title: Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-439/98)

text:
6.2.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 33/3
     Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83,                 Regulation (EEC) No 838/93, extend back only to the
     be validly effected only by means of an entry in box 18              point in time when the areas under cultivation ceased
     of the form set out in Annex II to Commission                        to be farmed extensively or is the discrepancy to be
     Decision 83/673 (3) of 22 December 1983 when the                     calculated and deducted for the whole period of the
     claim for final payment is forwarded, pursuant to the                undertaking?
     first indent of Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) and (4) as
     well as Article 6(1) and (2) of the abovementioned
     decision, or do those provisions apply only to                  3. What are the criteria for determining whether there
     inter-departmental procedural formalities, of no                     is a serious infringement within the meaning of
     external relevance since they are not essential, which               Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as
     do not make it impossible for the department                         amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93?
     concerned subsequently to issue a certificate which
     differs from the first certificate, either as a separate
     document or on a fresh form, provided that, in either           (1) OJ L 361, 29.12.1988, p. 13.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 88, 8.4.1993, p. 16.
     case, it takes account of the legal nature of the
     measures in question and complies with the limits and
     conditions laid down by national law for making the
     relevant alteration?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1).           Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
(2) Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983,
    p. 38).                                                                                (Case C-439/98)
(3) Commission Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on
    the management of the European Social Fund (OJ L 377,
                                                                                (1999/C 33/04)
    31.12.1983, p. 1).
                                                                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     3 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
                                                                     Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin by order of that court of
                                                                     its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               17 September 1998 in the case of
   Landerzeugergemeinschaft e.G. Gross Godems against
                Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case C-414/98)
                         (1999/C 33/03)
                                                                     1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the European Communities by order of the                                  Commission Directive 95/30/EC (1) of 30 June 1995
Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Administrative Court,                        adapting to technical progress Council Directive
Schwerin) of 17 September 1998, received at the Court                     90/679/EEC (2) of 20 November 1990 on the
Registry on 20 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling                    protection of workers from risks related to exposure
in the case of Landerzeugergemeinschaft (agricultural                     to biological agents at work (seventh individual
producer group) e.G. Gross Godems against Amt für                         Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
Landwirtschaft Parchim (Office for Agriculture, Parchim)                  Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), or by failing                 to
on the following questions:                                               communicate such provisions, the Italian Republic has
                                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1. Does the penalty laid down by the first sentence of
     Article 16(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88 (1), as            2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93 (2), still
     apply where the discrepancy between the number of
     units for which the aid is requested and the number of
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     units measured is not more than 10 % of the area but
     more than two hectares?
                                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
2. Does the reduction with regard to aid paid in advance,            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     laid down by the second sentence of Article 16(1) of            upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
     Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as amended by                      Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
 ---pagebreak--- C 33/4                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6.2.1999
down in directives for their transposition. That time-limit             refund to a trader financial charges on the value of
expired on 30 November 1996 without the Italian                         exported goods which must be regarded as levied in
Republic having brought into force the necessary                        breach of Community law, on the basis that it is
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred               established that the person who was required to pay
to in the Commission's application.                                     the charges at issue in fact passed them on to other
                                                                        persons, namely the purchasers of the goods, and it
(1) OJ L 155, 6.7.1995, p. 1.                                           does not follow, nor does the trader claim, that that
(2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                         charge caused an increase in the price of the products
(3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.                                          and a reduction in the volume of his sales with the
                                                                        result that he suffered subsequent loss?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
by judgment of that court of 29 October 1998 in the case            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
of Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon            Protodikio Thessalonikis (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges)
                           Asfalision                               by judgment of that court of 29 October 1998 in the case
                                                                    of Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon
                       (Case C-441/98)
                                                                                Asfalision
                        (1999/C 33/05)
                                                                                (Case C-442/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 33/06)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko
Protodikio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First
Instance, Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
29 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on                  European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko
4 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            Protodikio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First
Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon               Instance, Thessaloniki) (Fifth Chamber, Three Judges) of
Asfalision (Social Security Institution) on the following           29 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on
questions:                                                          4 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Kapniki Mikhailidis A.E. against the Idrima Kinonikon
                                                                    Asfalision (Social Security Institution) on the following
1. Does a charge which is levied by a Member State on               questions:
    domestic goods exported to another Member State in
    proportion to their value constitute a charge having
    equivalent effect to customs duties on exports, having          1. Does a charge which is levied by a Member State on
    regard to the fact that that charge, which is invariably            domestic goods exported to another Member State in
    imposed on a particular category of domestic goods,                 proportion to their value constitute a charge having
    in accordance with objective criteria and within the                equivalent effect to customs duties on exports, having
    framework of a general system of taxation, is not                   regard to the fact that that charge, which is invariably
    imposed on domestic products which are distributed in               imposed on a particular category of domestic goods,
    the home market or on like goods which are imported                 in accordance with objective criteria and within the
    into the country from another Member State?                         framework of a general system of taxation, is not
    Alternatively is the abovementioned proportional                    imposed on domestic products which are distributed in
    contribution payable by tobacco exporters Ð which is                the home market or on like goods which are imported
    levied and credited as income of the IKA, a social                  into the country from another Member State?
    security institution, for the benefit of the Tobacco                Alternatively is the abovementioned proportional
    Workers' Pensions Branch Ð by reason of its                         contribution payable by tobacco exporters Ð which is
    objective, that is to say boosting the financial                    levied and credited as income of the IKA, a social
    resources of the particular insurance branch, not                   security institution, for the benefit of the Tobacco
    inconsistent with Community law, in that it constitutes             Workers' Pensions Branch Ð by reason of its
    in a broader sense a contribution in favour of an                   objective, that is to say boosting the financial
    insurance body for the purpose of achieving the social              resources of the particular insurance branch, not
    security objectives in respect of the particular group of           inconsistent with Community law, in that it constitutes
    workers, who may be employed in undertakings like                   in a broader sense a contribution in favour of an
    the plaintiff's, and are in any event entitled, even by             insurance body for the purpose of achieving the social
    means of the imposition of charges such as the one in               security objectives in respect of the particular group of
    this case, to social security, in accordance with the               workers, who may be employed in undertakings like
    appropriate provisions of the constitution of the                   the plaintiff's, and are in any event entitled, even by
    particular Member State?                                            means of the imposition of charges such as the one in
                                                                        this case, to social security, in accordance with the
2. If the first part of the first question is answered in the           appropriate provisions of the constitution of the
    affirmative, is a Member State in principle obliged to              particular Member State?


title: Case C-24/09: Order of the Court of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden)) — Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v AB Fortum Värme samägt med Stockholms stad (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 85/337/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 96/61 — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Public participation in the decision-making process for environmental matters — Right of appeal against decisions authorising projects liable to have significant effects on the environment)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/12

         Order of the Court of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden)) — Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening v AB Fortum Värme samägt med Stockholms stad
   (Case C-24/09) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 85/337/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 96/61 - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Public participation in the decision-making process for environmental matters - Right of appeal against decisions authorising projects liable to have significant effects on the environment)
   2010/C 134/18
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen (Sweden)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Djurgården-Lilla Värtans Miljöskyddsförening

      Defendant: AB Fortum Värme samägt med Stockholms stad

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Articles 1(2), 6(4) and 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Interpretation of Articles 2(14) and 15a of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC — National legislation entitling local non-profit-making associations to participate in the prior authorisation procedure for activities which are dangerous to the environment, but making the right of such an association to participate subject to the conditions that its purpose under its statutes is environmental protection, that the association has been active for at least three years and that it has at least 2 000 members

      Operative part

               1.

               Members of the public concerned, within the meaning of Articles 1(2) and 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, and within the meaning of Articles 2(14) and 15a of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, the latter provisions having been repeated in Article 2(15) and (16) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, must have access to a review procedure in respect of a decision by which a body which forms part of the judicial organisation of a Member State has ruled on an application for project authorisation, whatever the role they may have played during examination of that application by taking part in the proceedings before that body and putting forward their views on that occasion.

               2.

               Articles 10a of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, and 15a of Directive 96/61, as amended by Directive 2003/35, the latter provision having been repeated in Article 16 of Directive 2008/1, preclude a provision of national legislation which restricts the right to seek review of a decision on an operation which falls within the scope of Directives 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35, and 96/61, as amended by Directive 2003/35, respectively to environmental protection associations which have at least 2 000 members.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case F-3/11: Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/22

         Action brought on 11 January 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-3/11)
   2011/C 113/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request of 15 March 2010 and a claim for compensation for the damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, whatever its form, which brought about the rejection by the Commission of the request of 15 March 2010 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority of the Commission;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, annul the Commission’s rejection of the complaint of 5 August 2010;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, annul the note of 24 August 2010, written in Italian, which was not received by the applicant before 1 October 2010;

               —

               order the Commission to make reparation for the damage unjustly suffered by the applicant as a result of each of the decisions in respect of which annulment is sought, in particular as a result of the cumulative effect of those decisions, by paying to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 000, or such greater or lesser sum as the Tribunal may consider fair and just;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-247/01: Action brought on 26 September 2001 by eCopy, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
19.1.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 17/17
of payment of this fine were specified in Article 4 of the              under its principal credit facilities, its ability to pay and the
Decision. Fines and sanctions subsequent to these infringe-             effect on competition in the graphite electrodes market if the
ments have been imposed upon the applicant in other states.             applicant were forced into bankruptcy.
                                                                        (1) Commission Notice of 18 July 1996 on the non-imposition or
                                                                            reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ [1996] C 207, p. 4).
The Decision was sent to the applicant by letter dated 23 July
2001 from the Commissioner responsible for competition
matters, in which further matters regarding payment, including
statements about a possible collection of the fine in case of
non-payment, were mentioned. The applicant submits that
this letter constitutes a separate decision which it contests.          Action brought on 26 September 2001 by eCopy, Inc.
                                                                        against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
                                                                                (Case T-247/01)
The applicant made representations to the Commission on the                                         (2002/C 17/29)
subject of payment terms. The Commission replied by letter of
9 August 2001 which, according to the applicant, constitutes
a third distinct decision, of which it seeks the annulment.                                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 26 September 2001 by eCopy,
The applicant does not contest the findings in the first Decision       Inc., represented by Mr Brian C. Read, Barrister, of 19 Old
that it committed an infringement of the EC competition rules,          Buildings, London (United Kingdom)
nor does it contest that a fine should be imposed for this
infringement. It does, however, contest the imposition of a
fine on it in the above-mentioned amount. It alleges that it            The applicant claims that the Court should:
should have been accorded a greater reduction of the fine for
its cooperation with the Commission under the Leniency                  —     annul the Board Decision of 13 July 2001;
Notice (1), and that the level of the fine is unlawfully high,
having regard to the gravity and duration of the infringement,
and to aggravating and attenuating circumstances and other              —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
general factors. The Commission has also breached certain                     to grant Community trade application no. 1718667,
essential procedural requirements in failing properly to investi-             alternatively to continue prosecution of the application
gate and assess the role of the former owners of the applicant                according to the judgment of the Court;
in the cartel.
                                                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                              to pay the costs of eCopy, Inc.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Furthermore, the applicant contests the associated payment
terms and grounds and submits that Article 4 of the Decision
of 18 July 2001 and the alleged third decision of 9 August              Applicant for the Com-            eCopy, Inc.
2001 are void for the lack of reasoning. The applicant disputes         munity trade mark:
the Commission’s position that it will seek to enforce the fine,
even if proceedings for its annulment are pending before the            The Community trade               The verbal mark ECOPY in respect
Court, unless a bank guarantee covering the amount of the               mark concerned:                   of certain goods in class 9.
fine and interest is provided. It is submitted that the Com-
mission erred when it refused to accept a lien on company               Decision of the Exam-             Refusal of the application
assets as security for the fine and when it refused to accept or        iner:
even consider a payment schedule which did not include a
bank guarantee. Finally, the Commission erroneously refused             Decision of the Board of          Rejection of the Appeal
to take account of the restrictions imposed on the applicant            Appeal:
 ---pagebreak--- C 17/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.1.2002
Grounds of claim:              Incorrect      interpretation     of      In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following
                               Article 7 of Regulation 40/94 (1)         pleas:
                               and unjust refusal of evidence
                               filed by the Applicant after the
                               filing of the Application.                —     infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff
                                                                               Regulations and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
                                                                               Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
                                                                               munities.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         —     disregard for the interests of the service.
                                                                         —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
                                                                               assessment.
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Norman Pyres
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant states in that regard that it is for the institution
                                                                         to justify on objective grounds the condition relating to age
                         (Case T-256/01)                                 which it sets in its recruitment notices, such justification to be
                                                                         objective and reasonable, to be in pursuit of a legitimate
                                                                         interest and to observe the requirements of proportionality.
                          (2002/C 17/30)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste —
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Noramn                        Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the
Pyres, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersan-                               European Communities
den and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-259/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 17/31)
—     annul the decision of 1 December 2000 of the Selection
      Board in competition COM/R/A/14/2000, the decision of
      4 December 2000 of the Selection Board in competition                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
      COM/R/A/10/2000 and the decision of 7 December 2000
      of the Selection Board in competition COM/R/A/07/2000
      refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the selection
      procedure;
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                         16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional,
                                                                         S.A., established in Algés, Portugal, represented by the lawyers
                                                                         Jorge Monteiro dos Santos, Ana Cristina Vasconcelos, Jorge de
                                                                         Mendia, Sandra Sousa de Almeida and António Texeira de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Almeida, of Lisbon.
The applicant opposes the decision of the appointing authority           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
to exclude him from the selection procedure for COM/
R/A/07/2000, COM/R/A/10/2000 and COM/R/A/14/2000,
organised by the Research Directorate General, on the ground             —     Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant
that he did not meet the condition as to age-limit prescribed                  the sum of EUR 61 222 for goods duly delivered but not
therein.                                                                       yet paid for.


title: Case C-490/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/51

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-490/06)
   (2006/C 326/103)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Lawunmi)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/88/EC into domestic law expired on 11 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 35 of 11.02.2003, p. 28.


title: Case T-191/02: Action brought on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.9.2002
The applicant considers that the Commission acted wrongfully                —     annul Mr Neil Kinnock’s letter of 22 November 2001
in so far as it failed to observe the procedure laid down in                      addressed to the presidents of all the trade unions
Directive 92/59. (1) In that regard, the applicant submits that                   informing them of his decision to ask the Commission to
the Commission did not establish that the apples tested had                       terminate the 1974 framework agreement on 5 December
originated from the applicant. In addition, there was no serious                  2001;
and immediate risk. The applicant states that the checks carried
out established only that there was an impermissible level of
dicofol. The applicant also claims that, by failing to consult
the parties concerned as quickly as possible, the Commission                —     annul Mr Erik Halskov’s decision No 47623 of 6 Decem-
acted in breach of Article 7(2) of Directive 92/59.                               ber 2001 refusing to grant the applicant leave to attend,
                                                                                on a mission basis, the meeting of 7 December 2001 on
                                                                                the ‘Comprehensive Package of Proposed Amendments
                                                                                to the Statute’;
The damage suffered by the applicant consists of loss sustained
in the English market, loss of profit, and harm to its reputation.
The applicant states that in the preceding year it had worked
hard to break into the English market and build up a                        —     rule on costs, expenses and fees and order the European
reputation. Its efforts have now been rendered useless. The                       Commission to pay them.
damage was evidently caused by the Commission’s wrongful
conduct since, following the notifications under the rapid alert
system, the applicant’s sales in the English market were
brought to an end.
( 1) Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product
     safety (OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24).                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            By the present action, the applicant is contesting, in particular,
                                                                            the Commission’s decision of 5 December 2001 whereby,
                                                                            according to the applicant and in so far as the A&D (Action &
                                                                            Défense) trade union is deprived of all or some of its
Action brought on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef                           rights arising from its adhesion to the framework agreement
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       governing relations between the Commission and trade
                                                                            unions/staff organisations, in particular recognition of its
                                                                            representativity, participation in meetings at all levels and the
                           (Case T-191/02)                                  distribution of resources:
                           (2002/C 233/45)
                                                                            —     the agreement on relations between the Commission and
                                                                                trade unions/staff organisations of 20 September 1974 is
                     (Language of the case: French)                               terminated with effect from 5 December 2001;
                                                                            —     the Operational Rules on levels of consultation, the
                                                                                consultation body and related procedures (SEC (2000)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         2086/3) agreed between the Commission and the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                        majority of the trade unions/staff organisations on 19 Jan-
European Communities on 19 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,                          uary 2000 are re-adopted;
residing at Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                            —     the agreement of 4 April 2001 on the resources to be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       made available to the Central Committee and local staff
                                                                                committees and the trade unions/staff organisations
                                                                                (SEC(2001)955/5) is ratified;
—      annul the decision of the College of Commissioners of
       5 December 2001 by which the agreement of 20 Septem-
       ber 1974 on relations between the Commission and trade
       unions/staff organisations is terminated with effect from            —     the provisions on strikes laid down in Annex 1 to the
       5 December 2001;                                                           1974 framework agreement are ratified;
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 233/25
—    Vice-President Kinnock is asked to enter into negotiations          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     with the trade unions/staff organisations and to propose
     for adoption by the Commission, before the end of March             —     allow the application;
     2002, a new framework agreement and to include in the
     series of amendments on which the trade unions and                  —     annul the contested measure;
     staff organisations are to be consulted an amendment
     providing for the opportunity to adopt electoral rules by
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay EUR 12 500 in respect of the
     way of a vote by the staff of the institution.
                                                                               material and non-material harm suffered by the applicant;
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          —     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs irrespec-
                                                                               tive of the outcome of the case.
—    clear intent to circumvent the judgment of the Court of
     First Instance of 22 November 2001 delivered in Case
     T-349/00 Lebedef v Commission;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—    infringement of the 1974 framework agreement and of
     the principle ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’;                     (1) Failure on the part of the defendant to comply with the
                                                                               judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case T-182/99
—    absence of any objective examination of the representativ-                by which the decision not to promote the applicant was
     ity of the trade unions/staff organisations and manifest                  annulled.
     error in the comparative assessment of that rep-
     resentativity;                                                      (2) Misuse of procedure.
—    infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;                (3) Misuse of powers.
—    infringement of the rights of the defence;                          (4) Unreasonable exercise by the defendant of its discretion
                                                                               in relation to promotions.
—    breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
     tations;                                                            (5) Incorrect exercise of that discretion.
—    failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons;             (6) Sham re-examination of the applicant’s candidature for
                                                                               promotion.
—    failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the
     welfare and interests of officials;                                 (7) Superiority of the mark of the applicant, who was not
                                                                               promoted, vis-à-vis the marks of those promoted.
—    infringement of Article 24a of the Statute and of the
     principle of the freedom of trade union activity.                   (8) Liability for a wrongful act on the part of the defendant,
                                                                               causing the applicant material and non-material harm.
Action brought on 2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis
               against the European Parliament                           Action brought on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’ against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-197/02)
                                                                                (Case T-198/02)
                        (2002/C 233/46)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/47)
                   (Language of the Case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2 July 2002 by Georgios Karavelis, resident in Brussels,                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with an address for service           European Communities on 28 June 2002 by ‘N’, represented
in Luxembourg.                                                           by Nicola Lhoëst, lawyer.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 December 1996 in Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, Patents Court): Merck & Co. Inc. and Others v. Primecrown Ltd and Others and Beecham Group plc v. Europharm of Worthing Ltd (Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal - Interpretation of Articles 47 and 209 - End of transitional period - Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty - Parallel imports of unpatentable pharmaceuticals)

text:
8 . 2 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 40 / 3
expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural                     other document serving as an invoice that fulfils the
Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee                      criteria determined by the Member States themselves, and
Section ( OJ No L 35,2, 31 . 12 . 1994, p. 82 ) — the Court           confer on them the power to require production of the
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray, President of            original invoice in order to establish the right to deduct
the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth             input tax, as well as the power, where a taxable person no
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), G. Hirsch , H.              longer holds the original, to admit other evidence that the
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                    transaction in respect of which the deduction is claimed
Colomer, Advocate-General ; Fl . von Holstein , Deputy                actually took place.
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
5 December 1996 , in which it:                                        O OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
1 . dismisses the action ;
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 December 1996
                                                                      in Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95 ( references for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of
                                                                      England and Wales, Chancery Division, Patents Court ):
                                                                      Merck & Co . Inc. and Others v. Primecrown Ltd and
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      Others and Beecham Group pic v. Europharm of Worthing
                      of 5 December 1996                                                            Ltd (')
in Case C-85/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             (Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Interpretation
the Bundesfinanzhof): John Reisdorf v. Finanzamt Köln                of Articles 47 and 209 — End of transitional period —
                              West (')                                Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — Parallel imports of
 (Value added tax — Interpretation of Article 18 (1 ) (a) of                           unpatentable pharmaceuticals)
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of
                                                                                ( 97/C 40/06 )
input tax paid — Obligation of the taxable person —
                   Possession of an invoice)
                           ( 97/C 40/05 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: German)                        In Joined Cases C-267/95 and C-268/95 : references to the
                                                                      Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the High
                                                                      Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division,
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Patents Court, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
           published in the European Court Reports)                   pending before that court between Merck & Co . Inc .,
                                                                      Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd, Merck Sharp & Dohme
 In Case C-85/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           International Services BV and Primecrown Ltd, Ketan
 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof for a                      Himatlal Mehta , Bharat Himatlal Mehta, Necessity
 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             Supplies Ltd and between Beecham Group and Europharm
 court between John Reisdorf and Finanzamt Köln-West —                of Worthing Ltd — on the interpretation of Article 47 and
 on the interpretation of Article 18 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Sixth         Article 209 of the Act concerning the Conditions of
 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                   Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
 harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating               Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties ( OJ No
 to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :                L 302, 15 . 11 . 1985 , p. 23 ), and of Articles 30 and 36 of
 uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977,            the EC Treaty, the Court composed of : G. C. Rodriguez
 p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C.              Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. L. Murray and L.
 Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the                  Sevón , Presidents of Chambers, C. N. Kakouris, C.
 Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet               Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
 and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. A.            and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-
 Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a              General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment
 judgment on 5 December 1996 , the operative part of                   on 5 December 1996 , in which it rules :
 which is as follows :
                                                                       1 . The transitional periods provided for in Articles 47
 Article 18 (1 ) (a) and Article 22 (3) of the Sixth Council               and 209 of the Act concerning the Conditions of
 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                                 Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
 harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                    Republic and the Adjustments of the Treaties expired
  to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                     on 6 October 1995 in the ease of the Kingdom of
  uniform basis of assessment permit the Member States to                   Spain and on 31 December 1994 in the case of the
  regard as an invoice not only the original but also any                   Portuguese Republic.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 40/4            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
2 . Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty preclude                        H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
     application of national legislation which grants the               Colomer, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
     holder of a patent for a pharmaceutical product the                a judgment on 5 December 1996 in which it:
     right to oppose importation by a third party of that
     product from another Member State in circumstances
                                                                        I. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     where the holder first put the product on the market
                                                                            periods the laws, regulations and administrative
     in that State after its accession to the European
                                                                            provisions necessary to comply with, first, Council
     Community but before the product could be protected
                                                                            Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying
     by a patent in that State, unless the holder of the                    down animal health and public health requirements
     patent can prove that he is under a genuine, existing                  governing trade in and imports into the Community of
     legal obligation to market the product in that Member                  products not subject to the said requirements laid
     State.
                                                                            down in specific Community rules referred to in
                                                                            Annex A (1) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as regards
(') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 , and                                       pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC and, second,
    OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10. 1995 .                                           Council Directive 93/S2/EEC of 24 June 1993
                                                                            amending Directive 89/556/EEC on animal health
                                                                            conditions governing intra-Community trade in and
                                                                            importation from third countries of embryos of
                                                                            domestic animals of the bovine species, the Hellenic
                                                                            Republic has failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on
                                                                            it by Articles 20 (1 ) and 2 (1 ) respectively of those
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Directives;
                          ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                       2 . orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                      of 5 December 1996
in    Case    C-91/96 Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
            Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
(Failure to fulfil obligations not contested — Directives
92/118/EEC and 93/52/EEC — Failure to transpose
                 within the prescribed periods)
                             ( 97/C 40/07 )                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                                              of 12 December 1996
                                                                       in Case C-104/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens ): Georgios Kontogeorgas
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                v. Kartonpak AE (')
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Approximation of laws — Self-employed commercial
                                                                       agents — Entitlement to commission — Commercial
In Case C-91/96: Commission of the European                            transactions concluded during the period covered by the
Communities ( Agent: Maria Condou-Durande ) v. Hellenic                                          agency contract)
Republic (Agents : Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Nana                                             ( 97/C 40/08 )
Dafniou ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
to adopt within the prescribed periods the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                                  (Language of the case: Greek)
comply with, first, Council Directive 92/ 118/EEC of
17 December 1992 laying down animal health and public
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
health requirements governing trade in and imports into
the Community of products not subject to the said                                published in the European Court Reports)
requirements laid down in specific Community rules
referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive 89/662/EEC and, as           In Case C-104/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC ( OJ No L 62,               of the EC Treaty by the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens, for
15 . 3 . 1993, p. 49 ) and, second, Council Directive                  a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
93/52/EEC of 24 June 1993 amending Directive                           that court between Georgios Kontogeorgas and Kartonpak
89/556/EEC on animal health conditions governing intra                AE on the interpretation of Article 7 (2 ) of Council
Community trade in and importation from third countries                Directive   86/653/EEC of 18          December   1986 on the
of embryos of domestic animals of the bovine species ( OJ              coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to
No L 175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p. 21 ), the Hellenic Republic has           self-employed commercial agents ( OJ No L 382 , 31 . 12 .
failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on it by the Treaty           1986 , p. 17 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of:
and by those Directives — the Court ( Sixth Chamber),                  D. A. O. Edward, acting for the President of the Chamber,
composed of G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber,                   C. Gulmann, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ) and M.
J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                     Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A.


title: Case C-82/00: Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
24.6.2000              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/5
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                          Netherlands                                 — declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
                                                                          adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures
                         (Case C-82/00)                                   necessary in order to implement the provisions of Directive
                                                                          97/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                          of 17 June 1997 on certain components and characteristics
                        (2000/C 176/07)
                                                                          of two or three-wheel motor vehicles, the Kingdom of the
                                                                          Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations under
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                      the Treaty;
brought before the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                — order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
C. Van Der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Under Article 8(1) of Directive 97/24/EC, the Kingdom of the
                                                                      Netherlands was required by no later than 18 December 1998
— declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to            to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative
    adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures           measures necessary in order to comply with that directive.
    necessary in order to implement the provisions of Com-
    mission Directive 98/14/EC (1) of 6 February 1998 adapt-
    ing to technical progress Council Directive 70/156/EEC on         (1) OJ 1997 L 226, p. 1.
    the approximation of the laws of the Member States
    relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their
    trailers, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
    comply with its obligations under the Treaty;
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Action brought on 8 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Under Article 2(1) of Directive 70/156/EEC, the Kingdom of                                       Netherlands
the Netherlands was required by no later than 30 September
1998 to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrat-                                 (Case C-90/00)
ive measures necessary in order to comply with the directive.
                                                                                (2000/C 176/09)
(1) OJ 1998 L 91, p. 1.
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice on 8 March 2000 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                      H.M.H. Speyart, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez
                                                                      de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                          Netherlands                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-83/00)
                                                                          and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                          Directive 97/56/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
                        (2000/C 176/08)                                   the Council of 20 October 1997 amending for the 16th
                                                                          time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                      laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
brought before the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the                Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                    and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations,
C. Van Der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,               the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to comply with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                its obligations under the Treaty;
C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                            — order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.


title: Case T-140/05: Action brought on 29 March 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/36

         Action brought on 29 March 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-140/05)
   (2005/C 132/64)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 March 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Decision No 00556 of 21 January 2005 concerning SPD Objective 2 Tuscany 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000.IT.16.2.DO.001) — Suspension of the request for payment;

               2.

               annul Decision No 00582 of 24 January 2005 concerning SPD Lazio Ob. 2 CCI No 2000IT162DO009 (2000-2006) — Certification and declaration of interim costs and request for payment (December 2004);

               3.

               annul Decision No 00728 of 26 January 2005 concerning PEP Campania Ob. 1 — 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007) — Declaration of interim costs and request for payment;

               4.

               annul Decision No 00860 of 31 January 2005 concerning PEP Campania Ob. 1 — 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007) — Declaration of interim costs and request for payment;

               5.

               annul Decision No 02787 of 21 March 2005 concerning SPD Liguria No CCI 2000 IT 162 DO 006 — Certification of the declarations of interim costs and request for payment (December 2004);

               6.

               annul Decision No 02590 of 16 March 2005 concerning the Commission's payment of an amount different from that requested. Ref. SPD Ob. 2 Lazio 2000-2006;

               7.

               annul Decision No 02594 of 16 March 2005 concerning the Commission's payment of an amount different from that requested. Ref. SPD Tuscany Ob. 2 (No CCI 2000.IT.16.2.DO.001);

               8.

               annul Decision No 02855 of 22 March 2005 concerning the Commission's payment of an amount different from that requested. Programme: PEP Campania (No CCI 1999IT161PO007);

               9.

               annul all related and consequential measures;

               10.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

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

      (1)  OJ 2004 C 262 of 23.10.2004, p. 55.


2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/31
Action brought on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media                          Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has
Ireland Limited against the Commission of the European                    failed to give any reasons as to why an error on the part of the
                           Communities                                    Irish customs authorities which it acknowledges for part of the
                                                                          period covered by the Decision should reasonably have been
                         (Case T-186/99)                                  detected by the applicant and, in finding that the applicant
                                                                          could reasonably have detected the Irish authorities’ error, has
                                                                          infringed Article 5(2) by failing to have regard or adequate
                         (1999/C 281/57)                                  regard to (a) the nature of the error, (b) the professional
                                                                          experience of the applicant and (c) the degree of care exercised
                                                                          by the applicant.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The applicant also argues that, in refusing remission in respect
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 of the import duties in question, the Commission has infringed
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and failed to give
European Communities on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media                    reasons for its decision. In particular, the Commission has
Ireland Limited, represented by Damian Collins and Gerald                 ignored the general equitable nature of the remission procedure
FitzGerald with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               provided for in Article 13 by failing properly to take account
Chambers of Stéphane Le Goueff, 9 avenue Guillaume.                       of the conduct of the Irish authorities and its impact on the
                                                                          applicant and of the situation of the applicant during the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               periods in question. In addition, the Commission has relied
                                                                          on an incorrect understanding of the concept of ‘obvious
— annul Commission Decision C(99) 968 of 28 April 1999                    negligence’and requires an excessively high level of care on the
     in its entirety;                                                     part of the trader concerned. Finally, the Commission, while
                                                                          finding the existence of a special situation for part of the
— in the alternative, annul the Decision in so far as it relates          period covered by the decision and not finding any deception
     to import duties in respect of the period January 1992 to            on the applicant’s part at any time, has nevertheless denied
     February 1993;                                                       remission although it has also not made any finding of ‘obvious
— in the further alternative, annul the Decision in so far as it          negligence’on the applicant’s part during the period in which a
     relates to import duties in respect of the period January to         special situation is acknowledged or, if it has made such a
     October 1992;                                                        finding of ‘obvious negligence’, it has failed to provide the
                                                                          reasons on which this finding of obvious negligence is based.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested Decision the Commission ordered the                             Removal from the register of Case T-169/97 (1)
post-clearance recovery by Ireland of import duties from the
applicant and refused remission in respect of those import                                        (1999/C 281/58)
duties. The applicant argues that in ordering the post-clearance
recovery of the duties, the Commission has infringed Article
5(2) of Regulation (EEC)No 1697/79 and failed to give reasons                                (Language of the case: Italian)
for its Decision. In particular, the Commission has incorrectly
relied on a concept of ‘active error’in applying Article 5(2) and         By order of 19 July 1999 the President of the First Chamber of
has failed to appreciate the extent to which, during certain              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
periods covered by the Decision, the Irish authorities commit-            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-169/97: Farine
ted an error by continuing to accept customs entries by the               Laziali SpA v Commission of the European Communities.
applicant bearing a tariff classification which those authorities
knew or should have known was incorrect.                                  (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case T-225/15: Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU trade mark medialbo — Earlier EU word mark MediaLB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Registration of the transfer of the mark — Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo)
   (Case T-225/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU trade mark medialbo - Earlier EU word mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 063/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, Arizona, United States) (represented by: C. Bergmann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Microchip Technology and Alexander Bopp.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               QuaMa Quality Management GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.


title: Joined Cases T/546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14: Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Šumelj and Others v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Accession of Croatia to the European Union — Repeal before accession of national legislation providing for the creation of the profession of public enforcement officer — Harm suffered by the persons previously appointed as public enforcement officers — Failure by the Commission to adopt measures ensuring compliance with the accession commitments — Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Article 36 of the Act of Accession)

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2016 — Šumelj and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T/546/13, T-108/14 and T-109/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Accession of Croatia to the European Union - Repeal before accession of national legislation providing for the creation of the profession of public enforcement officer - Harm suffered by the persons previously appointed as public enforcement officers - Failure by the Commission to adopt measures ensuring compliance with the accession commitments - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Article 36 of the Act of Accession))
   (2016/C 118/23)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Applicants: Ante Šumelj (Zagreb, Croatia), Dubravka Bašljan (Zagreb), Đurđica Crnčević (Sv. Ivan Zeline, Croatia), Miroslav Lovreković (Križevaci, Croatia) (Case T-546/13); Drago Burazer (Zagreb), Nikolina Nežić (Zagreb), Blaženka Bošnjak (Sv. Ivan Zeline), Bosiljka Grbašić (Križevaci), Tea Tončić (Pula, Croatia), Milica Bjelić (Dubrovnik, Croatia), Marijana Kruhoberec (Varaždin, Croatia) (Case T-108/14); Davor Škugor (Sisak, Croatia), Ivan Gerometa (Vrsar, Croatia), Kristina Samardžić (Split, Croatia), Sandra Cindrić (Karlovac, Croatia), Sunčica Gložinić (Varaždin), Tomislav Polić (Kaštel Novi, Croatia) and Vlatka Pižeta (Varaždin) (Case T-109/14) (represented by: M. Krmek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Ćutuk and G. Wils and, in Cases T-546/13 and T-108/14, S. Ječmenica, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages seeking compensation for damage allegedly suffered by the applicants following the failure by the Commission to take measures to ensure the Republic of Croatia’s compliance with its accession commitments.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Mr Ante Šumelj and the other applicants named in the annex to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-21/00: Action brought on 24 January 2000 by David Crabbe against European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)

text:
18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/41
— annul under the last paragraph of Article 8 of the con-                — order the defendant to pay, by way of making good his
    ditions applicable to other servants (CAOS), so far as                    material and non-material damage, damages in an amount
    necessary, the legal classification of the applicants’ con-               to be set by the Court;
    tracts since in reality each of them constitutes a renewal of
    a contract for an indefinite period under Article 2(a) CAOS;         — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— annul the express decision refusing the applications
    brought by the applicants; and
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant claims, first of all, that the contested decision is
                                                                         vitiated by a total absence of reasons, which is contrary to the
Pleas in law and main argument                                           second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                 The applicant claims, moreover, that the principle patere legem
advanced by the applicants in Case T-137/99 (1).                         quam ipse fecisti was infringed inasmuch as the contested
                                                                         decision does not comply with the rules which the Director of
                                                                         Cedefop had imposed on himself in his decision of 12 Nov-
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999, p. 38.                                        ember 1992, on provisions and criteria for the promotion of
                                                                         members of staff at the Centre.
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by David Crabbe
against European Centre for the Development of
                Vocational Training (Cedefop)                            Action brought on 27 January 2000 by A against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-21/00)
                                                                                (Case T-23/00)
                          (2000/C 79/85)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/86)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against European Centre for the Development of                                    (Language of the case: French)
Vocational Training (Cedefop) was brought before the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 January
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
2000 by David Crabbe, residing in Perea-Thessaloniki, rep-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
resented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an
                                                                         European Communities on 27 January 2000 by A, residing in
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Thewes
                                                                         Saint-Hubert (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the
& Reuter, 33 Rue des Capucins.
                                                                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                         Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop not to
    promote him to grade A 5 or LA 5 in the 1998 promotion
    procedure, as evidenced by his memorandum of 12 May                  — annul the express decision of 4 November 1999 (notified
    1999 publishing the list of promoted officials;                           on 28 October 1999) rejecting the complaint lodged by the
                                                                              applicant on 22 July 1999 with the appointing authority
— annul the decision of the Director of Cedefop impliedly                     challenging it’s decision of 23 April 1999 ordering against
    rejecting his administrative compliant of 14 June 1999                    the applicant the disciplinary measure of removal from
    against the earlier decision, deemed to have been taken on                post, without reduction or withdrawal of entitlement to
    14 October 1999 by operation of the second indent of                      retirement pension;
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations in the absence of a
    reply to that complaint four months after it was lodged;             — order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-45/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/26

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2016 by d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 18 November 2015 in Case T-106/13 Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission

   (Case C-45/16 P)
   (2016/C 098/33)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: d.d. Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis (represented by: Κonstantinos Damis, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 18 November 2015 in Case T-l06/13 d.d.Synergy Hellas Anonymi Emporiki Etaireia Parochis Ypiresion Pliroforikis v European Commission;

               —

               uphold the company’s action of 20.2.2013 in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               Misapplication of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract at issue.
               The General Court erred in its assessment of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code, with respect to the application of the principle of good faith in the performance of the contract.

               2.

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of the terms of the contract and manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence.
               The General Court erred in the application of Article ΙΙ.22 Financial Audits and Controls in Annex II to the signed ARTreat — 224297 agreement, being the contract at issue.

               3.

               Manifestly erroneous assessment of the evidence and deficient statement of reasons.
               Insufficient and contradictory statement of reasons for the findings of the judgment.
               The General Court erroneously and manifestly distorted the evidence adduced.


title: Case C-243/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid in favour of the hotel industry in Sardinia — Recovery)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-243/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid in favour of the hotel industry in Sardinia - Recovery)
   2012/C 151/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998 (notified under document number C(2008) 2997) (OJ 2008 L 302, p. 9)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period all the measures necessary to recover from the recipients the aid granted under the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2008/854/EC of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme (C 1/04 (ex NN 158/03 and CP 15/2003)): Misuse of aid measure N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.07.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 30 April 1996 in Case C-13/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Industrial Tribunal, Truro): P. v. S. and Cornwall County Council (Equal treatment for men and women - Dismissal of a transsexual)

text:
No C 197/2           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 7. 96
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                1 . declares that, by not adopting within the period
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                 prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending                             measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ L 78 , 1991 , p . 32 ), the             91 /271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the           water treatment, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
EC Treaty and the first-mentioned Directive — the Court                    fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that
( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President                   Directive;
of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P. Jann
and L. Sevôn ( Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                      2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
28 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      (M OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
1 , declares that, by not adopting within the period
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
     measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
     91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
      75/442/EEC on waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the
     first-mentioned Directive;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                            of 30 April 1996
                                                                      in Case C-13/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                       Industrial Tribunal, Truro ): P. v. S. and Cornwall County
                                                                                Council ^)
                                                                      (Equal treatment for men and women — Dismissal of a
                                                                                transsexual)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/04
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                       (Fifth Chamber )
                      of 28 March 1996                                In Case C-13/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
in Case C-161/95 : Commission of the European                         the EC Treaty by the Industrial Tribunal, Truro (United
            Communities v. Hellenic Republic 0 )                      Kingdom ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                      pending before that court between P. and S. and Cornwall
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —               County Council, on the interpretation of Council Directive
Non-transposition of Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban                     76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of
                    waste water treatment
                                                                      the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
                         { 96/C 197/03 )                              regards access to employment, vocational training and
                                                                      promotion, and working conditions ( OJ L 39 , 1976, p . 40 ),
                (Language of the case: Greek)                         the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                      C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G.
                                                                      Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray,
          published in the European Court Reports)                     H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn, Judges; G. Tesauro,
                                                                      Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 April 1 996 , in which
 In Case C-161/95 : Commission of the European                         it ruled :
 Communities (Agent: Maria Kontou-Durande ) v. Hellenic
 Republic (Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Evi
 Skandalou ) — application for a declaration that, by not              in view of the objective pursued by Council Directive
 adopting or by not communicating to the Commission                    76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of
 within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council            regards access to employment, vocational training and
 Directive 91/271 /EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban                 promotion, and working conditions, Article 5 (1 ) of the
 waste water treatment ( OJ L 135 , 1991 , p . 40 ), the Hellenic      Directive precludes dismissal of a transsexual for a reason
 Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            related to a gender reassignment.
 Treaty and that Directive — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
 composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
 J.-P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevôn                    (!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
  (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R.
  Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 March 1996 , in
  which it: