title: Action brought on 22 July 1996 by ITT Promedia NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-111/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 269/27
instrument enabling the application lodged by Sisas on                    applicant, in accordance with Article 87 of the Rules of
Pantochim's behalf to be granted is a decision which,                     Procedure of the Court of First Instance .
although addressed to France, is of direct and individual
concern to the applicant . Pantochim is currently the only
non-French producer within the Community that is                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
genuinely capable of supplying biodiesel in France at a price
that is competitive with that of standard diesel , in so far as it,
like its French competitors, is entitled to the exemption from        The applicant states that the contested decision rejected
excise duty .                                                         specific aspects of a complaint ('the complaint') filed by ITT
                                                                      Promedia NV ('Promedia ') with the European Commission
The applicant also contends that the systematic refusal by            ('the Commission ') on 20 October 1994 against Belgacom
the French administrative authorities to grant the tax relief         NV (' Belgacom') alleging infringements of Article 86 of the
in respect of the biodiesel that it produces reflects their           EC Treaty. The behaviour challenged in the complaint
desire to close off the French market by preventing the only          involves, inter alia, vexatious and confiscatory legal
genuinely competitive non-French producer of biodiesel                proceedings brought by Belgacom against Promedia .
within the Community from gaining access to that                      According to the applicant those actions were part of a plan
market .                                                              to drive it out of business and were based on the Belgian
                                                                      regulatory framework governing commercial directories
                                                                      whose status was questionable under Articles 59, 86 and 90
It also considers that the procedures applied by the French           of the EC Treaty . The second action sought to stop
administrative authorities patently infringe Article 95 of the        Promedia from requesting the subscriber data necessary for
EC Treaty. It is clear, in its view, that those procedures            the publication of directories . The third action sought
adversely affect both the free movement of biodiesel and              expropriation of Promedia 's business in the guise of a
normal conditions of competition between Member States :              contractual claim under a publishing agreement which
the conditions of competition of biofuel producers                    linked Promedia and Belgacom at a time when Belgacom
established in Belgium and those for producers established            enjoyed a statutory monopoly with respect to directories .
in France are not normalized by the rules governing the
grant of the tax relief at issue .
                                                                      The applicant submits that the Commission was wrong in
                                                                      rejecting the complaint. Its arguments are that:
                                                                      — the Commission made an incorrect assessment of the
                                                                           facts which resulted in an inadequate statement of
                                                                           reasons in breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in
                                                                           respect of a material argument put forward by Promedia
 Action brought on 22 July 1996 by ITT Promedia NV                         in support of its claim concerning Belgacom's vexatious
   against the Commission of the European Communities                      litigation ,
                        ( Case T-lll /96 )
                          ( 96/C 269/60 )
                                                                      — the Commission made a manifest error of appraisal and
                                                                           failed to review all elements of the case with due care in
                 (Language of the case: English)                           respect of the Belgian regulatory framework governing
                                                                           directories ,
 An action against the Commission of the European                      — the Commission relied on an incorrect assessment of the
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                         Belgian regulatory framework governing directories
 Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 1996 by                   with the result that the conclusion in paragraph 22 of its
 ITT Promedia NV, represented by Ivo Van Bael , Peter                      decision was defective ,
 L'Ecluse and Kris Van Hove , with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue
 Goethe .                                                              — the Commission made a manifest error of appraisal
                                                                           regarding the supposed legality of Belgacom 's refusal to
                                                                           supply,
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul the Commission decision of 21 May 1996 to reject              — the Commission made a manifest error of appraisal in
     definitively the complaint filed with the Commission                  respect of Belgacom's strategy to eliminate Promedia in
     and registered under number IV/35.268 in so far as it                  order to benefit Belgacom's subsidiary, BDS ,
     concerns Belgacom 's vexatious and confiscatory
     litigation,                                                       — the Commission gave an inadequate statement of
                                                                            reasons in breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty
 — order the Commission to pay the costs in connection                      regarding the rejection of the part of the complaint
     with the present application, including those of the                   relating to Belgacom 's confiscatory action,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 269/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 9 . 96
— the Commission has manifestly misinterpreted the law in            — Appointment not in the interest of the service : The
    respect of Article 86 of the EC Treaty with the result that          applicant argues that, in disregard of Article 7 of the
    conclusions in paragraphs 30 to 37 of its decision were              Staff Regulations, the appointment of the successful
    defective .                                                          candidate did not satisfy the needs of the service but was
                                                                         decided purely for formal reasons and in the interest of
                                                                         the person concerned . After her promotion, the
                                                                         candidate appointed retained the same functions she had
                                                                         previously performed at grade A 3 , which did not
                                                                         correspond to the vacancy notice .
Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Seche
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 — Sex discrimination : The lack of reasons stated for the
                       ( Case T-l 12/96 )                                decision invites the suspicion that one of the
                         ( 96/C 269/61                                   Commission's reasons was a purely sexual preference ,
                                                                         prohibited by the principle of equal treatment between
                                                                         male and female workers .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                     — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        applicant maintains that he was discriminated against by
Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 1996 by                  reason of his nationality, age and sex.
Jean-Claude Seche, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar , with an address for service in       — Misuse of powers and abuse of process : The
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort               appointment of the successful candidate was not
Rheinsheim .                                                             motivated in any way by the interest of the service , but
                                                                         was made firstly in the interests of the person concerned
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             and , secondly, in order to achieve the doubling of the
                                                                         number of women at A 2 level in the Commission in
— annul the Commission 's decision appointing the                        1996 .
    successful candidate on 22 May 1996 to the post of
    Principal Legal Adviser, grade A 2 , in the Legal                — Infringement of the obligation to have due regard to the
    Service ,                                                            interests of officials .
— annul the decision, implicit in the contested decision
    referred to above , not to appoint the applicant to fill the     — Breach of good faith and the principle of the protection
    post of Principal Legal Adviser in the Legal Service ,               of legitimate expectations : The applicant maintains that
                                                                         he was in a situation in which the Community
— as the legal consequence of the annulment of the above                 administration had given him reasonable grounds to
    decisions, order the Commission to amend the                         expect that he would be promoted to grade A 2 .
    applicant's career bracket with effect from 1 June
    1996 ,                                                           As regards the claim for damages, the applicant argues that
                                                                     the decisions he seeks to have annulled , and which are
— order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in                 clearly in breach of duty having regard to their
    symbolic compensation for non-material damage,                   unlawfulness, have caused him significant non-material
                                                                     damage for which the Commission must make
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            compensation .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant makes the following arguments tn support of
his action :
— Lack of comparative examination of the merits : The
    applicant questions whether the candidates ' merits were
    objectively compared before the decisions were made,             Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Biscuiterie-Confiserie
    and adds that the procedure followed offered no                  LOR and Confiserie du TECH against the Commission of
    guarantees that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                           the European Communities
    the principle of equal treatment were complied with . He                                 ( Case T-l 14/96 )
    considers, moreover, that comparison of the merits                                         ( 96/C 269/62 )
    could not have led the Commission to prefer the
    successful person 's candidature to his own .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— Failure to state reasons : The applicant maintains that the
    Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff
    Regulations, in that no reasons are stated in the                An action against the Commission of the European
    contested decisions .                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-385/08: Action brought on 2 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/12

         Action brought on 2 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-385/08)
   (2008/C 313/18)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimerdová and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by retaining in force marketing authorisations for medicinal products that are generics of the reference product Plavix, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1), in conjunction with Article 13(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (2) and Articles 89 and 90 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 (3);

               —

               declare that, by placing and keeping on the market after 1 May 2004 medicinal products whose marketing authorisation was not issued in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the applicant's view, marketing of the medicinal products which are the subject of decisions of the Minister for Health of the Republic of Poland that were issued in the period from January to April 2004 and contain additional recommendations and requirements for additional investigation cannot be covered by the transitional period laid down in point 1.5 of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Poland to the European Union, because those decisions of the Minister for Health did not constitute before 1 May 2004 marketing authorisations for the purposes of point 1.5 of Annex XII. The medicinal products at issue therefore had to be placed on the market by means of a marketing authorisation issued in accordance with Directive 2001/83/EC or Regulation No 2309/93.
   Furthermore, in the applicant's submission the marketing of medicinal products that are generics of the reference product Plavix could not be covered by the transitional period laid down in point 1.5 of Annex XII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession, because the exceptions provided for therein concerned exclusively the requirements of safety, quality and efficacy prescribed in Directive 2001/83/EC, and not the 10-year period of data protection laid down in Article 13(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 and Articles 89 and 90 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004.

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (OJ L 214, 24.8.1993, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ L 136, 30.4.2004, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 March 2000 in Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña): Gabalfrisa SL and Others v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (AEAT) (Meaning of national court or tribunal for the purposes of Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) — Admissibility — Value added tax — Interpretation of Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of tax paid on inputs — Activities prior to carrying out economic transactions on a regular basis)

text:
C 149/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.5.2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 21 March 2000                                                             (First Chamber)
in Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Económico-Admini-                                              of 21 March 2000
strativo Regional de Cataluña): Gabalfrisa SL and Others
v Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (AEAT) (1)                  in Case C-217/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Bundesfinanzhof): Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v
(Meaning of national court or tribunal for the purposes of                                        LFZ Nordfleisch AG (1)
Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) —
Admissibility — Value added tax — Interpretation of Article
                                                                            (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction of tax paid
                                                                            Beef and veal — Export refund — Withdrawal of the
on inputs — Activities prior to carrying out economic
                                                                             application for advance payment — Effect on the security)
                  transactions on a regular basis)
                           (2000/C 149/09)                                                             (2000/C 149/10)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                                             (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-110/98 to C-147/98: references to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from                In Case C-217/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Cataluña                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Bundesfinanzhof
(Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 (Federal Finance Court), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
before that court between Gabalfrisa SL and Others and                      the proceedings pending before that court between Haupt-
Agencia Estatal de Administración Tributaria (AEAT) — on                   zollamt Hamburg-Jonas, and LFZ Nordfleisch AG on the
the interpretation of Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive                 interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 33(1) of
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                      1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  of the system of export refunds on agricultural products
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:                        (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida               (EEC) No 1615/90 of 15 June 1990 (OJ 1990 L 152, p. 33) in
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-               conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 29 of Regulation
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,             (EEC) No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common
P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio,                  detailed rules for the application of the system of securities for
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 agricultural products (OJ 1985 L 205, p. 5) — the Court (First
on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:                                    Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of
                                                                            the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,
Article 17 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977             Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to           has given a judgment on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis
of assessment precludes national legislation which makes the exercise
                                                                            The second paragraph of Article 33(1) of Commission Regulation
of the right to deduct value added tax paid by a taxable person liable
                                                                            (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common
thereto before he starts regularly carrying out taxable transactions
                                                                            detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on
conditional upon the fulfilment of certain requirements such as the
                                                                            agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
submission of an express request to that effect before the tax concerned
                                                                            No 1615/90 of 15 June 1990, in conjunction with the first
becomes due and compliance with a time-limit of one year between
                                                                            paragraph of Article 29 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
that submission and the actual commencement of taxable trans-
                                                                            No 2220/85 of 22 July 1985 laying down common detailed rules
actions, and which penalises infringement of those requirements by
                                                                            for the application for the system of securities for agricultural
forfeiture of the right to deduct or deferment of the exercise of that
                                                                            products, is not applicable where an exporter, after submitting to the
right until the time at which taxable transactions actually begin to
                                                                            competent national authorities an application for advance payment
be carried out on a regular basis.
                                                                            of the export refund for goods placed under the customs warehousing
                                                                            scheme, in accordance with Article 29(2) of Regulation
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                   No 3665/87, withdraws his application in order to reintroduce those
                                                                            goods into the customs territory of the Community, but nevertheless
                                                                            receives the advance payment of the export refund originally applied
                                                                            for.


title: Case T-417/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SPA v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/41

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — SPA v Commission
   (Case T-417/08)
   (2008/C 313/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL (SPA) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by one authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised by the applicant in Case T-415/08 IMRO v Commission.


title: Case C-154/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 17 March 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) Alliance for Natural Health 2) Nutri-Link Ltd against Secretary of State for Health.

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 17 March 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) Alliance for Natural Health 2) Nutri-Link Ltd against Secretary of State for Health.
   (Case C-154/04)
   (2004/C 118/61)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) dated 17 March 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) Alliance for Natural Health 2) Nutri-Link Ltd and Secretary of State for Health on the following questions:
   Are Article 3, 4(1) and Article 15(b) of Directive 2002/46/EC (1) invalid by reason of:

               (a)

               the inadequacy of Article 95 as a legal basis;

               (b)

               infringement of (i) Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty and/or (ii) Articles 1(2) and 24(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No. 3285/94 (2);

               (c)

               infringement of the principle of subsidiarity;

               (d)

               infringement of the principle of proportionality;

               (e)

               infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

               (f)

               infringement of Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, read in the light of Article 8 of and Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, and of the fundamental right to property and/ or the right to carry on an economic activity;

               (g)

               infringement of Article 253 EC and/or the duty to give reasons?

      (1)  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 183, 12.07.2002, p. 51).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No 518/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 126).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2001 in Case T-244/00 Coillte Teoranta v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Refusal to recognise as chargeable to the EAGGF expenditure resulting from irregularities in the application of Community rules — Action by the recipient of the aid — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
C 303/16                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     27.10.2001
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Madrid, represented by José Marı́a Valoria de Arana, lawyer,
                                                                            with an address for service in Madrid, against the Commission
                         of 30 April 2001                                   of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and J. Rivas
                                                                            Andres) — application for annulment of the decisions of the
                                                                            Commission of 28 March 1989 and 14 November 1989
in Case T-41/00, British American Tobacco International                     appointing the applicant as a probationer official and sub-
(Holdings) BV v Commission of the European Communi-                         sequently as an official definitively classed in Grade B 3
                                ties (1)                                    respectively inasmuch as those decisions classify him in
                                                                            Grade B 3 rather than B 1, and the decisions of the Commission
(Decision 94/90 — Public access to Commission documents                     of 12 July 1999 and 18 April 2000 rejecting the request
— Action for annulment — Inadmissibility — Legal interest                   to review the applicant’s classification and rejecting the
                     in bringing proceedings)                               administrative complaint directed against the former rejection
                                                                            and, secondly, a claim for compensation for the damage
                                                                            allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions
                          (2001/C 303/26)
                                                                            — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
                                                                            B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
                   (Language of the case: English)                          H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 March 2001, the
                                                                            operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-41/00 British American Tobacco International
(Holdings) BV, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), rep-                 1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
resented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis) —
application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision                  2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs.
of 20 January 2000, refusing to grant Rothmans of Pall Mall
Ltd access to certain minutes of the Committee on Excise
                                                                            (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
Duties — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 30 April 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
                                                                                of 25 April 2001
                                                                            in Case T-244/00 Coillte Teoranta v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Agriculture — Refusal to recognise as chargeable to the
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  EAGGF expenditure resulting from irregularities in the
                                                                            application of Community rules — Action by the recipient
                         of 28 March 2001                                               of the aid — Manifest inadmissibility)
in Case T-130/00: Javier Reyna González del Valle against                                            (2001/C 303/28)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Officials — Appointments — Classification in Grade —
    Late submission of the application — Inadmissibility)
                                                                            In Case T-244/00: Coillte Teoranta, established in Dublin,
                          (2001/C 303/27)                                   represented by G. French, Solicitor, P. Gallagher SC and
                                                                            N. Hyland, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                          (Agents: M. Niejahr and K. Fitch) — application for annulment
                                                                            of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 exclud-
In Case T-130/00: Javier Reyna González del Valle, an official             ing from Community financing certain expenditure incurred
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the
 ---pagebreak--- 27.10.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 303/17
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  2.    The request submitted by Poste Italiane SpA and by the
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) to the extent that that decision excludes                 Commission for confidential treatment is granted with regard
from that financing expenditure declared by the Irish accredited                 to the interlocutory proceedings.
paying agency in respect of afforestation aid — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President,           3.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
K. Lenaerts and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 25 April 2001, the operative part of which is as               4.    Costs are reserved.
follows:
1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and shall pay those of
      the Commission.                                                      Action brought on 18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B.,
                                                                           S.L. against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
3.    Ireland shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Case T-162/01)
( 1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.00.
                                                                                (2001/C 303/30)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                           Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               18 July 2001 by Laboratorios R.T.B., S.L., whose registered
                              INSTANCE                                     office is in Bigues i Riells (Spain), represented by Arturo Canela
                                                                           Giménez.
                           of 28 May 2001
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA v Commission of                      —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
                   the European Communities                                      Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market
                                                                                (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) of 30 April 2001 in
(Applications for interim relief — Article 86 EC in conjunc-                     Case R 122/2000-1 Giorgio Beverly Hills v Giorgi and
tion with Article 82 EC — Article 86(2) EC — Postal                              Others, on the ground that the disputed Community trade
         services — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                            mark number 417709 Giorgio Beverly Hills may not be
                                                                                registered pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94;
                          (2001/C 303/29)
                                                                           —     declare Community trade mark number 417709 Giorgio
                                                                                Beverly Hills invalid or, if appropriate, refuse it regis-
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                tration;
In Case T-53/01 R: Poste Italiane SpA, established in Rome,                —     order the Office to pay the costs.
represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Petrus Mathijsen, Ales-
sandra Perrazzelli, Elisabetta Rubini and Andrea Sandulli,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                Pleas in law and main arguments
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
L. Pignataro and K. Wiedner) — application for suspension of
operation of Commission Decision 2001/176/EC of
21 December 2000 concerning proceedings pursuant to                        Proprietor of the Com-           Giorgio Beverly Hills, Inc.
Article 86 of the EC Treaty in relation to the provision of                munity trade mark:
certain new postal services with a guaranteed day- or time-
certain delivery in Italy (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 59) — the President            The Community trade              Word mark ‘GIORGIO BEVERLY
of the Court of First Instance made an order on 28 May 2001,               mark concerned:                  HILLS’ — Application No 417709
the operative part of which is as follows:                                                                  for goods in Class 3
                                                                           Proprietor of the right to       Applicant
1.    Recapitalia Consorzio Italiano delle Agenzie di Recapito             the trade mark or sign
      Licenziatarie del Ministero delle Comunicazioni and TNT Post         asserted by way of oppo-
      Groep NV are granted leave to intervene in Case T-53/01 R in         sition in the opposition
      support of the form of order sought by the Commission.               proceedings:


title: Case C-605/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic — Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from the regime — Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded — Set of indicia)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 April 2015 — Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-605/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against the Syrian Arab Republic - Measures directed against persons and entities benefiting from the regime - Proof that inclusion on the lists is well founded - Set of indicia))
   (2015/C 205/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: M.-A. Bastin, J.-M. Salva, and S. Orlandi, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro, R. Liudvinaviciute and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Issam Anbouba to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-127/07 P: Appeal brought on 20 April 2007 by Bligny against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 15 February 2007 in Case F-142/06, Bligny v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/34

         Appeal brought on 20 April 2007 by Bligny against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 15 February 2007 in Case F-142/06, Bligny v Commission
   (Case T-127/07 P)
   (2007/C 140/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Francesco Bligny (Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France) (represented by P. Lebel-Nourissat, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               declare that the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) erred in its assessment of the application form as regards the obligation on the candidate to attach documentary evidence of his citizenship;

               —

               declare that the CST did not deal with the applicant's pleas as to failure to take account of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of proper administration incumbent upon the selection board of competition EPSO AD/26/05;

               —

               accordingly, annul the order of the CST of 15 February 2007 in Case F-142/06;

               —

               making a new decision, annul the decision of the selection board of competition EPSO AD/26/05 of 7 December 2006, and that of 23 December 2006 refusing the applicant admission to the competition and thus to correction of his written test, and hold that the application form published on 15 May 2006 for candidates of the competition on the EPSO website was unlawful;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to the CST for the purposes of a decision on the case in question and order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In its appeal, the applicant requests annulment of the order of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing as manifestly unfounded his action by which he requested the annulment of the decision of the selection board of the competition refusing to correct his written test on the ground that his application did not include documentary evidence of his citizenship.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits that the CST fundamentally misread the facts which had been submitted to it, thus misinterpreting the application form to be filled in by the candidate, leading to an error of assessment of the form. Further, he relies on a plea relating to inadequate statement of reasons in respect of the contested order, as the CST did not deal with all the pleas and forms of order sought put forward by the applicant at first instance.


title: Case T-527/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Ayadi v Commission (Referral back after setting aside — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body — Inclusion of the name of that person in the list contained in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Fundamental rights — Rights of defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Right to respect for property)

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2015 — Ayadi v Commission
   (Case T-527/09 RENV) (1)

   ((Referral back after setting aside - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body - Inclusion of the name of that person in the list contained in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Fundamental rights - Rights of defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Right to respect for property))
   (2015/C 178/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chafiq Ayadi (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: H. Miller, Solicitor, P. Moser, QC, E. Grieves, Barrister, and R. Graham, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta, T. Scharf and M. Konstantidinis, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Ireland (represented by E. Creedon, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Travers, SC) and Council of the European Union (represented by E. Finnegan and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban (OJ 2009 L 269, p. 20), in so far as that act concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Regulation (EC) No 954/2009 of 13 October 2009 amending for the 114th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, in so far as that measure concerns Mr Chafiq Ayadi.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay both the costs incurred by Mr Ayadi and the sums advanced by the General Court by way of legal aid.

               3.

               Orders Ireland and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-644/13 P: Appeal brought on 5 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/24

         Appeal brought on 5 December 2013 by Villeroy & Boch against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10 Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission
   (Case C-644/13 P)
   2014/C 45/41
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Villeroy & Boch (represented by: J. Philippe, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10, in so far as it dismisses the appellant’s action;

               —

               in the alternative, annul in part the judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the appellant in Article 2 of the contested decision of 23 June 2010;

               —

               also in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant puts forward four grounds of appeal.
   By the first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that there is a contradiction in the General Court’s assessment of the evidence relating to all of the facts concerning France. The General Court assessed, in the judgment under appeal, three items of evidence in a manner which was contrary, even diametrically opposed, to its findings in relation to that same evidence in the parallel Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10 Sanitec, and T-380/10 Wabco, Ideal Standard and Others, in which the applicants were acquitted in respect of the allegations relating to France. According to the appellant in the present case, such a fundamental contradiction — as evidenced by the opposite conclusions reached in respect of the same evidence — infringes the principle of equal treatment and the principle of in dubio pro reo and also adversely affects the logical and legal consistency of the General Court’s judgment.
   By the second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law. The General Court, it submits, artificially grouped together acts that were legally distinct and factually unrelated in order to classify them as constituting one continuous and complex infringement. Moreover, the General Court failed to take account of the fact that the measures in question, which it had nevertheless examined together, were not complementary.
   By the third ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the extent of the review carried out by the General Court, which confined itself to a limited review and, by so doing, failed to exercise in full its powers of judicial review and revision. The appellant takes the view that this amounts to an infringement of its right to a fair hearing.
   By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the fine imposed is disproportionate.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 22 April 1997 in Case C-180/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Nils Draehmpaehl v. Urania Immobilienservice oHG (Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Right to reparation in the event of discrimination as regards access to employment - Choice of sanctions by the Member States - Setting of a ceiling for aggregate of compensation awards)

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/5
Security, ex parte: Eunice Sutton — on the interpretation             proceedings pending before that court between Nils
of Community law in regard to the right to obtain interest            Draehmpaehl and Urania Immobilienservice oHG — on
on arrears of a social security benefit falling within the            the interpretation of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
scope of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                    9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle              equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
of equal treatment for men and women in matters of                    employment, vocational training and promotion, and
social security ( OJ No L 6, 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 ) — the            working conditions ( OJ No L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976, p. 40 ) —
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,              the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
G. E Mancini ( Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida                 President, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de
and L. Sevon ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn,            Almeida and L. Sevon ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G.                    Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch, H.
Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Leger,                   Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; P.
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator,               Leger, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 April 1997,             Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
in which it has ruled :                                               22 April 1997, in which it has ruled:
Article 6 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December                1 . When a Member State chooses to penalize, under rules
1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle                   governing civil liability, breach of the prohibition of
of equal treatment for men and women in matter of social                  discrimination, Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
security does not require that an individual should be able               9 February 1976 on the implementation of the
to obtain interest on arrears of a social security benefit                principle of equal treatment for men and women as
such as invalid care allowance, when the delay in payment                 regards access to employment, vocational training and
of the benefit is the result of discrimination prohibited by              promotion, and working conditions, and, in particular,
Directive 79/7. However, a Member State is required to                    Articles 2 (1 ) and 3 (1 ) thereof, preclude provisions of
make reparation for the loss and damage caused to an                      domestic law which make reparation of damage
individual as a result of the breach of Community law.                    suffered as a result of discrimination on grounds of
Where the conditions for State liability are fulfilled, it is             sex in the making of an appointment subject to the
for the national court to apply that principle.                           requirement of fault.
O OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                      2 . Directive 76/207/EEC does not preclude provisions of
                                                                          domestic law which prescribe an upper limit of three
                                                                          months ' salary for the amount of compensation which
                                                                          may be claimed by an applicant where the employer
                                                                          can prove that, because the applicant engaged had
                                                                          superior qualifications, the unsuccessful applicant
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     would not have obtained the vacant position even if
                                                                          there had been no discrimination in the selection
                        of 22 April 1997                                  process. In contrast, the Directive precludes provisions
                                                                          of domestic law which, unlike other provisions of
in Case C-l 80/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                domestic civil and labour law, prescribe an upper limit
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg ): Nils Draehmpaehl v. Urania                  of three months ' salary for the amount of
                   Immobilienservice oHG (')                              compensation which may be claimed by an applicant
(Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —                      discriminated against on grounds of sex in the making
Directive 76/207/EEC — Right to reparation in the event                   of an appointment where that applicant would have
of discrimination as regards access to employment —                       obtained the vacant position if the selection process
                                                                          had been carried out without discrimination .
Choice of sanctions by the Member States — Setting of a
         ceiling for aggregate of compensation awards)
                          ( 97IC 199/08 )
                                                                      3 . Directive 76/207/EEC precludes provisions of
                                                                          domestic law which, unlike other provisions of
                                                                          domestic civil and labour law, impose a ceiling of six
                 (Language of the case: German)                           months ' earnings of the aggregate amount of
                                                                          compensation which, where several applicants claim
                                                                          compensation, may be claimed by applicants who have
                                                                          been discriminated against on grounds of their sex in
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            the making of an appointment.
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
In Case C-l 80/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court)
Hamburg ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the


title: Case F-60/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Vande Velde v Commission (Staff — Contract staff member — Late claim — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/60

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 — Vande Velde v Commission
   (Case F-60/05) (1)

   (Staff - Contract staff member - Late claim - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/112)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Patricke Vande Velde (Linkebeek, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — First, annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the complaint submitted by the applicant, a former member of the auxiliary staff, against the decision fixing his grade and remuneration as a contract staff member and, secondly, an application for damages (formerly T-268/05)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005, p. 30 (case originally registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T 268/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case T-211/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Claudio Necci against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/38

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Claudio Necci against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission

   (Case T-211/15 P)
   (2015/C 205/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Claudio Necci (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the order of the European Civil Service Tribunal of 25 March 2015 in Case F-5/15 Necci v Commission;

               —

               Refer the matter back to the European Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to effective judicial protection, since the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) dismissed the action for annulment brought by the applicant on the ground of inadmissibility which it classified as ‘manifest’.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the CST in that it held that the time-limit for bringing proceedings under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations started to run from receipt of the proposal for the bonus loading of the annuities and not from its acceptance by the member of staff.


title: Case T-217/11: Action brought on 18 April 2011 — Staelen v Ombudsman

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/24

         Action brought on 18 April 2011 — Staelen v Ombudsman
   (Case T-217/11)
   2011/C 204/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Claire Staelen (Bridel, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Ombudsman

      Form of order sought

               —

               The applicant requests the Court to:

               —

               order the Ombudsman to pay to the applicant the net amount of EUR 559 382,13 as compensation for past material damage, plus default interest calculated at the rate of two points above the European Central Bank rate;

               —

               order the Ombudsman to pay to the Community pension fund the pension contributions in favour of the applicant corresponding to the basic salaries calculated for the period from June 2005 to April 2011, that is, on the basis of a total amount of EUR 482 225,97;

               —

               order the Ombudsman to pay to the applicant on a monthly basis from May 2011 to March 2026 the net amounts corresponding to the fixed salaries for AD officials from grade AD 9, step 2, second year, taking account of the normal career path of an official of the same grade, together with corresponding contributions to the pension fund in favour of the applicant as well as sickness fund contributions;

               —

               order the Ombudsman to pay to the applicant the amount of EUR 50 000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage;

               —

               order the Ombudsman to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to carry out all the inquiries warranted to clarify any possible case of improper administration in the management of the applicant’s file by the European Parliament. The applicant alleges that the defendant’s actions were wrongful and, consequently, in breach of Article 3(1) of Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom, on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman’s duties (OJ 1994 L 113, p. 15).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, insofar as the defendant exceeded the powers of assessment at his disposal to examine the merits of the complaint and erred in the exercise of his tasks so as to cause harm to the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a lack of impartiality, objectivity and independence, bad faith and misuse of powers, insofar as the defendant, firstly, entered into a cooperation agreement with the European Parliament and, secondly, evaded, without justification, the central questions concerning the complaint lodged.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of the principles of the duty of care and proper administration. The applicant alleges that the defendant, firstly, did not take into consideration all the elements capable of influencing the decision taken at the time of the examination of the applicant’s situation, secondly, refused to produce the documents upon which the defendant based his decision and, thirdly, breached the principle that the procedure must take place within a reasonable time.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 September 1997 in Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli and others v. Commission of the European Communities (Community technological research and development policy - MAST III programme - Decision establishing the list of proposed actions eligible for a Community contribution - Procedure for interim relief - Application for suspension of operation of a measure)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 7/15
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ReneÂ Faltz, 6 rue                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Heinrich Heine, v. Commission of the European                               OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Communities (Agents: Blanca VilaÂ Costa and Hubert van                                   of 8 October 1997
Vliet) Ð application for payment of the whole of the sum
charged for the transportation of free supplies of fruit           in Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
juice and fruit jams intended for the peoples of Armenia                 Sucre (CEFS) v. Council of the European Union
and Azerbaijan Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                (Sugar Ð Common organization of the markets Ð Fixing
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.          of intervention prices Ð Interim measures procedure Ð
BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                            Suspension of operation)
order on 3 October 1997, the operative part of which is
as follows:                                                                                (98/C 7/50)
1. The application          is  dismissed   as    manifestly                      (Language of the case: English)
     inadmissible.
                                                                   In Case T-229/97 R: ComiteÂ EuropeÂen des Fabricants de
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.                      Sucre (CEFS), established in Brussels, represented by
                                                                   Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio García Porras,
(1) OJ C 26, 25. 1. 1997.                                          of the Salamanca Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12,
                                                                   boulevard de la Foire, against Council of the European
                                                                   Union (Agents: Jan-Peter Hix and Ignacio Díez Parra),
                                                                   supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                   (Agents: James MacDonald Flett and Xavier Lewis) Ð
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              application pursuant to Articles 185 and 186 of the EC
         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Treaty for suspension of the operation of Article 1 (f) of
                                                                   Council Regulation (EC) No 1188/97 of 25 June 1997
                     of 26 September 1997                          fixing, for the 1997/98 marketing year, the derived
in Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli and others v.                    intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price
         Commission of the European Communities                    for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and
                                                                   the amount of compensation for storage costs (1), in so far
(Community technological research and development
                                                                   as it affects European sugar producers or otherwise erga
policy Ð MAST III programme Ð Decision establishing
                                                                   omnes, and for all other such interim measures as the
the list of proposed actions eligible for a Community
                                                                   Court should judge necessary Ð the President of the
contribution Ð Procedure for interim relief Ð Application
                                                                   Court of First Instance has made an order on 8 October
         for suspension of operation of a measure)
                                                                   1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (98/C 7/49)
                                                                   1. The Commission is granted leave to intervene in
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         support of the form of order sought by the Council.
In Case T-183/97 R: Carla Micheli, Andrea Peirano, Carlo           2. The application for interim relief is dismissed.
Nike Bianchi and Marinella Abbate, researchers at the
Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l'Energia e l'Ambiente
(ENEA Ð Centre for Research into New Technologies,                 3. Costs are reserved.
Energy and the Environment), established in Rome,
represented by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, Mariano Paolin              (1) OJ L 170, 28. 6. 1997, p. 3.
and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Arendt, 39, rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Eugenio de March and
Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for suspension of
operation, either wholly or in part, of the decision of the        Action brought on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier
Commission of 26 March 1997 establishing the main list                       against the European Court of Auditors
and the reserve list of proposed actions eligible for a                                    (Case T-170/97)
Community contribution under the MAST III programme
and, consequently, for suspension of operation of the                                        (98/C 7/51)
decision excluding the Posible programme Ð the President
of the Court of First Instance made an order on                                   (Language of the case: French)
26 September 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                           An action against the European Court of Auditors was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.              Communities on 2 June 1997 by MichaeÈl Tavernier,
                                                                   residing in Lintgen (Luxembourg), represented by Jean-
2. The costs are reserved.                                         NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                   Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                   Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange.


               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-384/03 (1)

   (2005/C 182/59)

      (Language of the case: Spanish)

   By order of 28 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-384/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.


C 173/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 16.6.2001
1.    Is the ban on vaccination imposed by Article 13 of                      Removal from the register of Case C-403/00 (1)
      Directive 85/511/EEC(1) invalid on the ground of incon-
      sistency with Community law, in particular the principle                                (2001/C 173/56)
      of proportionality?
                                                                       By order of 27 March 2001 the President of the Court of
2.    Is the way in which the Commission has applied the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
      aforesaid Article 13, in particular by the adoption of           from the register of Case C-403/00: Commission of the
      Decision 2001/246/EC (2), as amended by Decision                 European Communities v Republic of France.
      2001/279/EEC (3), invalid on the ground of inconsistency
      with Community law?                                              (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11.
(2) OJ 2001 L 88, p. 21.
(3) OJ 2001 L 96, p. 19.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-264/98 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/57)
                                                                       By order of 2 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-264/98: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Charleroi):
        Removal from the register of Case C-88/00 (1)                  Tibor Balog v Royal Charleroi Sporting Club ASBL (RCSC).
                         (2001/C 173/55)                               (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-88/00: (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Directora-Geral                    Removal from the register of Case C-377/00 (1)
do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu
(DAFSE) v MOBILCROMO — Indústria de Mobiliário e                                            (2001/C 173/58)
Revestimentos Metálicos, Ltd.
                                                                       By order of 5 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.05.2000.                                            the register of Case C-377/00: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-204/07 P: Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by C.A.S. SpA against the judgment delivered on 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 C.A.S. SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/13

         Appeal brought on 16 April 2007 by C.A.S. SpA against the judgment delivered on 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 C.A.S. SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-204/07 P)
   (2007/C 140/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: C.A.S. SpA (represented by D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 (1) in Case T-23/03;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the substance;

               —

               allow the applications for measures of organisation of procedure made by the appellant by documents of 28 January 2003, 4 August 2003 and 11 August 2003;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant supports its appeal on the following nine grounds, on the basis of which it regards the contested judgment as erroneous:
   The first ground of appeal relates to the exclusive competence which the Court of First Instance considered the Turkish authorities to have to determine whether the A.TR.1 movement of goods certificates issued by them and produced on import clearance were ‘authentic’ or ‘false’, or ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’. The appellant takes the view that in cases in which there are sufficient and conclusive objective indications that the competent customs authorities of a country of export were involved in irregularities in the issue (delivery of forms, stamps and signatures) of movement certificates and the export clearance of the goods on the basis of those certificates, the exclusive jurisdiction of the customs authorities of the country of export ends. Later explanations provided by the Turkish authorities concerning the movement certificates could not be regarded as credible and solely determinative.
   By the second ground of appeal the appellant criticises the view taken in the contested judgment of the extent of the right of access to documents and the rights of defence of an applicant. The right of access to documents cannot relate only to documents on which the Commission, according to its internal decision and its statements, based its contested decision. The right of access to documents covers also all further confidential and non-confidential documents which could be of importance to the applicant's factual and legal submissions with respect to the assessment of the facts.
   The appellant's third ground of appeal is that the Court of First Instance imposed on it the entire burden of proof for the factual circumstances which justified a ‘special situation’ within the meaning of Article 239 of the Customs Code and Article 905 of the implementation regulation. The appellant considers that in certain cases the burden of proof is reversed or at least the obligation to provide proof is reduced. In no case is the burden on the applicant to prove certain facts, adduced by it, in third countries (in this case Turkey) which can best be ascertained, and must be ascertained, by the Commission/OLAF within the framework of the possibilities available to those authorities. The same applies to facts which are within the sphere of action and influence of the Commission.
   As its fourth ground of appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly — also in view of the full burden of proof imposed on it in the judgment — failed to order the measures of organisation of procedure it applied for, in particular the taking of evidence. Instead the offers to produce evidence were dismissed as immaterial.
   As fifth ground of appeal the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance interpreted and classified wrongly in law all the documentation produced and facts and evidence adduced by it which pointed to the involvement of the Turkish authorities in (allegedly) ‘false’ (but really ‘incorrect’) A.TR.1 movement certificates. As a result it reached incorrect legal conclusions. The Court also completely ignored essential facts as clearly submitted by the appellant.
   As the sixth ground of appeal it is submitted that the Court of First Instance failed to classify the Commission's failure to call on the Customs Committee/Association Council as a fault on the part of the Commission.
   The seventh ground of appeal is that the Court of First Instance did not recognise the appellant's legitimate interest in the annulment of the Commission's partly contested decision with respect to a particular A.TR.1 movement certificate.
   The eighth ground of appeal complains that the Court of First Instance erred in law by omitting to carry out a balancing of fairness and risk related to the specific case. The Court thereby failed to recognise that, even on the assumption that there were false A.TR.1 movement certificates, in view of the gross misconduct of the Turkish authorities and the Commission it was unfair, given the relationship between economic operators and the administration, to leave the appellant as an economic operator to bear a loss it would not have incurred if things had been done correctly.
   As the ninth ground of appeal the appellant criticises the contested judgment for finding pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the Customs Code, on the basis of the facts submitted and ascertained, that there was no active involvement of the Turkish customs authorities in the issue and use of the 32 A.TR.1 certificates in question in this case.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007, p. 30.


title: Case T-448/17: Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/35

         Action brought on 18 July 2017 — Sevenfriday v EUIPO — Seven (SEVENFRIDAY)
   (Case T-448/17)
   (2017/C 300/43)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sevenfriday AG (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Mostardini, F. Mellucci, S. Pallavicini and G. Bellomo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘SEVENFRIDAY’ — Application for registration No 12 915 021

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 May 2017 in Case R 2291/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   annul the contested decision insofar that it rejected the appeal lodged by Sevenfriday AG against the decision B2400482 of 7 October 2016 and consequently allow the application No 1105144 to proceed to registration as EU trade mark.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-183/01: Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 200/48              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14.7.2001
22 March 2001, received at the Court Registry on 26 April              The Commission claims that the Court should:
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Saatgut-
Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH against Werner Jäger on the                   —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limits laid
following questions:                                                         down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                             necessary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC (1)
1.   Can                                                                     of 23 July 1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC con-
                                                                             cerning additives in feedingstuffs, the Hellenic Republic
     (a)   a limited company (GmbH) established under Ger-                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
           man law be an ‘organisation of holders’ within the                that directive;
           meaning of Article 3(2) of Commission Regulation            —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
           (EC) No 1768/95 (1) of 24 July 1995, and can
     (b) such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-         Pleas in law and main arguments
           mentioned regulation even in respect of holders
           who are not shareholders in it but members of an            In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
           association which is a shareholder, and can                 directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                       each Member State to which they are addressed.
     (c)   such a company invoke, pursuant to Article 3(2),
           the rights deriving from Article 3(1) of the above-
           mentioned regulation (for a consideration) even in          Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
           respect of holders who are neither shareholders nor         to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
           members of an association which is a shareholder?           to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                       or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2.   Must the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Council Regu-           Community.
     lation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 (2) , read in
     conjunction with Article 8 of Commission Regulation               It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
     (EC) No 1768/95, be interpreted as meaning that the               measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
     holder of a plant variety right protected under Regulation
     No 2100/94 can request the information referred to
     in the abovementioned provisions from any farmer,                 The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
     irrespective of whether or not there is any indication that       has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpo-
     he has carried out an act of use in respect of the                ration of the directive at issue into Greek law.
     variety in question under Article 13(2) of Regulation
     No 2100/94, or at least otherwise used the variety in
     question on his holding?                                          (1) OJ L 235, 17.9.1996, p. 39.
(1) OJ L 173 of 25.7.1995, p. 14.
(2) OJ L 227 of 1.9.1994, p. 1.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt
                                                                       against the judgment delivered on 13 February 2001 by
                                                                       the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
                                                                           Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency
Action brought on 27 April 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                                        (Case C-184/01 P)
                        (Case C-183/01)                                                        (2001/C 200/86)
                        (2001/C 200/85)                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
                                                                       2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in Case T-166/00 between Peter
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             Hirschfeldt and the European Environment Agency was
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 April           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    ties on 27 April 2001 by Peter Hirschfeldt, represented by
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Commission Legal                  Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with
Adviser.                                                               an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-349/09: Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 14 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/12

         Order of the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of 14 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-349/09) (1)

   2011/C 89/23
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-122/99: Action brought on 20 May 1999 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
C 226/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
Action brought on 19 May 1999 by Sean Irving against                    Action brought on 20 May 1999 by The Procter & Gamble
       the Commission of the European Communities                       Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                        (Case T-121/99)
                                                                                (Case T-122/99)
                        (1999/C 226/67)
                                                                                (1999/C 226/68)
                  (Language of the case: English)
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 19 May 1999 by Sean Irving
represented by Nuala Butler and James MacGuill, with an                 An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Stephen            Market (the Office) was brought before the Court of First
Le Goueff, 9 ave Guillaume.                                             Instance of the European Communities on 20 May 1999 by
                                                                        The Procter & Gamble Company of Cincinnatti. Ohio, USA,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             represented by Thierry van Innis of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Katia
— annul Decision No 517 of 26 February 1999 of the                      Manhaeve, 56-58, Rue Charles Martel.
    appointing authority of the Commission rejecting the
    applicant’s complaint submitted pursuant to Article 90(2)
    of the Staff Regulations and lodged on 9 October 1998;              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the Commission of 16 July 1998                  — annul Decision R 74/1998-3 of 15 March 1999 of the
    removing the applicant from his post pursuant to Article                Third Board of Appeal;
    86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations;
— in the event of such annulment, to reinstate the applicant            — order the Office to publish Application No 230680 for a
    in his post as a B2 Official in DGX;                                    Community trace mark following expiry of the period laid
                                                                            down in Article 39(6) of the Regulation on the Community
— order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in                       trace mark;
    respect of the losses sustained by him as a result of the
    defendant’s decisions and actions;                                  — order the Office to pay the whole of the costs.
— order that the applicant’s costs be borne by the defendant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Trade mark:                       Three dimensional mark —
The applicant maintains, on the one hand, that the failure of                                             Application No. 230680
the Commission to comply with the time-limits prescribed in
the Staff Regulations constitutes an infringement of an essential
procedural requirement and thus renders the decision of                 Goods or services:                Soaps
16 July 1998 void. He contends that the decision to dismiss
him was tainted by delay on the part of the Commission at               Decision contested before         Examiner’s refusal to register
virtually every stage of the procedure. No explanation was              the Board of Appeal:
offered by the Commission for such delay and as no justifi-
cation for the delay exists, the decision is accordingly void for       Pleas in law:                     Infringement by the board of
breach of the procedural requirements laid down in Article 88                                             Appeal of Regulation (EC) No
(3) of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 (1) and Article 7 (3)                                          40/94 and the rights of the
of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.                                                                     defence by basting its decision
                                                                                on absolute grounds of refusal
The applicant submits, on the other hand, that the decision of                                            other than that found by the
the appointing authority was taken in breach of the rule of law                                           examiner;
in that he was not accorded a fair, or indeed any, hearing by
the Appointing Authority before the decision of 16 July 1998                                              Infringement      of      Article
was taken. The applicant’s contention rests on two principal                                              7(1)(e)(i) of Regulation No
grounds. Firstly, he was given inadequate notice of the intended                                          40/94
hearing in Brussels having regard to the fact that he was living
in Dublin and wished to be represented by a lawyer practising           Alternative pleas:                Infringement     of      Articles
in Dublin. Secondly, no financial assistance was made available                                           7(1)(b) and 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regu-
to the applicant for the purposes of meeting the legal expenses                                           lation No 40/94
of a hearing in Brussels.