers that the social conflict giving rise
to the omission which has been established cannot justify that           In view of the binding nature of the provisions of the third
omission. Although, according to a general principle common              paragraph of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of
to the laws of the Member States, force majeure is deemed to             Article 10 EC, the Member States to which a directive is
arise in the event of an occurrence possessing, simultaneously,          addressed are obliged to transpose it into national law in such
the characteristics of being beyond the control of the State,            a way that it becomes fully effective on expiry of the period
being unforeseeable and being irresistible in its effects, the           for transposition. The period prescribed in Article 5(2) of the
social conflict in issue here does not fulfil those criteria. The        directive expired on 31 December 2000 without the Republic
fact that checks continued to be carried out on the ground, in           of Austria having adopted the necessary provisions.
accordance with the requirements of the directive, cannot
absolve France of its obligations under Article 13 of the
directive, which has its own particular purpose. The Com-                (1) OJ L 107, 2000, p. 28.
mission further notes that, as at the expiry of the period stated
in the reasoned opinion, the French authorities had not sent
the Commission any information concerning the quality of
bathing waters in France for the 1999 bathing season, and that
it had still not done so as at the date of the present application.
                                                                         Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 31 of 5.2.1976, p. 1.                                           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-132/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/23)
Action brought on 9 April 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
                               Austria                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
                                                                         2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with an address for
                         (Case C-131/02)                                 service in Luxembourg.
                         (2002/C 131/22)                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                         the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before                   and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April                    with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice
represented by Gerald Braun, of the Legal Service of the                       of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Commission of the European Communities, with an address                        Member State other than that in which the qualification
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar                        was obtained (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                fulfil its obligations under that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- 1.6.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 131/13
(2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The period for transposing the directive expired on 29 May
                                                                       1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       (1) OJ L 181 of 9.7.1997, p. 1.
The time-limit for transposition expired on 14 March 2000.
(1) OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.
                                                                       Action brought on 16 April 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-142/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 131/25)
Action brought on 11 April 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                           of Germany
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-135/02)                                ties on 16 April 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by M. Patakia, acting as Agent, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg.
                        (2002/C 131/24)
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-           (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations
ties on 11 April 2002 by the Commission of the European                      and administrative measures necessary in order to comply
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of the               with Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and
Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-                     of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice
ties, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre                   Member State other than that in which the qualification
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                            was obtained (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                       (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
      notify to the Commission, or failing to adopt the laws,          Pleas in law and main arguments
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 97/23/EC (1) of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on                  The time-limit for transposition expired on 14 March 2000.
      the approximation of the laws of the Member States
      concerning pressure equipment, the Federal Republic of
      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
      Treaty and that directive;                                       (1) OJ L 77 of 14.3.1998, p. 36.
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 23 May 1996 in Case C-5/94 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd (Free movement of goods - Protection of animals - Harmonizing Directive - Article 36 of the EC Treaty - Non-contractual liability of a Member State for breach of Community law)

text:
6 . 7. 96           LEN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 197/7
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         laws must not be less favourable than those relating to
                       of 23 May 1996                                       similar domestic claims or framed in such a way as in
                                                                            practice to make it impossible or excessively difficult to
in Case C-5/94 ( request for a preliminary ruling from the                  obtain reparation.
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): The Queen
v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte:
                Hedley Lomas (Ireland ) Ltd (^                      f 1 ) OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
(Free movement of goods — Protection of animals —
Harmonizing Directive — Article 36 of the EC Treaty —
Non-contractual liability of a Member State for breach of
                       Community law)
                         ( 96/C 197/11 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber )
                                                                                of 23 May 1996
In Case C-5/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                    in Case C-237/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the EC Treaty by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench           the Social Security Commissioner ): John O'Flynn v.
Division ( England and Wales ), for a preliminary ruling in                               Adjudication Officer ^)
the proceedings pending before that court between The
Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex                  (Social advantages for workers — Funeral payment)
parte: Hedley Lomas ( Ireland ) Ltd , on the interpretation of                                  ( 96/C 197/12 )
Articles 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty and the principle of
non-contractual State liability for breach of Community
law, the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                                 (Language of the case: English)
President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward and G. Hirsch
(Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur), F. A.
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                    In Case C-237/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                    of the EC Treaty from the Social Security Commissioner
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                (United Kingdom ) for a preliminary ruling in the
23 May 1996, the operative part of which is as follows :            proceedings pending before him between John O'Flynn and
                                                                    Adjudication Officer on the interpretation of Article 7 of
                                                                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
                                                                    1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                    Community ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 )
1 . Community law precludes a Member State from                     — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O.
     invoking Article 36 of the EC Treaty to justify a              Edward, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet
     limitation of exports ofgoods to another Member State          ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann, L. Sevôn and M. Wathelet, Judges;
     on the sole ground that, according to the first State, the     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
     second State is not complying with the requirements ofa        Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 May 1996 , in which it
     Community harmonizing Directive which pursues the              rules :
     objective which Article 36 is intended to protect but
     does not lay down either any procedure for monitoring
     their application or any penalties in the event of their       Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
     breach:
                                                                     Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
                                                                     workers within the Community precludes a provision such
                                                                    as that in Regulation 7 (1 ) (c) of the Social Fund (maternity
 2 , a Member State has an obligation to make reparation for         and funeral expenses) Regulations 1 987 which makes grant
     the damage caused to an individual by a refusal to issue        of a payment to cover funeral expenses incurred by a
     an export licence in breach of Article 34 of the Treaty         migrant worker subject to the condition that burial or
     where the rule of Community law infringed is intended           cremation take place within the territory of the Member
     to confer rights on individuals, the breach is sufficiently     State whose legislation provides for that payment.
     serious and there is a direct causal link between the
      breach and the damage sustained by the individuals.
     Subject to that reservation, the State must make good           t 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
      the consequences of the loss or damage caused by a
      breach of Community law attributable to it, in
     accordance with its domestic law on liability. However,
      the conditions laid down by the applicable domestic


title: Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of the aid paid out — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/24

         Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and requiring recovery of the aid paid out - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 108/64
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc (Venezia Lido, Italy) (Case T-278/00); Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ (Marghera, Italy) (Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-289/00 to T-295/00); Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA (Venice, Italy) (Case T-279/00); Astrocoop — Universale — Pulizie, manutenzioni e trasporti Soc. coop. rl (Marghera) (Case T-280/00); GE.AL.VE. Srl (Venice) (Case T-282/00); Metropolitan Srl (Venice) (Case T-283/00); Hotel Concordia Snc (Venice) (Case T-284/00); Manutencoop Soc. coop. rl (Bologna, Italy) (Case T-285/00); Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA) (Venice) (Case T-286/00); Principessa Srl (Venice) (Case T-288/00); Albergo ristorante ‘All’Angelo’ Snc (Venice) (Case T-289/00); Albergo Saturnia Internazionale SpA (Venice) (Case T-290/00); Savoia e Jolanda Srl (Venice) (Case T-291/00); Hotels Biasutti Snc (Venezia Lido) (Case T-292/00); Ge.A.P. Srl (Venice) (Case T-293/00); Rialto Inn Srl (Venice) (Case T-294/00); and Bonvecchiati Srl (Venice) (represented by: A. Bianchini) (Case T-295/00)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 are joined for the purposes of this order.

               2.

               The objections of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission are joined to the substance.

               3.

               The actions are dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               4.

               Albergo Quattro Fontane Snc, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, Hotel Gabrielli Sandwirth SpA, Astrocoop — Universale — Pulizie, manutenzioni e trasporti Soc. coop. rl, GE.AL.VE. Srl, Metropolitan Srl, Hotel Concordia Snc, Manutencoop Soc. coop. rl, Società per l’industria alberghiera (SPLIA), Principessa Srl, Albergo ristorante ‘All’Angelo’ Snc, Albergo Saturnia Internazionale SpA, Savoia e Jolanda Srl, Hotels Biasutti Snc, Ge.A.P. Srl, Rialto Inn Srl and Bonvecchiati Srl shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 23.12.2000.


title: Case C-259/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 May 2011 — DTZ Zadelhoff vof, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 May 2011 — DTZ Zadelhoff vof, other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-259/11)
   2011/C 252/27
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: DTZ Zadelhoff vof

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted as also covering transactions, such as those carried out by the interested party, which in essence relate to the immovable property held by the companies concerned and its (indirect) transfer, solely on the ground that those transactions were aimed at, and resulted in, the transfer of the shares in the companies?

               2.

               Is the exception to the exemption contained in the second indent of Article 13B(d)(5) of the Sixth Directive also applicable if the Member State has not availed itself of the possibility provided by Article 5(3)(c) of the Sixth Directive of considering shares or interests equivalent to shares giving the holder thereof rights of ownership or possession over immovable property to be tangible property?

               3.

               If the previous question must be answered in the affirmative, must the aforementioned shares or interests equivalent to shares be understood to include shares in companies which, directly or indirectly (by means of (sub-) subsidiaries), own immovable property, regardless of whether they exploit it as such or whether they utilise it in the context of a different type of undertaking?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1997 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-219/12: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission (Action for annulment and damages — Public service contracts — Exclusion of the applicant from the tendering procedure — Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/37

         Order of the General Court of 24 October 2012 — Saobraćajni institut CIP v Commission
   (Case T-219/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment and damages - Public service contracts - Exclusion of the applicant from the tendering procedure - Annulment of the tendering procedure after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 9/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Saobraćajni institut CIP d.o.o. (Belgrade, Serbia) (represented by: A. Lojpur, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and E. Georgieva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, first, annulment of a contract notice published on 27 March 2012 concerning the preparation of technical documentation for a rail modernisation project, excluding the applicant from participating in the tendering procedure, and, second, damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2003 in Joined Cases T-188/01, T-189/01 and T-190/01: Vassilios Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Admissibility — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits of officials from different services)

text:
24.5.2003               EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/19
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
                         of 19 March 2003
                                                                              in Case T-273/01: Innova Privat-Akademie GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases T-188/01, T-189/01 and T-190/01: Vassilios                    (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — ‘BSS’
Tsarnavas v Commission of the European Communities (1)                        — Article 51 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absolute
                                                                              ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/
                                                                              94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Articles
                                                                                7(3) and 51(2) of Regulation No 40/94)
(Officials — Admissibility — Promotion — Consideration
   of comparative merits of officials from different services)                                          (2003/C 124/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                           (2003/C 124/32)
                                                                              In Case T-273/01: Alcon Inc, formerly Alcon Universal Ltd,
                                                                              established in Hünenberg (Switzerland), represented by H.
                    (Language of the case: French)                            Porter, Solicitor and C. Morcom QC, with an address for
                                                                              service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities (Agents: M. de Pauw and B. Martenczuk: Action
                                                                              brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
                                                                              the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 13 July 2001 (Case R 273/
                                                                              2000-1), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), compo-
In Joined Cases T-188/01, T-189/01 and T-190/01: Vassilios
                                                                              sed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
Tsarnavas, an official of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoëst,                  A.W.H. Meij, Judges, Registrar: J. Plingers, Administrator, has
                                                                              given a judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin)
— application for the annulment of the decisions of the                       1.     Dismisses the application;
Commission not to promote the applicant in the 1998,
1999 and 2000 promotions procedures — the Court of First                      2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Deputy                  (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Annuls the decisions of the Commission not to promote
       the applicant in the 1998, 1999 and 2000 promotions
       procedures;                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 5 March 2003
2.     Dismisses as inadmissible the application in Case T-190/01;
                                                                              in Case T-293/01: Donatella Ineichein v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
3.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs in Cases T-188/01
       and T-189/01;
                                                                              (Temporary staff — Daily subsistence allowance — Place of
                                                                                recruitment — Evidence)
4.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case T-190/01.
                                                                                (2003/C 124/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001 and C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                              In Case T-293/01: Donatella Ineichein, member of the tempor-
                                                                              ary staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              residing in Brussels, represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, against