title: Case T-331/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Nikolaou v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/35

         Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Nikolaou v Commission and European Central Bank
   (Case T-331/13)
   2013/C 252/58
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Marinos Nikolaou (Nicosia, Cyprus) (represented by: E. Εfstathiou, K. Εfstathiou and K. Liasidou, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Central Bank, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the action to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision of the Eurogroup of 25 March 2013, which took its final form through the decision of the Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus as the representative and/or agent of the European System of Central Banks dated 29 Μarch 2013, K.D.P [Regulatory Administrative Act] 104/2013, whereby the ‘sale of certain operations’ of Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd was decided and which in essence constitutes a joint decision of not only the European Central Bank but also of the European Commission;

               —

               in addition, declare that the abovementioned decision of the Eurogroup in essence constitutes a decision of the European Central Bank and/or of the European Commission jointly irrespective of the shape or form in which it was dressed;

               —

               order the European Central Bank and/or the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant puts forward four pleas in law.

               1.

               By the first plea for annulment the applicant maintains that the contested decision is null and void, since the decision exceeds the powers conferred by the Treaty on European Union on not only the European Central Bank but also the European Commission, that is to say, it is an act which was ultra vires of those two institutions.

               2.

               By the second plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is in breach of the right to respect for property, which is protected by Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, as confirmed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               By the third plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is manifestly unfounded and lacking any legal basis and is contrary to the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               By the fourth plea for annulment, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is also contrary to the generally recognised legal principles which have been disseminated in European Union law and in particular to the principle that no-one may rely on his own failures to obtain an advantage and/or to justify wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.


title: Action brought on 15 October 1996 by Rüdiger Wenk against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-159/96)

text:
No C 40/20           I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 14 October 1996 by Paolo Salvatore                   can alter its contents . Thus, once published, the list of
Affatato against the Commission of the European                        successful candidates on which the applicant's name
                            Communities                                appeared could not be altered without the other party
                         ( Case T-157/96 )                             being heard , even as a self-protection measure, since the
                                                                       alleged error was one of fact and not of law.
                            ( 97/C 40/48 )
                                                                       According to the applicant, the entire procedure appears
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                       therefore to be vitiated by serious irregularities at every
                                                                       stage or, at the least, in its latter stages .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 14 October
1996 by Paolo Salvatore Affatato, residing at Foggia
( Italy ), represented and defended by Nicola De Perna ,
Avvocato, Foggia, with an address for servicc at 13 Piazza             Action brought on 15 October 1996 by Riidiger Wenk
del Lago, Foggia .
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T- 159/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                                     ( 97/C 40/49 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— declare valid and legitimate the official notification of
      5 July 1996 with the result that the applicant's name
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
      is returned to the list of successful candidates,
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 15 October
— annul the unlawful stages of the competition in                      1996 by Riidiger Wenk , residing in Caracas (Venezuela ),
      question with the result that it is held again ,                 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
— order payment of compensation for pecuniary and
      non-pecuniary damage resulting from the conduct of
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
      the jury and other related bodies, which was at the
      least equivocal .
                                                                       — annul the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature
                                                                            for post COM/121 /95, including the decision notified
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         to the applicant by the despatch of a standard-form
                                                                            document dated 2 February 1996 ,
After taking part in competition COM/B/794 , the
applicant was informed by letter of 5 July 1996 from the               — annul , in so far as may be necessary, the implied
chairman of the jury that he had passed all the tests and                   rejection decision adopted by the Commission in
had accordingly been placed on the list of successful                       consequence of its failure to respond to the applicant's
candidates . However, by letter of 10 July 1996 , the                       complaint,
chairman retracted the earlier notification , excluding the
applicant from the list of successful candidates, whilst for           — annul all related or subsequent decisions adopted by
the first time communicating the marks obtained .                           the Commission, in particular the decision appointing
                                                                            another candidate to the post in issue ,
The applicant alleges first of all breach of the principles
that administrative procedures must be made public and                 — order the Commission to proceed afresh to fill the post
that administrative acts must be transparent. He maintains                  in issue, in accordance with the provisions of the Staff
that the jury acted all along in absolute secrecy ; whilst                  Regulations,
admitting him to the oral tests, it did not tell him what
marks he had obtained in the written tests . Its attitude              — order the Commission to pay all the costs .
remained the same during the oral tests, in which the
candidates were all interviewed behind strictly closed                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
doors and in the absence of any witnesses .
                                                                       The applicant, a grade A4 official assigned to the
As regards the supposed 'human error' which gave rise to               Commission 's Directorate-General IB, residing in Caracas,
the change in the list of successful candidates, the                   contests the refusal of the appointing authority to appoint
 applicant finds this rather curious given the small number            him to the post of Head of the Commission's Delegation
 of candidates ( 12 ) who were admitted to the oral test.              in San Jose ( Costa Rica ), advertised in vacancy notice
 However, most curious of all in the opinion of the                    COM/121 /95 as an A5/A4 post .
 applicant is the unilateral nature of the decisions adopted
 by the jury. Under all administrative systems , once the list          In support of his contentions, the applicant advances the
 of successful candidates has been published , no authority             following three pleas :
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 2 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 40/21
— infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 of                conversion of plant to economic activities other than steel
      the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as the decision                  production . Under that legislation, aid is granted to
      rejecting the candidature in issue is vitiated by a              undertakings which reduce their productive capacity by
      complete absence of any statement of reasons,                    destroying plant . By decision of 12 December 1994, the
                                                                       Commission approved the abovementioned provisions .
— illegality of the vacancy notice referred to above, in               Pursuant to the legislation in question , the Italian
      that it does not mention the qualifications required for         authorities notified in September 1995 the provision of a
                                                                       contribution   of Lit    13 509 000 000    for the definitive
      the post to be filled and thereby enabled the
       appointing authority, when making the appointment in            cessation of steel production by the applicant and the
       issue, to stipulate, as decisive criteria , qualifications      closure of the relevant undertaking and the destruction of
       which had not been specified in that notice,                    plant resulting in capacity reductions of 288 000 tonnes in
                                                                       steel and 165 000 tonnes of hot-rolled products .
— infringement of Articles 7 ( 1 ), 27 and 45 ( 1 ) of the
       Staff Regulations. In advancing this plea , the applicant       By the contested decision , adopted on the basis of the
       claims that the appointing authority did not act in the         Steel Aid Code, the Commission declared the aid intended
       matter solely in the interest of the service, did not seek      for, inter alia, the applicant undertaking, to be
       to secure the highest standard of ability and did not           incompatible , since it considered that aid for closures must
       consider the comparative merits of, and reports on,             be granted only to undertakings which have regular
       the candidates . He states in that regard that, even if         production on the steel market.
       such a comparative analysis had been carried out, it
       would still have been apparent that there has been a
       manifest error of assessment and a breach of the                The applicant claims first of all that, where undertakings
       principle of the protection of legitimate expectations .        do not merely suspend production temporarily but cease
                                                                       production definitively, they no longer satisfy the
                                                                       conditions laid down in Article 80 and thus of Article 4 ( c )
                                                                       of the Treaty. It follows therefrom that by regulating and
                                                                       limiting by way of the Steel Aid Code national state
                                                                       contributions granted to persons no longer subject to the
                                                                       obligations arising from the ECSC Treaty, the defendant
Action brought on 19 October 1996 by Moccia Irme SpA                   has legislated in a matter not provided for in that Treaty.
    against the Commission of the European Communities                 Hence, the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Code is
                          ( Case T-164/96 )                            unlawful .
                             ( 97/C 40/50 )
                                                                       The applicant further alleges that the principle of equal
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      treatment has been breached . It should be noted in this
                                                                       regard that, where closure is partial, the incentive may be
 An action against the Commission of the European                      granted for the closure of a plant which is suitable solely
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                      for production , while a steel undertaking which has only
 Instance of the European Communities on 19 October                     one plant is required to have regularly manufactured steel
 1996 by Moccia Irme SpA, whose registered office is in                 products up to the date of notification of the aid scheme .
 Naples ( Italy ), represented by Emilio Cappelli , Paolo de            Moreover, if an undertaking is in the course of adapting
 Caterini and Andrea Bandini, of the Rome Bar, with an                  its plant for industrial waste disposal and is doing so
 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   because it is required by law, it cannot be criticized for
 Charles Turk, 13 B, Avenue Guillaume .                                 suspending production .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            As regards breach of the principle that legislation must be
                                                                        published and cannot be retroactive, the applicant
                                                                        maintains that the defendant cannot fulfil such essential
 — annul, pursuant to Articles 33 and 36 of the ECSC
        Treaty, the Commission Decision of 30 July 1996 —               requirements by introducing and applying in 1996 , that is
        C(96 ) 2385 final, and                                          subsequently and for specific cases, criteria for interpreting
                                                                        the Code with the aim of regulating the 1993 steel
                                                                        production of those undertakings .
 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Finally, the applicant states that the Commission, by
                                                                         applying unjustifiably restrictive parameters when
                                                                         assessing aid to closure while at the same time rejecting
  In 1994, the Italian Government notified to the                        the alternative criterion of ' suitability for production',
  Commission Law No 481 of 3 August 1994 and the                         proposed by the Italian authority, has disregarded the
  Decree of the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Crafts               objectives which its discretionary powers are intended to
  No 683 of 12 October 1994, both of which were intended                 achieve, and has therefore misused its powers .
  to promote the implementation of a plan to restructure the
  distribution of the national steel industry by means of
  assistance in the closure of production units and the


title: Case C-120/99: Action brought on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 188/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         3.7.1999
In point 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 2184/97 (1) was the                         — infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty, of the general
Commission therefore entitled to decide that all multi-function                    principles concerning the hierarchy of sources of law
facsimile machines essentially consisting of:                                      and of Article 8(4)(ii) of Regulation No 3760/92 (2);
— a modem                                                                     — manifest inadequacy of the criteria presumably adopted
                                                                                in order to implement the principle of ‘relative stab-
— a scanner                                                                        ility’.
— a printing device                                                       2. Unlawfulness of Article 2(2) and of the Annex (table
                                                                              relating to bluefin tuna), by reason of:
and operating either in an autonomous form or in conjunction
with a computer, fall under tariff heading 8517 21 (facsimile                 — absence of a statement of reasons. The fifth recital in
machines), thus excluding the possibility of determining the                       the preamble to the regulation contains reasoning
dominant function of each machine on a case-by-case basis                          which is merely ostensible, incomprehensible and
and laying down the principle that the printing device is of                       certainly insufficient for the purposes of providing
secondary importance, whatever the machine, provided that it                       any real reasons which might justify the exceptional
falls within the category described?                                               allocation set out in the first table (bluefin tuna) in the
                                                                                annex to the regulation;
(1) Commission regulation of 3 November 1997 concerning the
    classfication of certain goods in the combined nomenclature (OJ           — infringement of Regulation No 3760/92 (Article 8(4))
    L 299, p. 6).                                                                  and breach of the general principles regarding the
                                                                                common agricultural policy, legal certainty and basic
                                                                                guarantees relating to sanctions;
                                                                              — in addition, manifest error with regard to ICCAT;
                                                                              — misuse of powers.
Action brought on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic
          against the Council of the European Union                       (1) OJ L 13 of 18 January 1999, p. 54.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 389 of 31 December 1992, p. 1.
                           (Case C-120/99)
                           (1999/C 188/27)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 10 April 1999 by the Italian Republic, represented by             Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of
Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Pier Giorgio                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, Rue Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                                (Case C-121/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 188/28)
— allow the present application, and consequently,
                                                                          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
— partially annul Council Regulation (EC) No 49/1999 (1);                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                          1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                          Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Kirchberg.
                                                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Unlawfulness of Article 2(1) of the regulation (allocation
     of percentages from the share available to the Community             1. declare that, by not communicating the laws, regulations
     of bluefin tuna stocks), by reason of:                                   and administrative provisions required to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 97/35/EC (1) of 18 June 1997
     — total absence of a statement of reasons. The recitals in               adapting to technical progress for the second time Council
         the preamble to the regulation do not in any way                     Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the
         satisfy the essential guarantee requiring the provision              environment of genetically modified organisms, or by not
         of a statement of the parameters and criteria adopted                adopting the necessary measures to comply therewith, the
         for the purposes of dividing up a total allowable catch              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
         into national quotas;                                                the Treaty and that directive;


title: Case T-202/99: Action brought on 10 September 1999 by Léon Rappe against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 314/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.10.1999
Action brought on 10 September 1999 by Léon Rappe                         Action brought on 17 September 1999 by Martin Bange-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          mann against the Council of the European Union
                        (Case T-202/99)                                                           (Case T-208/99)
                        (1999/C 314/29)
                                                                                (1999/C 314/30)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Council of the European Union was
European Communities on 10 September 1999 by Léon                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Rappe, residing at Orp-Jauche (Belgium), represented by                  Communities on 17 September 1999 by Martin Bangemann,
Jean-Noël Louis, Greta Françoise Parmentier and Véronique                of Melle (France), represented by Wolfgang Knapp and Till
Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in               Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue               & Hamilton, 23 Rue de la Loi, Brussels.
de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission’s decision not to promote the                     (a) annul the Council’s decision of 9 July 1999 on the referral
     applicant to grade A 6 in the course of the 1998 pro-                   of the applicant’s case to the Court of Justice of the
     motion procedure;                                                       European Communities pursuant to the third subpara-
                                                                             graph of Article 213(2) EC;
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
     for the material and non-material damage suffered by him,           (b) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     in such sum as it shall deem fair and equitable, without
     prejudice to any measures which the institution may be
     required to take pursuant to Article 233 of the EC Treaty;          Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         On 9 July 1999 the Council of the European Union (‘the
                                                                         defendant’) adopted a decision to refer the case of Mr
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Bangemann (‘the applicant’) to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities pursuant to the final sentence of the
The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Articles 43 and 45          third subparagraph of Article 213(2) of the Treaty establishing
of the Staff Regulations of officials. He maintains that, as at          the European Community and the corresponding provisions
the date of assessment of the comparative merits of the                  of the ECSC and EAEC Treaties (1). That decision was formally
candidates, his personal file did not contain any definitive             served on the applicant by letter from the defendant of even
report concerning the duties performed by him as an adminis-             date.
trator between 1995 and 1997, and that, consequently, neither
the Promotion Committee nor the appointing authority was                 The applicant maintains that:
in a position properly to compare the merits of the applicant
with those of the other officials eligible for promotion. He             — the contested decision should not have been adopted
also maintains that, in adopting the contested decision and                  without the applicant first having been heard;
expressly rejecting his complaint, the appointing authority
failed to provide him with the information necessary in order
                                                                         — the contested decision is based on an infringement of
for him to be able to understand the justification for that
                                                                             Article 213(2) EC, inasmuch as he had not taken up the
decision; the defendant thereby disregarded Articles 25 and 26
                                                                             appointment offered to him with the Telefónica Company;
of the Staff Regulations as well as the rights of the defence and
the principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
                                                                         — he had not committed any breach of his duty under
                                                                             Article 213 EC to behave with discretion;
The applicant further asserts that the defendant was under an
obligation to draw up a report on his merits prior to
                                                                         — as a result of the contested decision, and in particular the
31 December 1997, covering the period from 1995 to 1997;
                                                                             unparalleled publication thereof in that form, he has
however, the definitive report has still not been drawn up.
                                                                             suffered non-material damage, and his reputation has
He accordingly claims that, as a result of that breach of
                                                                             been destroyed in consequence of the defendant having
administrative duty, which constitutes a failure by the adminis-
                                                                             prejudged the matter;
tration to comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare
and interests of officials and to act fairly, he has suffered
material damage, having been robbed of his chances of                    — as a result of the contested decision, he has also suffered
promotion, and also non-material damage arising from the                     material damage.
uncertainty and worry concerning his professional future and
the recognition of his merits; consequently, the defendant               (1) OJ L 192 of 24 July 1999, p. 55.
should be ordered to pay him compensation.


title: Case T-631/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Raffinerie Heide v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/16

         Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Raffinerie Heide v Commission
   (Case T-631/13)
   2014/C 31/28
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Raffinerie Heide GmbH (Hemmingstedt, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (2013/448/EU, OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as Article 1(1) and Annex IA rejected inclusion of the applicant in the list under Article 11 of Directive 2003/87/EC and the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances which should be allocated to the applicant under identifier DE000000000000010 free of charge;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to exercise discretion
               In this context the applicant claims that the Union’s greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme for the third trading period (2013 to 2020) does not exclude allocations in particular cases of hardship and does not release the Commission, in its decisions, from having regard to the fundamental rights of undertakings and the principle of proportionality. The Commission has overlooked this and thereby did not properly exercise its discretion which Union law has granted it.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights
               The applicant submits in that regard that the rejection by the national competent authority of the requested allocations infringes the applicant’s fundamental rights under Articles 17 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as well as the principle of proportionality. The expected under-supply of allowances to the applicant would cause it clear disproportionate hardship unforeseen by Directive 2003/87/EC. The creation of a situation likely to endanger the existence of undertakings, such as the applicant, is not appropriate, necessary or proportionate to meet the objectives set out in the directive.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case T-328/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Smit Harbour Towage Rotterdam v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Smit Harbour Towage Rotterdam v Commission
   (Case T-328/02) (1)

   (2006/C 224/111)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Third Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 323, 21.12.2002.


title: Case C-205/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu — Romania) — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) v Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right of access to a court — Principle of equality of arms — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision ordering the repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law — Exemption of public authorities from certain legal costs — Jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/19

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu — Romania) — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP) v Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci
   (Case C-205/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right of access to a court - Principle of equality of arms - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision ordering the repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law - Exemption of public authorities from certain legal costs - Jurisdiction of the Court))
   (2016/C 335/25)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov (DGRFP)

      Defendants: Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which exempts legal persons governed by public law from judicial stamping fees when they lodge an objection to the enforcement of a judicial decision relating to the repayment of taxes levied in breach of EU law and exempts those persons from the obligation to lodge a security at the time of bringing an application for a stay of such enforcement proceedings, while the applications submitted by legal and natural persons governed by private law in the context of such procedures remain, in principle, subject to court costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-261/04: Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Alain Crespinet against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/28

         Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Alain Crespinet against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-261/04)
   (2004/C 273/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Alain Crespinet, resident in Rosières (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision awarding his priority points for the 2003 promotions exercise and the decision not to include the applicant in the list of officials promoted to grade A5 in the same exercise;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the present case, the applicant objects to the refusal by the appointing authority of the institution to promote him to grade A5 in the 2003 promotions exercise, following the awarding, for that exercise, of an insufficient number of priority points to attain the points threshold necessary to be taken into consideration for a promotion.
   The applicant alleges the following in support of his action:

               —

               infringement of Articles 5, 7 and 26 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               infringement of Articles 43 and 45 of the Staff Regulations and the appurtenant general provisions for implementing them;

               —

               infringement of the principle of correlation between grade and position;

               —

               infringement of the principle of career development;

               —

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

         The applicant alleges in particular that the awarding of one point per year in the grade, as provided for in Article 12(3) of the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, rewards grade seniority of officials eligible for promotion without taking account of their actual merit as demonstrated by them during those years and in relation to which the staff reports were drawn up.


title: Case T-213/99: Action brought on 24 September 1999 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.11.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/35
Action brought on 24 September 1999 by Luc Verheyden                      Action brought on 28 September 1999 by Manuel Tomás
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      Carrasco Benı́tez against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         (Case T-213/99)
                                                                                (Case T-214/99)
                         (1999/C 333/77)
                                                                                (1999/C 333/78)
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                    (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 September 1999 by Luc Ver-
heyden, residing at Angera (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot,         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.               European Communities on 28 September 1999 by Manuel
                                                                          Tomás Carrasco Benı́tez, residing in London, represented by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique
                                                                          Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
— annul the note drawn up on 10 November 1998 by                          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue
    D. Van Hattem, Head of Service in the Infrastructure                  de Cessange.
    Directorate for the Ispra site, addressed to the applicant,
    by which, inter alia, he described the management by the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    applicant over the last two years of a depository situated
    in building 76b as ‘not up to any acceptable standard’;               — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
— annul the decision of 22 June 1999, drawn up by Mr Erkki                     COM/T/R/ADM/A/98 not to admit the applicant to the
    Liikanen, Member of the Commission, in his capacity as                     competition;
    appointing authority, and brought to the applicant’s notice
    on 25 June 1999, rejecting the complaint lodged by the                — annul the decision of the selection board in joint vacancy
    applicant on 16 February 1999;                                             notices/internal competitions COM/R/5179/98, COM/R/
                                                                               5182/98, COM/R/5183/98, COM/R/5188/98 and COM/
— order the defendant to pay all the costs in any event;                       R/5190/98;
— order that the defendant be paid compensation for non-                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    material damage fixed, on an equitable basis, in the sum of
    LIT 25 000 000.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant, a Grade B official assigned to the European
The applicant contests the manner in which one of his                     Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, contests the
superiors has addressed to him certain criticisms concerning              decision of the selection boards in the abovementioned
his efficiency and output in the performance of his duties.               competitions not to admit him to the tests in those compe-
                                                                          titions. The competitions in question form part of the new
In support of his claims, he pleads:                                      policy of the Commission, aimed at filling each year a certain
                                                                          number of permanently established posts within the research
— infringement of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations,            budget.
    misuse of powers and abuse of process in the present case,
    and breach of the rights of the defence. In that regard, he
    considers, in particular, that it is intolerable that the             In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
    appointing authority should be able to categorise his                 Articles 4, 27 and 29(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations and breach
    output and efficiency without adhering to the procedures              of the principle of equal treatment, as well as a manifest error
    laid down in the Staff Regulations;                                   of assessment in the present case.
— infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and                 On the basis of those pleas, the applicant maintains, in
    breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate               particular, that:
    expectations, together with failure to fulfil its duty to have
    regard for his welfare and interests. He maintains in that
                                                                          — the criterion requiring candidates to have completed a
    regard, first, that the defendant, contrary to what it seeks
                                                                               minimum of ten years’ service as a servant of the European
    to demonstrate, has not introduced the necessary measures
                                                                               Communities, within the meaning of the Conditions of
    for his further training and instruction and, second, that
                                                                               employment of other agents, is unlawful, inasmuch as it
    the defendant has not taken all necessary and adequate
                                                                               may have the effect of eliminating from possible recruit-
    measures to protect him against the defamation which he
                                                                               ment persons who possess qualifications which are equiva-
    has suffered.
                                                                               lent to, or even higher than, those of the candidates
                                                                               admitted to the competition (competition COM/T/R/
                                                                               ADM/A/98);


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 August 1995 in Case T-290/94: Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Rules governing languages)

text:
No C 286/ 14          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28 . 10 . 95
    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              H. Jung, Registrar, made the following order on 11 July
                       of 11 July 1995                                1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
in Case T-23/90 — Article 92 and T-9/92 — Article 92 ,
Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA v. Commission of                the total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Peugeot to
                                                                      Eco System is fixed at FF 320 000.
               the European Communities ( J )
                      (Taxation of costs)                             (') OJ No C 129 , 24 . 5 . 1990 .
                         95/C 286/33 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-23/90 — Article 92, Automobiles Peugeot SA and                                  of 11 September 1995
Peugeot SA, companies governed by French law and having               in Case T-286/94 : Z v. Economic and Social Committee of
their registered offices in Paris, represented by Xavier de                          the European Communities ( 1 )
Roux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,                 (Officials — Promotion — Retirement — Inadmissibility)
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:                                             ( 95/C 286/34 )
initially Jacques Bourgeois, then Giuliano Marenco and
Francis Herbert ), supported by Eco System SA, a company                            (Language of the case: German)
governed by French law, having its registered office in
Rouen, France, represented by Robert Collin, of the Paris             In Case T-286/94 : Z, a former official of the Economic and
Bar, and Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an               Social Committee of the European Communities, residing in
address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers,           Brussels, represented by W. G. Grupp, of the Brussels Bar,
16 Avenue Marie Therese, and Bureau Européen des Unions               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
de Consommateurs ( BEUC ), an association governed by                 Intergest, 3 Rue des Foyers, v. Economic and Social
Belgian law, having its office in Brussels, represented by            Committee of the European Communities ( Agents : Bermejo
Philip Bentley, Barrister, of Lincoln 's Inn, and Konstantinos        Garde and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the
Adamantopolous, of the Athens Bar, with an address for                annulment of the decision of 6 October 1993 rejecting the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène                       applicant's application for vacancy No 61 /92 and the
Kronshagen , 12 Boulevard de la Foire, and by the United              implied rejection of his complaint and, second, for an order
Kingdom Government ( Agent: Hussein A. Kaya ),                        requiring the Economic and Social Committee to pay him
application for taxation of the costs to be reimbursed by the         compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by him —
applicants to the intervener Eco System SA following the              the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of J.
order made on 2 1 May 1 990 by the President of the Court of          Biancarelli, President, and C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy,
First Instance on an application for interim measures in Case         Judges; made an order on 11 September 1995 , the operative
T-23/90 R [ 1991 ] ECR 11-195 and the judgment of the                 part of which is as follows:
Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ) of 12 July 1991 in
Case T-23/90 [ 1991 ] ECR 11-653 , and in Case T-9/92 —                1 . the    application       is    dismissed as   manifestly
Article 92 , Automobiles Peugeot SA and Peugeot SA,                        inadmissible;
companies governed by French law and having their
registered offices in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux, of        2 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Guy Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe, v. Commission                 (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
 of the European Communities ( Agents : Giuliano Marenco
 and Francis Herbert ), supported by Eco System SA, a
 company governed by French law, having its registered
 office in Rouen, France, represented by Robert Collin, of the
 Paris Bar, and Nicolas Decker, of the Luxembourg Bar, with                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's
 Chambers, 16 Avenue Marie Therese, and Bureau Européen                                      of 16 August 1995
 des Unions de Consommateurs ( BEUC ), an association                  in Case T-290/94 : Kaysersberg SA v. Commission of the
 governed by Belgian law, having its office in Brussels,                                 European Communities (')
 represented by Philip Bentley, Barrister, of Lincoln's Inn,                            (Rules governing languages)
 and Konstantinos Adamantopolous, of the Athens Bar, with
 an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                         ( 95/C 286/35 )
 Arsène Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire, application
 for taxation of the costs to be reimbursed by the applicants                         (Language of the case: French)
 to the intervener Eco System SA following the judgment of
 the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ) of 22 April            In Case T-290/94 : Kaysersberg SA, established in
 1993 in Case T-9/92 [ 1993 ] ECR 11-493 , the Court of                Kaysersberg ( France ), represented by Dominique Voillemot
 First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),               and Jacques-Philippe Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an
 composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, D. P. M.                   address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
 Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and V. Tiili , Judges;            Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v. Commission of the
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 10 . 95           KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 286/ 15
European Communities ( Agents : Francisco Gonzalez Diaz               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and Géraud de Bergues ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 94/893/EC of 21 June 1994 declaring               The applicant, who is employed by the United Kingdom
a concentration to be compatible with the common market               Atomic Energy Authority ( UKAEA ) and the JET Joint
and the functioning of the EEA Agreement ( IV/M.430 —                 Undertaking, as a senior member of the JET project team, as
Procter & Gamble/VP Schickedanz ( II ), OJ No L 354, p. 32 )          well as one of the applicants in Case T- 177/94 Altmann and
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended               Others, challenges the Commission's decision refusing him
Composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,             the possibility of changing his employment from the
and D. P. M. Barrington , A. Saggio , H. Kirschner and A.             UKAEA to the Commission itself, in accordance with
Kalogeropoulos , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an             Article 8 of the JET Statutes .
order on 16 August 1995 , in which it :
                                                                      The current application derives from the requirement,
 1 . rejects the request by Procter & Gamble GmbH for a               imposed by that article, that where staff are 'made available
     derogation from the rules governing languages in so far          by the Members of the JET Joint Undertaking other than the
     as it concerns the written procedure;                            host organization' and 'recruited by the Commission for
                                                                      temporary posts' the member in question ' shall undertake to
2 . grants the request of Procter & Gamble GmbH to use                re-employ the staff whom it placed at the disposal of the
     English in the oral procedure;                                   Project (. . .) as soon as the work of such staff on the Project
                                                                      has been completed'. This requirement having been
3.   reserves its decision as to costs .                              systematically interpreted by the Commission to mean that
                                                                      all temporary employees of the Commission working at JET
(') O J No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                   are required to obtain a 'return ticket' from a member of JET
                                                                      other than UKAEA, the applicant has now obtained a
                                                                      ' return ticket ' from the Swedish National Science Research
                                                                      Council , a member of JET, via an offer of employment from
                                                                      the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology .
Action brought on 7 April 1995 by Peter Esmond Stott                  It is fundamental to the applicant's case that since 1987 the
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 Commission, and the JET management generally, have
                         ( Case T-99/95 )                             failed to take any proper account of their obligations
                           ( 95/C 286/36 )                            towards the UKAF1A employees of JET and have in fact
                                                                      acted deliberately against the interests of those persons, so
                                                                      that this application raises issues closely related to those
                (Language of the case: English)                       raised in Case T-177/94 Altmann and Others .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1995 by
Peter Esmond Stott, represented by Kenneth Parker and
Rhodri Thompson , with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Cabinet Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15              Action brought on 8 August 1995 by LPN — Liga para a
Cote d'Eich .                                                         Protecção da Natureza, and by GEOTA — Grupo de
                                                                      Estudos do Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                ( Case T-155/95 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 28 December 1994                                          ( 95/C 286/37 )
     addressed to the applicant,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— order the Commission to direct the Director of the JET
     Joint Undertaking to take steps necessary to enable the
     applicant to become a temporary employee of the                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Commission in accordance with Article 8 ( 5 ) of the              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Statutes of the JET Joint Undertaking without requiring          Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1995 by
     the applicant first to vacate his current post at JET or to       LPN — Liga para a Protecção de Natureza, whose registered
     apply for any other post at JET,                                 office is at 187 Estrada do Calhariz de Benfica , Lisbon,
                                                                      represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui
— order the Commission to pay compensation to the                     Amendoeira and Paula Gomes Freire, of the Lisbon Bar, and
     applicant in relation to the difference in his terms and         whose chambers are at 27 Ave. Antonio de Aguiar, 2nd Floor
     conditions of employment resulting from the failure of            Rt. , Lisbon, and by GEOTA — Grupo de Estudos do
     the Director of JET to act on the letter addressed to the         Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente, whose
     JET Director from the applicant dated 16 May 1994 ,               registered office is at 17 — c/v Rt., Travessa Moinho de
     and                                                               Vento, Lisbon, represented by Jose Cunhal Sendim, of the
                                                                       Lisbon Bar, and whose chambers are at 10, Ave . Afonso
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .                  Costa , 11 th Floor Rt. , Lisbon.


title: Case T-431/16: Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/16

         Action brought on 1 August 2016 — VIMC v Commission
   (Case T-431/16)
   (2016/C 371/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: VIMC — Vienna International Medical Clinic GmbH (Kulmbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Bramerdorfer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s Decision of 27 May 2016 (Case AT.40231 — VIMC/WK&FGB); and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C (2016) 3351 final of 27 May 2016, by which the applicant’s complaint was rejected on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging an improper exercise of discretion.
   In this connection, the applicant submits that the application or non-application of Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 is not within the Commission’s power of discretion. On the contrary, it argues, the Commission must take into account the particular circumstances of each case and cannot, on the basis of that provision and without further clarification, reject a matter already under examination by a national authority.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 June 2003 in Case C-352/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 2000/14/EC — Noise emission in the environment)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 184/17
declaration that, by failing to communicate measures trans-                   under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
posing into national law the provisions of Directive 1999/94/                 J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                           F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of                   on 5 June 2003, in which it:
the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16) or,
at any rate, by not informing the Commission fully thereof, the               1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                     comply with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament
President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward,                         and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                      the environment by equipment for use outdoors, the Hellenic
19 June 2003, in which it:                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1)
                                                                                of that directive;
1.    Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of
      the European Communities the national implementing measures             2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      required by Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
      availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2            (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
      emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Portuguese Republic
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                                         against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-190/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/33)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                           (Third Chamber)                                    Communities on 9 May 2003 by the Portuguese Republic,
                                                                              represented by L. Fernandes, acting as Agent, and C. Botelho
                            of 5 June 2003                                    Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                              in Luxembourg.
in Case C-352/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                    nities v Hellenic Republic (1)                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     annul the decision of the Director-General of the Directo-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to                       rate General for Agriculture of the European Commission,
transpose Directive 2000/14/EC — Noise emission in the                              reference No AGR 05697, of 19 February 2003, with
                              environment)                                          regard to ‘Clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section
                                                                                accounts pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
                            (2003/C 184/32)                                         No 729/70 (1) and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 1258/1999 (2) — Inquiry AP/2000/10 into premia for
                                                                                beef, pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 3508/92 (3) (EEC)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                No 3887/92 (4) and (EEC) No 3886/92 (5) — Conciliation
                                                                                Procedure No 02/PT/202’;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)                            —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
In Case C-352/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent:                        Pleas in law and main arguments
N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt or by failing to notify to the Commission the laws,                     —     Lack of competence of the Commission inasmuch as it
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                       infringed Article 4 of its Rules of Procedure: The Director-
with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of                         General of the Directorate General for Agriculture does
the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws                          not have powers to adopt a measure such as the
of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the                          contested decision and he did not rely on any delegation
environment by equipment for use outdoors (OJ 2000 L 162,                           of powers enabling him so to do. Accordingly, he clearly
p. 1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                   acted ultra vires.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 July 2005 in Case C-420/04 P: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Posting — Secondment in the interests of the service — Retrospective change of place of employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it — Recovery of sum not due)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/24

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 14 July 2005
   in Case C-420/04 P: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Posting - Secondment in the interests of the service - Retrospective change of place of employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it - Recovery of sum not due)
   (2005/C 217/47)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-420/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 29 September 2004 by Georgios Gouvras, an official of the Commission of the European Communities (lawyer: J.-N. Louis), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 14 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Gouvras shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2004 in Case T-107/02: GE Betz Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier figurative mark — Application for Community word mark BIOMATE — Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings — Legitimate expectation — Rules 16, 17 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 June 2004
   in Case T-107/02: GE Betz Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Earlier figurative mark - Application for Community word mark BIOMATE - Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition proceedings - Legitimate expectation - Rules 16, 17 and 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
   (2004/C 239/34)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-107/02: GE Betz Inc., formerly BetzDearborn Inc., whose registered office is in Trevose, Pennsylvania (United States of America), represented by G. Glas and K. Manhaeve, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: initially E. Joly and subsequently G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, being Atofina Chemicals Inc., whose registered office is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (United States of America), represented by M. Edenborough, barrister, and M. Medyckyj, solicitor — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2002 (Case R 1003/2000-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Atofina Chemicals Inc. and GE Betz Inc. — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 17 January 2002 (Case R 1003/2000-1) in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division of 7 September 2000, remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution and orders each party to bear the costs which they have incurred in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Office to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, including those incurred by it in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.


title: Case C-475/04: Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  1 June 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/58/EC — Electronic communications — Processing of personal data — Protection of privacy — Protection of natural persons — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/3

         Judgement of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-475/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/58/EC - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Protection of privacy - Protection of natural persons - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 178/05)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and M. Shotter, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou and M. Tassopoulou, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37)
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Opinion 1/00 of the Court of 18 April 2002 Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC — Proposed agreement between the European Community and non-Member States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation Area)

text:
29.6.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 156/1
                                                                     I
                                                               (Information)
                                                  COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
               OPINION 1/00 OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 18 April 2002
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC — Proposed agree-
ment between the European Community and non-Member                                                of 23 April 2002
States on the establishment of a European Common Aviation
                              Area)
                                                                         in Case C-62/01 P: Anna Maria Campogrande v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                        (2002/C 156/01)
                                                                         (Appeal — Officials — Sexual harassment — Commission’s
The Court of Justice has received a request for an opinion,                               duty of assistance — Liability)
lodged at the Court Registry on 13 October 2000 (1) by
the Commission of the European Communities pursuant to
Article 300(6) EC, on the compatibility with the provisions of                                     (2002/C 156/02)
the EC Treaty of a proposed agreement on the establishment
of a European Common Aviation Area (the ECAA Agreement)
to be concluded between the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech                                  (Language of the case: French)
Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the European Community,
the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Iceland, the Republic
of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Kingdom of Norway,             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Republic of Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and the                                in the European Court Reports)
Republic of Slovenia (the Contracting Parties), and particularly
of the system of legal supervision provided for therein. The
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,                  In Case C-62/01 P, Anna Maria Campogrande, Commission of
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues              the European Communities, Brussels (Belgium), represented by
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, after hearing S. Alber,                   A. Krywin, avocat: Appeal against the judgment of the
First Advocate General, F.G. Jacobs, P. Léger, D. Ruiz-Jarabo            Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
Colomer, J. Mischo, A. Tizzano, L.A. Geelhoed and C. Stix-               Chamber) of 5 December 2000 in Case T-136/98 Campogran-
Hackl, Advocates General, gives the following Opinion:                   de v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-267 and ECR II-1225,
                                                                         seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, a finding that
                                                                         there was an act of sexual harassment and an order against the
The system of legal supervision proposed by the Agreement on the         Commission of the European Communities for compensation
establishment of a European Common Aviation Area in Articles 17,         for the non-material damage resulting from that wrongful
23 and 27 and Protocol IV is compatible with the EC Treaty.              conduct, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser,
                                                                         assisted by D. Waelbroeck), the Court (Third Chamber),
                                                                         composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, J.-
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.                                               P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
                                                                         J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                         judgment on 23 April 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-465/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Globula v Commission (Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2003/55/EC — Obligation on natural gas undertakings to organise a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities — Decision of the Czech authorities granting the applicant a temporary exemption for its future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice — Commission decision ordering the Czech Republic to withdraw the exemption decision — Time at which Directive 2003/55 takes effect)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Globula v Commission
   (Case T-465/11) (1)

   (Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2003/55/EC - Obligation on natural gas undertakings to organise a system of negotiated third party access to gas storage facilities - Decision of the Czech authorities granting the applicant a temporary exemption for its future underground gas storage facilities in Dambořice - Commission decision ordering the Czech Republic to withdraw the exemption decision - Time at which Directive 2003/55 takes effect)
   2013/C 304/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Globula a.s. (Hodonín, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Petite, D. Paemen, A. Tomtsis, D. Koláček and P. Zákoucký, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and T. Scharf, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 4509 of 27 June 2011 on the exemption of an Underground Gas Storage Facility in Dambořice from the internal market rules on third party access.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Decision C(2011) 4509 of the Commission of 27 June 2011 on the exemption of an Underground Gas Storage Facility in Dambořice from the internal market rules on third party access;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Globula a.s.;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.


title: Case F-34/08: Action brought on 11 March 2008 — Simon v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/36

         Action brought on 11 March 2008 — Simon v Commission
   (Case F-34/08)
   (2008/C 116/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Anne Simon (Nouackhott, Mauritania) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of 25 October 2007 of the European Personnel Selection Office inasmuch as it did not include the applicant's name on the list of successful candidates and in the CAST 27/Relex database.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 25 October 2007 of the European Personnel Selection Office inasmuch as it did not include the applicant's name on the list of successful candidates and in the CAST 27/Relex database;

               —

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


title: Case T-72/99: Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
3.7.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/27
employees of the General Secretariat may be allowed access to            emergency aid on the basis of Articles 147(b) and 164 of
classified information held by the Council (OJ 1998 L 140                Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the associ-
p. 12). The Court (Third Chamber) composed of M. Jaeger,                 ation of the overseas countries and territories with the
President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges, and H. Jung,                European Economic Community. (1)
Registrar, made an order on 22 March 1999, the operative
part of which provides:
                                                                         By letter of 17 February 1999, that request was refused on the
                                                                         ground that, according to the regulations and decisions of the
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                              Council, such aid could not be granted directly to private
                                                                         individuals or private undertakings.
2. The applicant is to be bear the costs.
                                                                         The applicant submits that that decision is incompatible with
(1) OJ 1998 No C 299.                                                    the abovementioned Decision 91/482/EEC and with the
                                                                         Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the
                                                                         Commission of 11 June 1986 against racism and xeno-
                                                                         phobia (2) and does not take into account Article 92(2)(a) of
                                                                         the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 263,19.9.91, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 158, 25.6.86, p. 1.
Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-71/99)
                         (1999/C 188/63)
                                                                         Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-72/99)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,                                           (1999/C 188/64)
of Uturoa, Raiatea, French Polynesia, represented by Jean-
Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Mr Pakowski,                                    (Language of the case: French)
20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,
— hold that the content of the letter of Directorate-General             of Uturoa, Raiatea, French Polynesia, represented by Jean-
    VIII of 17 February 1999 is incompatible with both the               Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address for
    applicable legislation of and fundamental rights in the              service in Luxembourg at the offices of Mr Pakowski, 20-22
    European Union, and order that institution to comply                 Avenue Emile Reuter.
    properly, and without the exercise of discretion, with the
    content and spirit of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of
    25 July 1991 and Article 92(2)(a) of the Treaty of Rome;             The applicant claims that the Court should:
— hold that the European Commission is liable to the                     — hold that the EDF Agency of the Commission is, by its
    applicant for failure to comply with the above-mentioned                 inaction, guilty of a culpable failure to fulfil an obligation,
    European provisions;                                                     compounded by a failure to satisfy a legitimate expectation;
— in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the             — hold that the EDF Agency of the Commission failed to
    sum of FRF 20 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which                fulfil its obligation to ensure the application of the
    he had to incur to protect his interests.                                provisions adopted by it;
                                                                         — find that the applicant has suffered damage in the sum of
                                                                             FRF 181 518, and order that the said sum, due as of 1992,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              be paid together with interest on account of delay;
The applicant, who is the owner of a plantation in French                — in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the
Polynesia, states that, following a series of natural disasters, he          sum of FRF 20 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which
applied to the Commission’s Directorate-General VIII for                     he had to incur to protect his interests.
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, who is the owner of a plantation in French                The applicant had asked for part of her salary to be transferred
Polynesia, states that he participated in a project for the              to the Menton (France) branch of the Banca SanPaolo, and
planting of tropical fruit trees on the Island of Raiatea which,         with her request attached a declaration that she had opened a
in accordance with promises given during a meeting of the                savings account designated ‘Home savings plan’ for the
farmers of Ile-sous-le-Vent in October 1991, was to be                   purpose of acquiring immovable property in France.
subsidised by the European Development Fund (EDF). The
funds assigned to that project were paid over, but were
                                                                         The applicant contests the condition stipulated by the Com-
apparently misapplied by the Government of French Polynesia,
                                                                         mission on the basis of Article 4 of its internal directive of
which was subsequently obliged to repay the money it had
                                                                         30 July 1993 (I.A. No 815 of 11 August 1993) to the effect
used improperly.
                                                                         that the transfer of the above sum is contingent upon the issue
                                                                         of an undertaking by the Banca SanPaolo, Menton, that it will
The applicant maintains that the fact that the EDF delegation            inform the Commission of all movements of funds made by
proposed the said project to the farmers of Raiatea and Tahaa            the applicant so that their whereabouts can be monitored.
gave them a legitimate expectation that the subsidy would be
paid to them. In accordance with Article 155 of the EC Treaty,
the Commission was under a duty to ensure that the funds                 In support of her claims, the applicant argues that the
assigned to the project were in fact paid to the farmers who             Commission has infringed and misapplied Article 17(2)(b) of
had, for their part, complied with the agreement.                        Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
The applicant concludes from the foregoing that there is a               On that point, the applicant maintains that the purpose of
direct link between the undertaking given by the EDF and the             that provision is to enable an official who has financial
harm he suffered, which is in the amount of the promised                 responsibilities in a country other than his place of employ-
subsidy.                                                                 ment to have part of his disposable income transferred in the
                                                                         currency of that country in order to meet regular and certified
                                                                         expenses. It would therefore be unjustified to make the transfer
                                                                         of funds contingent upon the issue of a declaration such as
                                                                         that sought by the Commission. Also, the Commission’s
                                                                         request is in contravention of the general rules governing bank
                                                                         secrecy and the protection of privacy, both at the European
Action brought on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                      level and in France. According to the applicant, it is difficult to
Brighina against the Commission of the European Com-                     imagine what information the banks are under a duty to
                            munities                                     protect, if not the details of clients’ transactions.
                         (Case T-93/99)
                        (1999/C 188/65)
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         Action brought on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages TV5
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 April 1999 by Beatrice Bonaiti                                          (Case T-95/99)
Brighina, represented by Mirco Rizzoglio and Franco Colussi,
of the Milan and Luxembourg Bars, with an address for service                                    (1999/C 188/66)
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue De
Wiltz.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the internal Commission directive of 30 July 1993                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    (published in I.A No 815 of 11 August 1993), and the                 European Communities on 16 April 1999 by S.A. Satellimages
    refusal of 24 June 1998 (Prot. No 563 IX.B.4 VT/D(98)) of            TV5, represented by Eduard Marissens, with an address for
    Directorate General IX (Personnel and Adrninistration) and           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong, 14
    the measure rejecting the complaint (Prot. No 3964 of                rue des Bains.
    22 Decernber 1998) concerning the transfer of FF 7 600
    per month, being part of the applicant’s salary, to her
    account designated ‘Home savings plan’ at the Menton                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
    branch of the Banca San Paolo;
                                                                         — declare annulled and void the decision, adopted by the
— in any event, award damages to be specified in the course                  defendant and contained in its letter of 15 February 1999
    of the proceedings;                                                      to the applicant, to reject the latter’s formal complaint of
                                                                             18 March 1998;
— order the Commission to pay all expenses and fees
    occasioned by the proceedings.                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.