title: Case C-284/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2001 by G. Ojha against the judgment delivered on 6 arch 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
Appeal brought on 6 June 2001 by G. Ojha against the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
judgment delivered on 6 arch 2001 by the First Chamber                für Zivilrechtsachen Vienna by order of that court of
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-               12 October 2001 in the case of Prof. Monika Herbstrith v
ties in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission of the European                                      Republic of Austria
                         Communities
                                                                                (Case C-430/01)
                       (Case C-284/01 P)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/31)
                        (2002/C 109/29)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
                                                                      Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna Higher Civil Court) of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001              12 October 2001 which was received at the Court Registry on
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the            6 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Prof.
European Communities in Case T-77/99 (1)Ojha v Commission             Monika Herbstrith v Republic of Austria on the following
of the European Communities was brought before the Court              questions:
of Justice of the European Communities on 6 June 2001 by
G. Ojha. By order of 22 November 2001 the Court of Justice            1.    Did the conduct described above, viz. the failure to
(First Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered Mr Ojha to                 appoint a candidate despite her professional qualifi-
bear his own costs.                                                         cations, infringe a provision of directly applicable Com-
                                                                            munity law and if so, which provision?
                                                                      2.    If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2002, p. 16.
                                                                            Does the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
                                                                            munity law give the plaintiff in the original proceedings a
                                                                            legal right?
                                                                      3.    If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:
                                                                            Does the request for a preliminary ruling provide the
                                                                            European Court of Justice with all the information it needs
                                                                            to determine whether in the circumstances described as
Appeal brought on 23 July 2001 by Smanor SA and                             to the original proceedings the national body clearly and
Monique and Hubert Ségaud against the order made on                         significantly exceeded its discretionary powers, or does it
4 July 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First                      leave it to the Austrian court requesting the preliminary
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-123/01                       ruling to answer this question?
between the parties bringing the present appeal and the
        Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case C-291/01 P)
                        (2002/C 109/30)                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                      richt Frankfurt am Main by order of 12 November 2001
                                                                      in the case of Hilde Schönheit against the City of Frankfurt
                                                                                am Main
An appeal against the order made on 4 July 2001 by the First                                    (Case C-4/02)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-123/01 between the parties bringing
the present appeal and the Commission of the European                                         (2002/C 109/32)
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 23 July 2001 by Smanor SA and
Monique and Hubert Ségaud. By order of 22 November 2001
the Court of Justice (First Chamber) dismissed the appeal and         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ordered each of the applicants to bear their own costs.               European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                      (Administrative Court) Frankfurt am Main of 12 November
                                                                      2001, received at the Court Registry on 9 January 2002, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Hilde Schönheit against the
                                                                      City of Frankfurt am Main on the following questions:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and 99 Others and Franz Becker and 6 Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Pensions - Weighting - Change of capital - Retroactive effect - Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official)

text:
25.7.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/23
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
a) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,               Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
    comply with Council Directive 93/83/EEC of                      Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
    27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
    rules concerning copyright and rights related to                down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
    copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable        1998 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
    retransmission (1) and/or by failing to inform the              necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
    Commission thereof;                                             conclusions of the Commission and/or informing the
                                                                    Commission thereof.
    and
b) order Ireland to bear the costs of this procedure.               (1) OJ L 248 of 6.10.1993, p. 15.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                former officials, retired officials of the Commission of the
                   judicial year 1997/1998                          European Communities, residing in Germany, represented
                        (98/C 234/44)                               by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                                                                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                    offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
At its Plenary Conference held on 1 July 1998 the Court
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
of First Instance took formal note of the fact that, owing
                                                                    Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by Council of the European
to the judicial vacation, the oath-taking ceremony before
                                                                    Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, Antonio Lucidi and
the Court of Justice for new members of the Court of First
                                                                    Diego Canga Fano and, subsequently, Mr Lucidi and Mr
Instance could not take place until after the judicial
                                                                    Canga Fano alone), Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
vacation and that consequently, in accordance with the
                                                                    Sabine Maass, Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and
third paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the
                                                                    Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and
Court of Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                    Johannes van den Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for
EAEC Statute of the Court of Justice, and the third
                                                                    annulment of the applicants' pension statements for
paragraph of Article 5 of the ECSC Statute of the Court
                                                                    December 1994, inasmuch as those statements are drawn
of Justice, the decisions of 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271 of
                                                                    up on the basis of Council Regulation (ECSC, EC,
6.9.1997) and 10 March 1998 (OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998)
                                                                    Euratom) No 3161/94 of 19 December 1994 adjusting,
on the designation of the Presidents of Chambers, the
                                                                    with effect from 1 July 1994, the remuneration and
composition of the Chambers and the assignment of cases
                                                                    pensions of officials (OJ L 335 of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and,
to them would continue to apply and that the President of
                                                                    second, for reinstatement of the applicants' pension rights
the Court, Mr Bo Vesterdorf, would continue to exercise
                                                                    in full, weighted, with effect from 3 October 1990, at the
the presidency of the Court of First Instance.
                                                                    rate fixed by reference to the cost of living in Berlin, and
                                                                    for default interest at the annual rate of 10 % Ð the
                                                                    Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: B.
                                                                    Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
                                                                    Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June
                                                                    1998, in which it:
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 9 June 1998
in Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 Others and Franz Becker and 6 Others v Commission                1. Dismisses the applications as inadmissible;
              of the European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð                 2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
             Act adversely affecting an official)
                        (98/C 234/45)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
               (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-171/95 and T-191/95: Adriaan Al and
99 other former officials and Franz Becker and 6 other


title: Case T-409/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by Benito Latino against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/51

         Action brought on 4 October 2004 by Benito Latino against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-409/04)
   (2004/C 300/99)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by Benito Latino, residing in Lauzun (France), represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the medical report of 6 May 2002 notified on 11 November 2003 and received by the applicant on 15 November 2003;

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 11 November 2003 received on 15 November 2003, in regard to the 5 % partial permanent invalidity agreed in the applicant's case and in regard to the imposition on the applicant of certain expenses and fees of the members of the medical committee;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the totality of the expenses and fees of the medical committee;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the fees and costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a former Commission official who worked in the Berlaymont Building in Brussels from 1969 to 1991 sought in 1994 recognition of the occupational origin of his respiratory illness as a result of the exposure to asbestos which he claimed to have suffered. An initial Commission Decision in response to that request, which acknowledged the occupational origin of his illness and determined the rate of invalidity at 5 %, was annulled by the Court of First Instance in Case T-300/97 (1) brought by the applicant.
   Following the abovementioned judgment, the Commission once again brought the matter before the medical committee and after that committee had issued a fresh medical report dated 6 May 2002, the Commission adopted the contested decision.
   In support of its action, the applicant first claims that the majority report of the medical committee is in breach of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as it took no account of the dissenting report. Furthermore, the report did not satisfy the conditions laid down by the case-law of the Court of First Instance and contained contradictory and unintelligible assessments.
   The applicant also pleads the infringement of Articles 3, 17 and 20 of the rules concerning coverage of the risks of accidents or sickness in the case of officials, the third paragraph of the annex thereto and of Articles 381 to 383 and 387 et seq. of the Belgian invalidity tables. He further pleads a lack of objectivity on the part of the medical committee, as well as alleged hostility to him by two of its members. In the applicant's view, a new medical committee ought to be established in order to ensure observance of his rights of defence.

      (1)  OJ 1998, C 41, p. 23.


title: Case C-424/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/31

         Action brought on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-424/04)
   (2004/C 300/59)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Wiedner and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to provide for an obligation on contracting authorities to ensure genuine competition by the presence of a minimum of five tenderers in restricted procedures, even where no range is prescribed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(2) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993, (1) Article 27(2) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 (2) and Article 22(2) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993; (3)

               2.

               declare that, by excluding from the scope of the French Code of Public Procurement contracts concerning loans or financial undertakings, whether intended to cover financing or liquidity requirements, not connected with real property transactions, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a)(vii) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 and Article 1(4)(c)(iv) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993; (4)

               3.

               declare that, by providing that public contracts concerning

                           —

                           legal services,

                           —

                           social and health services,

                           —

                           recreational, cultural and sports services,

                           —

                           educational services and occupational qualification and integration services

                     are to be subject, as regards their award, only to the obligations relating to the definition of services by reference to standards where they exist, and to the sending of an award notice, without expressly specifying that the rules and principles of the Treaty are to be complied with, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations flowing from compliance with the principles and rules of the Treaty (Article 49), and in particular the principle of equal treatment and the principle of transparency of which adequate publicity is the corollary;

               4.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The French Code of Public Procurement is incompatible in certain respects with the rules and principles of the EC Treaty and the Community directives relating to public procurement.
   First, by failing to provide for an obligation on the contracting authority to ensure the presence of a minimum of five tenderers where no range is prescribed, the French Republic is in breach of the obligation in the Community directives to ensure genuine competition in certain restricted procedures for the award of public contracts.
   The French Republic is also in breach of its obligations by excluding from the scope of the French Code of Public Procurement contracts concerning loans or financial undertakings, whether intended to cover financing or liquidity requirements, not connected with real property transactions. Those contracts relate to the provision of services and thus fall within the scope of the directives. Nor may they be regarded as covered by the exception concerning securities and other financial instruments.
   Finally, the exclusion of certain service contracts from the scope of the obligation to ensure an adequate degree of publicity constitutes a breach of the principle of non-discrimination as laid down in Article 49 EC and of the principle of transparency.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/36/EEC coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).

      (4)  Council Directive 93/38/EEC coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 84).


title: Case C-10/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages (Appeal — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 — Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia — Partial interim review — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 3(7) — Known factors — Injury to European Union industry — Causal link)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 December 2013 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG v Council of the European Union, European Commission, Euroalliages
   (Case C-10/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Dumping - Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 - Imports of ferro-silicon originating in China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia - Partial interim review - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 3(7) - Known factors - Injury to European Union industry - Causal link)
   2014/C 52/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO, ENRC Marketing AG (represented by: A. Willems and S. De Knop, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Berrish, Rechtsanwalt)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and S. Thomas, acting as Agents), Euroalliages (represented by: J. Bourgeois, Y. van Gerven and N. McNelis, avocats)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2011 in Case T-192/08 Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia (OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ AO and ENRC Marketing AG to pay the costs of the present proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Euroalliages to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012.


title: Case C-74/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation — Belgium) — Bâtiments et Ponts Construction SA, WISAG Produktionsservice GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Industrieservice GmbH v Berlaymont 2000 SA (Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Article 24 — Grounds for exclusion — Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions and taxes — Tenderers’ registration obligation, on pain of exclusion — ‘Registration Committee’ and its powers — Examination of the validity of certificates issued by the competent authorities of the Member State in which a foreign tenderer is established)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation — Belgium) — Bâtiments et Ponts Construction SA, WISAG Produktionsservice GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Industrieservice GmbH v Berlaymont 2000 SA
   (Case C-74/09) (1)

   (Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Article 24 - Grounds for exclusion - Obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions and taxes - Tenderers’ registration obligation, on pain of exclusion - ‘Registration Committee’ and its powers - Examination of the validity of certificates issued by the competent authorities of the Member State in which a foreign tenderer is established)
   2010/C 246/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bâtiments et Ponts Construction SA, WISAG Produktionsservice GmbH, formerly ThyssenKrupp Industrieservice GmbH

      Defendant: Berlaymont 2000 SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de Cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) and Articles 49 EC and 50 EC — Award of public works contracts — National legislation allowing a contracting authority, first, to exclude a tenderer by reason of its not being registered in that State, even where that tenderer has provided equivalent certificates issued by the authorities of another Member State and, secondly, to subject those certificates to an assessment of their validity — Compatibility of that legislation with the provisions of Community law referred to above

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The law of the Union is to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on a contractor established in another Member State, in order to be awarded a contract in the contracting authority’s Member State, an obligation to hold a registration, in the latter Member State, certifying that none of the grounds for exclusion listed in the first paragraph of Article 24 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts applies to the contractor, provided that such obligation does not hinder or delay the contractor’s participation in the public contract in question or give rise to excessive administrative charges, and provided that its sole objective is to check the professional qualities of the contractor concerned, for the purposes of that provision.

               2.

               The law of the Union is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the checking of the certificates issued to a contractor of another Member State by the tax and social security authorities of that Member State is entrusted to an authority other than the contracting authority where:

                           —

                           the majority on that other authority is composed of persons appointed by the employers’ and workers’ organisations in the construction sector of the province in which the public contract in question is to be awarded, and

                           —

                           that power extends to a check on the substance of the validity of those certificates.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case C-317/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2011 — Rainer Reimann v Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2011 — Rainer Reimann v Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG
   (Case C-317/11)
   2011/C 269/53
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rainer Reimann

      Defendant: Philipp Halter GmbH & Co. Sprengunternehmen KG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) preclude a national rule such as the one in Paragraph 13(2) of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz (Federal law on leave), pursuant to which in certain trades the duration of the annual minimum leave of four weeks may be reduced by means of collective agreement?

               2.

               Do Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude a rule in a national collective agreement such as that in the Bundesrahmentarifvertrag Bau (Collective agreement laying down a general framework for the construction industry), pursuant to which a leave entitlement does not accrue in those years in which a certain total gross wage is not earned as a result of illness?

               3.

               If the first and second questions are answered in the affirmative:
               Is a rule such as that in Paragraph 13(2) of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz inapplicable in those circumstances?

               4.

               If the first to third questions are answered in the affirmative:
               Should legitimate expectations be protected with regard to the validity of the rule in Paragraph 13(2) of the Bundesurlaubsgesetz and the rules of the Bundesrahmentarifvertrag Bau, if periods prior to 1 December 2009, when the Treaty of Lisbon and the Charter of Fundamental Rights came into force, are affected? Should the parties to the Bundesrahmentarifvertrag Bau collective agreement be granted a period in which they may agree another rule themselves?

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case T-512/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC SUPPORT — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Nike International v OHIM (DYNAMIC SUPPORT)
   (Case T-512/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark DYNAMIC SUPPORT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 319/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States of America) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 August 2010 (case R 640/2010-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign DYNAMIC SUPPORT as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nike International Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de Cassation, by judgment of that court of 9 December 1997, in the case of GIE Groupe Concorde, Uni Europe, La Préservatrice Foncière IARD, La Baloise, Réunion Européenne, Allianz, British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. Ltd and Camat against the Master of the vessel 'Suhadiwarno Panjan', P. T. Perusahan Pelayaran 'Trikoria Lloyd', Pro Ligne Ltd, Sveriges Angarts Assurans Forening, Somaba and Agence maritime Borghans (Case C-440/97)

text:
20.2.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/21
The appellant claims that the Court should:                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de
                                                                   Cassation, by judgment of that court of 9 December 1997,
1. set aside the judgment delivered on 15 October 1997             in the case of GIE Groupe Concorde, Uni Europe, La
    by the Court of First Instance of the European                 PreÂservatrice FoncieÁre IARD, La Baloise, ReÂunion
    Communities in Case T-331/94 (1) and annul the                 EuropeÂenne, Allianz, British and Foreign Marine
    respondent's decision of 3 August 1994 refusing                Insurance Co. Ltd and Camat against the Master of the
    payment of the second instalment of the aid granted to         vessel Suhadiwarno Panjan', P. T. Perusahan Pelayaran
    the applicant by letter of 4 August 1992,                      Trikoria Lloyd', Pro Ligne Ltd, Sveriges Angarts Assurans
                                                                        Forening, Somaba and Agence maritime Borghans
2. alternatively:                                                                        (Case C-440/97)
    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                  (98/C 55/40)
    referred to in (1) above and refer the case back to the
    Court of First Instance,
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3. order the respondent to pay the costs.
                                                                   European Communities by a judgment of the French Cour
                                                                   de Cassation of 9 December 1997, which was received at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   the Court Registry on 29 December 1997, for a
                                                                   preliminary ruling in the case of GIE Groupe Concorde
Ð Complaints regarding procedural matters
                                                                   and Others v. The Master of the vessel Suhadiwarno
    Ð failure to comply with the obligation imposed by             Panjan' and Others, on the following question:
        Article 190 of the EC Treaty to provide a
        statement of reasons,
                                                                   With a view to the application of Article 5(1) of the
    Ð breach of the duty to investigate the matter and             Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction
        infringement of the rules concerning the burden of         and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
        proof and the degree of proof.                             matters, must the place where the obligation at issue was
                                                                   or must be fulfilled, within the meaning of that provision,
Ð Infringements of substantive Community law                       be determined in accordance with the law which governs
                                                                   the obligation at issue or should national courts determine
    Ð the contested judgment is based on a presumption             the place of performance of the obligation by seeking to
        of fact which, as is apparent from the documents           establish, having regard to the nature of the relationship
        in the case, is incorrect,                                 creating the obligation and the circumstances of the case,
                                                                   the place where performance actually took place or should
    Ð in upholding a deadline for submission of the final
                                                                   have taken place, without having to refer to the law
        report which did not reflect the delay caused by
                                                                   which, under the rules on conflict of laws, governs the
        the Commission to the commencement of the
                                                                   obligation at issue?
        project, the Court of First Instance failed to
        observe the principle patere legem quam ipse
        fecisti and disregarded the prohibition of acts
        constituting an abuse of law,
    Ð breach of the prohibition imposed by the principle
        venire contra factum proprium, alternatively of the
        principle of estoppel: the Court of First Instance         Reference      for   a    preliminary    ruling   by    the
        wrongly assessed as irrelevant in law statements           Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge, Afdeling Oostende, by
        made by the official then responsible for the              judgment of that court of 22 December 1997 in the case
        matter in the course of discussions with the                    of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
        applicant, despite the fact that those statements
                                                                                (Case C-442/97)
        were reflected in the minutes prepared by the
        Commission,                                                                        (98/C 55/41)
    Ð breach of the principle of proportionality: the
        Court of First Instance failed to give sufficient
        weight to the disparity between the gravity of the         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        alleged infringement and the conditions laid down          European       Communities      by    judgment     of   the
        in the Decision granting the aid and between the           Arbeidsrechtbank Brugge (Labour Court, Bruges), Ostend
        circumstances of the case (illegal intervention by         Division, of 22 December 1997, which was received at the
        the Commission and unlawful shortening of the              Court Registry on 30 December 1997, for a preliminary
        period for completion of the project) and the              ruling in the case of Jozef Van Coile and Rijksdienst voor
        penalty imposed by the Commission, namely non-             Pensioenen (National Pensions Office) on the following
        payment of 40 % of the total amount of the aid.            question:
(1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 14.
                                                                   Article 32b(5) of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967
                                                                   laying down general rules concerning retirement and


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-78/04 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/61/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-78/04 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 96/61/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control)
   (2005/C 6/35)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-78/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis) v Republic of Austria (Agent: E. Riedl) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 February 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, R. Schintgen and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing:

                           —

                           completely to transpose the definition of ‘existing installation’ under Article 2(4) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control in the Gewerbeordnung 1994 (Crafts, Trade and Industry Code 1994) in the version brought into force by Bundesgesetz BGBl.I,88/2000 and which came into effect on 1 September 2000;

                           —

                           completely to transpose the requirements relating to permit conditions laid down in Article 9(4) of that directive in the Gewerbeordnung 1994, as amended, and the requirements laid down in Article 9(3) to (5) of that directive in the Niederösterreichisches Elektrizitätswesengesetz 2001 (‘NÖ EwG 2001’);

                           —

                           completely to transpose Annex IV to that directive in the Gewerbeordnung 1994, as amended, and in the NÖ EwG 2001;

                           —

                           to transpose that directive as regards the combustion installations referred to in point 1.1 of Annex I to the directive in the Gewerbeordnung 1994, as amended, and in the Salzburger Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 1998;

                           —

                           completely to transpose Directive 96/61 in the Burgenländisches Elektrizitätswesengesetz 1999, and

                           —

                           to transpose the provisions of that directive relating to intensive rearing installations referred to in point 6.6. of Annex I to the directive in the legislation of the Länder of Burgenland, Salzburg and the Tyrol,

                     the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(4), 9(3) to (5) of and Annex IV to the abovementioned directive, and under Article 1 of that directive, read in conjunction with points 1.1 and 6.6 of Annex I to the directive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.


title: Case C-188/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Italia Zuccheri S.p.A. and Co.Pro.B. v AGEA and Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Italia Zuccheri S.p.A. and Co.Pro.B. v AGEA and Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
   (Case C-188/12)
   2012/C 194/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Italia Zuccheri S.p.A. and Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli società cooperativa agricola (Co.Pro.B.)

      Respondents: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 (1) and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘production facilities’ does not include facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it and that, therefore, in the case of facilities such as silos, it is necessary to complete a case-by-case analysis in order to establish whether those facilities are connected with the ‘production line’ or whether they are connected with other activities, different from production?

               2.

               In particular, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 to be interpreted as meaning that facilities — such as silos — which are used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar purely for the purposes of marketing it, being independent from the production cycle, are part of the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(c), rather than Article 4(1)(a) and (b), in accordance with the wording and objectives of Regulation No 320/2006 and Regulation No 968/2006, in particular Recital 4 in the preamble to the latter?

               3.

               In the alternative, with regard to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and with regard to the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, is Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 968/2006 of 27 June 2006 invalid if interpreted as also including among the facilities referred to in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 968/2006 those facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it, given that it is clear that the objective of Regulation No 320/2006 is to reduce the production capacity of the sugar company and not to prevent the company from being able to operate in the sector of the mere marketing of the product, using sugar obtained relying on production quotas belonging to other facilities or businesses?

               4.

               In the further alternative, in any event, are Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 320/2006 of 20 February 2006 and Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) [No 968/2006] of 27 June 2006 valid, by the yardstick of the higher rules and principles of EU primary law, if interpreted as including in the concept of ‘production facilities’ or facilities ‘directly related to … production’ those facilities used by sugar companies for storing, packing or packaging sugar for the purposes of marketing it?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 58, p. 42

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 176, p. 32


title: Case T-208/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions — Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 2008 — BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów and Others v Commission
   (Case T-208/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions - Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 327/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów S.A. (Rogowiec, Poland); BOT Elektrownia Turów S.A. (Bogatynia, Poland); BOT Elektrownia Opole S.A. (Brzezie, Poland); Elektrownia ‘Kozienice’ S.A. (Świerże Górne, Poland); Elektrownia Połaniec S.A. — Grupa Electrabel Polska (Połaniec, Poland); Elektrownia ‘Rybnik’ S.A. (Rybnik, Poland); Elektrownia Skawina S.A. (Skawina, Poland); Elektrownia ‘Stalowa Wola’ S.A. (Stalowa Wola, Poland); Południowy Koncern Energetyczny S.A. (Katowice, Poland); Zespół Elektrowni Dolna Odra S.A. (Nowe Czarnowo, Poland); Zespół Elektrowni Ostrołęka S.A. (Ostrołęka, Poland); and Zespół Elektrowni Pątnów-Adamów-Konin S.A. (Konin, Poland) (represented by: B. Krużewski, M. Ciemiński, J. Młot-Schönthaler, N. Dodoo and S. Boullart, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Elektrociepłownia ‘Będzin’ S.A. (Będzin, Poland); Zespół Elektrociepłowni Bydgoszcz S.A. (Bydgoszcz, Poland); Zespół Elektrociepłowni Bytom S.A. (Bytom, Poland); Elektrociepłownia Białystok S.A. (Białystok, Poland); Elektrociepłownia ‘Gorzów S.A.’ (Gorzów, Poland); Elektrociepłownia Kalisz-Piwonice S.A. (Kalisz, Poland); Elektrociepłownia ‘Kraków’ S.A. (Krakow, Poland); Dalkia Łódź S.A. (Łódź, Poland); Dalkia Poznań Zespół Elektrociepłowni S.A. (Poznań, Poland); Elektrociepłownia Tychy S.A. (Tychy, Poland); Zespół Elektrociepłowni Wrocławskich Kogeneracja S.A. (Wrocław, Poland); Elektrociepłownie Wybrzeże S.A. (Gdańsk, Poland); Elektrociepłownia Zabrze S.A. (Zabrze, Poland); and Elektrociepłownia ‘Zielona Góra’ S.A. (Zielona Góra, Poland) (represented by: B. Krużewski, M. Ciemiński, J. Młot-Schönthaler, N. Dodoo and S. Boullart, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               BOT Elektrownia Bełchatów S.A., BOT Elektrownia Turów S.A., BOT Elektrownia Opole S.A., Elektrownia ‘Kozienice’ S.A., Elektrownia Połaniec S.A. — Grupa Electrabel Polska, Elektrownia ‘Rybnik’ S.A., Elektrownia Skawina S.A., Elektrownia ‘Stalowa Wola’ S.A., Południowy Koncern Energetyczny S.A., Zespół Elektrowni Dolna Odra S.A., Zespół Elektrowni Ostrołęka S.A. and Zespół Elektrowni Pątnów-Adamów-Konin S.A. shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

               3.

               Elektrociepłownia ‘Będzin’ S.A., Zespół Elektrociepłowni Bydgoszcz S.A., Zespół Elektrociepłowni Bytom S.A., Elektrociepłownia Białystok S.A., Elektrociepłownia ‘Gorzów S.A.’, Elektrociepłownia Kalisz-Piwonice S.A., Elektrociepłownia ‘Kraków’ S.A., Dalkia Łódź S.A., Dalkia Poznań Zespół Elektrociepłowni S.A., Elektrociepłownia Tychy S.A., Zespół Elektrociepłowni Wrocławskich Kogeneracja S.A., Elektrociepłownie Wybrzeże S.A., Elektrociepłownia Zabrze S.A. and Elektrociepłownia ‘Zielona Góra’ S.A. shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-74/17: Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO — Formosan (Shaken, not stirred)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/36

         Action brought on 6 February 2017 — Danjaq v EUIPO — Formosan (Shaken, not stirred)
   (Case T-74/17)
   (2017/C 121/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Danjaq, LLC (Los Angeles, California, United States) (represented by: S. Baran and G. Messenger, barristers, D. Stone and A. Dykes, solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Formosan IP (Oxford, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Shaken, not stirred’ — Application for registration No 13 406 343

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of in Case R 255/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the intervener bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-324/07: Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Plant and Others v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/38

         Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Plant and Others v Commission
   (Case T-324/07)
   (2007/C 247/62)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Gerry Plant (Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom), Mary Kathleen Plant (Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom), Dennis Jones (Neath, United Kingdom), William Meyrick (Swansea, United Kingdom), J.G. Evans (Ammanford, United Kingdom), David Vivian Austin (Neath, United Kingdom), D. Powell (Neath, United Kingdom), James Rowland McCann (Neath, United Kingdom), D. B. Diplock (Neath, United Kingdom), John Phillips (Neath, United Kingdom) and Richard Thomas Kingston (Swansea, United Kingdom) (represented by: W. Graham, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's Decision dated 18 June 2007 in Case No. 37037 — SWSMA;

               —

               take such further action as the Court may think just;

               —

               order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are similar to those relied on in Case T-318/07 National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission.


title: Case C-1/15 SA: Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order brought on 12 January 2015 — La Chaine hôtelière La Frontière, Shotef SPRL v European Commission

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/20

      Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order brought on 12 January 2015 — La Chaine hôtelière La Frontière, Shotef SPRL v European Commission
      (Case C-1/15 SA)
      (2015/C 073/27)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: La Chaine hôtelière La Frontière, Shotef SPRL (represented by: J. Steyt, avocat)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Declare the present application to be admissible and well founded;

            Consequently:

                  —

                  primarily, authorise the applicant to maintain and continue the attachment order already served and to serve other attachment orders on the European Union/European Commission for all sums, funds, assets or objects generally that it has or will subsequently have in its possession, owes or will subsequently owe for any reason and on any grounds whatever to the Democratic Republic of Congo;

                  —

                  in the alternative, authorise the applicant to maintain and continue the attachment order already served and to serve other attachment orders on the European Union/European Commission for all sums, funds, assets or objects generally that it has or will subsequently have in its possession, owes or will subsequently owe on the basis of a private contract to the Democratic Republic of Congo;

            In any event:

                  —

                  order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-724/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 October 2016 by Giorgio Cocchi and Nicola Falcione against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 August 2016 in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/34

      Appeal brought on 12 October 2016 by Giorgio Cocchi and Nicola Falcione against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 2 August 2016 in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
      (Case T-724/16 P)
      (2016/C 441/40)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought by the appellant

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  Set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-134/11, Cocchi and Falcione v Commission;

            and, giving judgment itself:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 refusing the requests for assistance;

                  —

                  Order the Commission pay the amounts of EUR 22 000 to Mr Falcione and EUR 35 000 to Mr Cocchi, in respect of the damage which they have suffered;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs of both instances.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in its assessment of the appellants’ interest in pursuing the proceedings. The appellants, it is claimed, have more than a mere administrative interest in having their appeal upheld.


title: Case C-470/07: Action brought on 24 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/29

         Action brought on 24 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-470/07)
   (2007/C 315/48)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G Zabbos and N Yerrell, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Hellenic Republic, by not adopting the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on minimum safety requirements for tunnels in the Trans-European Road Network, and in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition of the directive into national law expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 167 of 30.4.2004, p. 39.


20150731021616732015/C 270/09522014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201506118921Case C-52/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Limitation period — Dies a quo — Repeated irregularities — Interruption of the limitation period — Conditions — Competent authority — Person in question — Act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity — Time-limit equal to twice the limitation period)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN810120150611EN00098192Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-52/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Protection of the financial interests of the European Union — Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Article 3(1) — Limitation period — Dies a quo — Repeated irregularities — Interruption of the limitation period — Conditions — Competent authority — Person in question — Act relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning the irregularity — Time-limit equal to twice the limitation period)’2015/C 270/09Language of the case: German
      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Operative part of the judgment

            1.

            The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘competent authority’, within the meaning of that provision, is to be understood as designating the authority which has responsibility, under national law, for adopting acts relating to the investigation or legal proceedings in question, which authority may be different from that which is responsible for awarding or recovering sums wrongfully received to the detriment of the European Union’s financial interests.

            2.

            The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings concerning an irregularity have been notified to the ‘person in question’, within the meaning of that provision, where a set of facts lead to the conclusion that the person in question has effectively been made aware of those acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings. In the case of a legal person, that requirement is satisfied if the act in question has actually been brought to the attention of a person whose conduct may be ascribed, under national law, to that legal person, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

            3.

            The third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that an act must set out with sufficient precision the transactions to which the suspicions of irregularities relate in order to constitute an ‘act relating to investigation or legal proceedings’, within the meaning of that provision. That requirement for precision does not, however, require the act to state the possibility that a penalty or particular administrative measure may be imposed. It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the report at issue in the main proceedings satisfies that requirement.

            4.

            The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that, with regard to the fact that irregularities must be closely linked in time in order to be regarded as a ‘repeated irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, it is required only that the period between each irregularity be shorter than the limitation period of four years provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 3(1). Irregularities such as those at issue in the main proceedings, concerning the calculation of the quantities of sugar stored by the manufacturer, committed in different marketing years, leading to incorrect declarations of those quantities by that manufacturer and, accordingly, the wrongful payment of sums as reimbursements of storage costs, constitute, in principle, a ‘repeated irregularity’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

            5.

            The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that classification of a series of irregularities as a ‘continuous or repeated irregularity’, within the meaning of that provision, is not excluded where the competent authorities have not made regular and in-depth checks on the person in question.

            6.

            The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the limitation period laid down in that subparagraph begins to run, in the case of a continuous or repeated irregularity, from the day on which that irregularity ceased, irrespective of the date on which the national administration became aware of that irregularity.

            7.

            Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that acts relating to investigation or legal proceedings adopted by the competent authority and notified to the person in question, in accordance with the third subparagraph of that provision, do not have the effect of interrupting the limitation period laid down in the fourth subparagraph thereof.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 8 April 2003 in Case C-44/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Pippig Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer (Approximation of laws — Directives 84/450/EEC and 97/55/EC — Misleading advertising — Conditions for comparative advertising to be lawful)

text:
C 135/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                7.6.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            the importance of the brand in the buyer’s choice and by a
                                                                                major difference between the respective brand names of the
                                                                                compared products in terms of how well known they are,
                           of 8 April 2003                                         omission of the better-known brand name is capable of being
                                                                                misleading.
in Case C-44/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     3.    Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended, does not
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Pippig Augenoptik GmbH &                                preclude compared products from being purchased through
Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Verlassen-                             different distribution channels.
  schaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer (1)
                                                                             4.    Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended, does not
                                                                                preclude an advertiser from carrying out a test purchase with a
(Approximation of laws — Directives 84/450/EEC and
                                                                                competitor before his own offer has even commenced, where the
97/55/EC — Misleading advertising — Conditions for
                                                                                conditions for the lawfulness of comparative advertising set out
              comparative advertising to be lawful)
                                                                                therein are complied with.
                           (2003/C 135/05)                                   5.    A price comparison does not entail the discrediting of a
                                                                                competitor, within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive
                                                                                84/450, as amended, either on the grounds that the difference
                    (Language of the case: German)                                 in price between the products compared is greater than the
                                                                                average price difference or by reason of the number of
                                                                                comparisons made. Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450, as
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             amended, does not prevent comparative advertising, in addition
                    in the European Court Reports)                                 to citing the competitor’s name, from reproducing its logo and
                                                                                a picture of its shop front, if that advertising complies with the
                                                                                conditions for lawfulness laid down by Community law.
In Case C-44/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Pippig
Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG and Hartlauer Handelsgesell-
schaft mbH, Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz
Josef Hartlauer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 84/
450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on misleading and compara-
tive advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by
Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290 p. 18), the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-                                              of 8 April 2003
P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-
dents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-53/01, C-54/01 and C-55/01 (Reference
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur)
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof):
and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-
                                                                             Linde AG (C-53/01), Winward Industries Inc. (C-54/01),
F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                and v Rado Uhren AG (C-55/01) (1)
judgment on 8 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
1.    Article 7(2) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September           104/EEC — Grounds for refusal to register —
      1984 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended             Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) — Three-dimensional shape of
      by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the            product mark — Distinctive character — Preserving the
      Council of 6 October 1997, precludes the application to                       availability of certain signs in the public interest)
      comparative advertising of stricter national provisions on
      protection against misleading advertising as far as the form and
      content of the comparison is concerned, without there being any                                    (2003/C 135/06)
      need to establish distinctions between the various elements of
      the comparison, that is to say statements concerning the                                    (Language of the case: German)
      advertiser’s offer, statements concerning the competitor’s offer
      and the relationship between those offers.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, as amended, must be
      interpreted as meaning that, whereas the advertiser is in
      principle free to state or not to state the brand name of rival
      products in comparative advertising, it is for the national court      In Joined Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01: References to the Court
      to verify whether, in particular circumstances, characterised by       under Article 234 EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for


title: Case T-591/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Castiglioni v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/32

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Castiglioni v Commission
   (Case T-591/10)
   2011/C 55/58
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Castiglioni Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: G. Turri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested measures, which are better described in the present application, by declaring them null and void and, therefore, order the European Commission to compensate for damage in a particular form, which may include a declaration that any contract which may have been entered into between the Commission and the successful tenderers was invalid, null and void or ineffective;

               —

                     in the alternative
                  , annul the contested measures, which are better described in the present application, by declaring them null and void and, therefore, order the European Commission to compensate for the damage, including what is known as ‘curricular damage’, suffered by Castiglioni Srl in a commensurate amount to be quantified in the course of the proceedings, together with interest and monetary indexation to the date of actual payment;

               —

                     in any event
                  , order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on three grounds in support of its application:

               —

               First ground, relating to infringement of Article 137(4) of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1), infringement of the contract notice and subsequent clarifications, and failure to state reasons.

               —

               It is submitted in this connection that the applicant has demonstrated that it possesses all the standard minimum capacity levels required in the contract notice and the fact that possession of the minimum requirements is demonstrated in part directly and partly in reliance on the capacities of other entities is totally irrelevant, given that reliance on the capacities of other entities is expressly contemplated in the rules governing the present case. The failure to evaluate the tender submitted by the applicant is therefore unlawful.

               —

               Second ground, relating to infringement of Article 148(3) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002, and failure to state reasons.

               —

               It is submitted in this connection that, even if it had been minded to conclude that the documents submitted by the applicant for the purpose of demonstrating that it possessed Standard ST3 were lacking in clarity, the contracting authority should have applied Article 148(3) of Regulation No 2342/2002.

               —

               Third ground, relating to the illegality of the contract notice.

         It is submitted in this connection that if, which is disputed, it is held that justification for the contracting authority’s position is to be found in the contact notice, the applicant challenges that notice, in reliance on the same complaints set out above in connection with the first ground.


title: Action brought on 6 July 1995 by Werner Haberer against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-143/95)

text:
 L 9 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/25
Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Georges Cantone against             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       the Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case T-139/95 )                             The applicant, an official of the European Parliament of
                         ( 95/C 229/54 )                             Danish nationality, receives family allowances for her three
                                                                     children under Danish legislation. Taking the view that
                (Language of the case: French)                       those allowances should be regarded as of the same nature
                                                                     as those payable in accordance with Annex VII to the
An action against the Commission of the European                     Staff Regulations, the Parliament initially deducted the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    corresponding amount from the applicant's salary. By letter
Instance of the European Communities on 5 July 1995 by               of 1 December 1994 , and purportedly on the basis of a
Georges Cantone, resident in Luxembourg, represented by              'change in practice', the appointing authority decided to
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and                cease applying the non-aggregation rule to the allowances in
Veronique Leclercq, all of the Brussels Bar, with an address         dispute with effect from 1 May 1993 and consequently to
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson         reimburse to the applicant the amounts unduly levied since
                                                                     that date .
Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          The applicant claims that she is also entitled to
                                                                     reimbursement of the amounts unduly deducted before May
— annul, so far as may be necessary, the confirmatory                1993 . In that connection she claims that the 'change in
    decision of 19 December 1994 and the decision of                 practice' which gave rise to the contested decision derives
    17 May 1995 expressly rejecting the applicant's                  from the fact that the Parliament itself had realized that, by
    complaint,                                                       treating the allowances payable under the Danish legislation
                                                                     in question, which are of a fiscal nature, on the same basis as
— annul the Commissions' decision of 4 November 1994,
                                                                     the family allowances under Annex VII to the Staff
    fixing Luxembourg as the applicant's place of                    Regulations, which are social in nature, it had committed a
    recruitment,
                                                                     manifest error of assessment. To set a temporal limit on the
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             reimbursement of the amounts unduly deducted is therefore
                                                                     unreasonable .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant further maintains that, by adopting the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in          contested decision, the European Parliament acted contrary
Case T-33/95 I 1 ).                                                  to the principles of equal treatment and of
                                                                     non-discrimination between officials .
H OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p . 14 .
Action brought on 5 July 1995 by Kirsten Schelbeck against
                   the European Parliament
                       ( Case T-141 /95 )                            Action brought on 6 July 1995 by Werner Haberer against
                                                                     the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                          ( 95/C 229/55 )                                             the European Communities
                (Language of the case: French)                                             ( Case T-143/95 )
                                                                                95/C 229/56
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 July 1995 by Kirsten Schelbeck, residing                           (Language of the case: German)
in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
Demaseure and Veronique Leclercq, of the Brussels Bar,               An action against the Council of the European Union and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of          the Commission of the European Communities was brought
Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 1 Rue Glesener.                               before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 6 July 1995 by Werner Haberer, Riegel
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Bernd
— annul the decision of the European Parliament refusing             Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing, Dietrich Manstetten, Frank
    the applicant reimbursement of the amounts unlawfully            Schulze and Winfried Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster,
    deducted from the family allowances to which she was             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
    entitled with respect to the period from 1 November              of Dupong & Associés, 14a Rue des Bains.
     1987 to 30 April 1993 ,
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the implied decision of 1 July 1995 rejecting her
    complaint,
                                                                       1 . order the defendants to pay to the applicant SLOM I
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                   compensation for the period from 30 November 1985
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/26        | EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    2 . 9 . 95
    to 29 March 1989 in the amount of DM 39 385,03 ,                     Removal from the register of Case T-221/93 ( )
    together with interest thereon at 8 % from 19 May                                       ( 95/C 229/57 )
    1992, and to pay the costs of the proceedings;
2 . join the present action to those already pending in Case                      (Language of the case: German)
    T-77/93 Hiilseberg and Others v. Council and
    Commission and also stay the proceedings .                      By order of 29 June 1995 the President of the First Chamber,
                                                                    Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 European Communities ordered the removal from the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in         register of Case T-221 /93 : Volker Wobker v. Commission
Case T-20/94 .                                                      of the European Communities .
                                                                    (') OJ No C 270, 19 . 10 . 1992 .


title: Case T-21/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Chalkor v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper plumbing tube industry — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Continuous and multiform infringement — Fines — Limited participation in the cartel — Geographic extent of the relevant market — Duration of the infringement — Cooperation)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Chalkor v Commission
   (Case T-21/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper plumbing tube industry - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Continuous and multiform infringement - Fines - Limited participation in the cartel - Geographic extent of the relevant market - Duration of the infringement - Cooperation)
   2010/C 179/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon (Athens, Greece) (represented by: I. Forrester QC, A. Schulz and A. Komninos, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and S. Noë, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for cancellation or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that the fine imposed on Chalkor AE Epexergasias Metallon under Article 2(d) of Commission Decision C(2004) 2826 of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) shall be set at EUR 8,2467 million.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Chalkor Epexergasias Metallon and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-617/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/27

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)
      (Case T-617/13) (1)

      (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger insert - Ground for invalidity - Lack of visibility of part of a complex product - Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
      (2015/C 073/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aic S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, Legal Adviser)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 688/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-621/16 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15, Italy v Commission)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/16

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2016 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Joined Cases T-353/14 and T-17/15, Italy v Commission)
   (Case C-621/16 P)
   (2017/C 046/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic, Republic of Lithuania

      Forms of order

   The Commission claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings so permits, dismiss the action at first instance as unfounded;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the cost of the present proceedings and those at first instance;

               —

               order the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the Commission puts forward the following grounds: (1) an error of law in the interpretation of the legal nature of the ‘General Provisions’ applicable to competitions and an error of law in the interpretation of Article 7(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union (‘the Staff Regulations’), resulting in erroneous reasoning; (2) error of law and breach of the obligation to state reasons in interpreting Article 1d of the Staff Regulations; (3) errors of law in the interpretation (which is, moreover, contradictory) of Article 28f of the Staff Regulations and in the interpretation of the criteria for judicial review by the General Court; (4) error of law in interpreting Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58 (OJ English Special Edition, 1952-58, p. 59).

               1.

               The first ground is divided into four parts. In the first part, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in of law in the interpretation of the legal nature of the ‘General Provisions’ applicable to general competitions (OJ 2014 C 60 A/1), since, according to the Commission, those provisions laid down specific new obligations in respect of the conduct of the competition procedure, obligations that the contested competition notices did not reflect. By the second part of the first ground, the Commission maintains that the General Court erred in law in interpreting Article 7(1) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations, in so far as it found that EPSO does not have the regulatory power to lay down general and abstract rules in respect of the language regime of the competitions which it organises. According to the Commission, EPSO has such a power. In that regard, the Commission also alleges breach of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as, at the end in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court contradicts itself, by stating that EPSO still has the power to assess the needs, including linguistic needs, of the individual institutions when organising various competitions. By the third part of the first ground, the Commission contends that the General Court was wrong to consider that those provisions were simply measures laying down the criteria for the choice of the second language in competition procedures organised by EPSO, since those provisions established, on the contrary, with binding effect, the criteria justify that choice. Lastly, by the fourth part of the first ground, the Commission submits that the General Court misinterpreted the nature and content of the contested notices in finding that, in respect of the language regime, the notices constituted sources of new specific obligations, thereby also acting in breach of its duty to state reasons when rejecting the plea of inadmissibility submitted by the Commission; in that regard, according to the Commission, the contested notices merely confirmed what is stated in the General Provisions.

               2.

               The second ground is divided into two parts. In the first part of the second ground, the Commission alleges an error of law in interpreting Article 1d of the Staff Regulations, according to which a limitation in the choice of a second language does not necessarily constitute discrimination, and may be justified in the light of a general objective, such as the interest of the service relation to staff policy. In the second part of the second ground, the Commission maintains that the General Court acted in breach of its obligation to state reasons, on the ground that, in searching for a justification for the limitation of the choice of second language, the General Court, in the judgment under appeal, confined itself to examining notices of competition solely, whereas it should have taken into consideration the General Provisions and their content.

               3.

               The third ground is divided into three parts. In the first part of the third ground, the Commission submits that the General Court could not consider, without erring in its interpretation of Article 28f of the Staff Regulations, that the requirements relating to linguistic ability do not form part of a candidate’s competences to which Article 27 of the Staff Regulations refers. In the second part of the third ground, the Commission claims that the General Court incorrectly defined the parameters of its powers of review, which should have been limited to ascertaining whether there had been a manifest error of assessment or arbitrary treatment. By the third part of the third ground, the Commission argues that the General Court overstepped the bounds of its powers of review, by carrying out an assessment of the merits of the decision not to include, in addition to the three languages mentioned in the competition notices (English, German and French), other languages; the General Court thereby exercised the power reserved to the administration.

               4.

               By the fourth ground of appeal, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58 by considering that communications between EPSO and the candidates came within the scope of that provision, thus excluding any possibility of restricting the choice of second language. In fact, the possibility of imposing such a restriction is derived, according to the Commission, from Article 1d(5) and (6) of the Staff Regulations, to which candidates in a competition procedure are also subject.


title: Case T-259/10: Order of the General Court of 15 June 2011 — Ax v Council (Action for annulment — European Union financial assistance to a Member State experiencing serious economic or financial disruption — Regulation establishing the conditions and procedures under which European Union financial assistance may be granted — Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/29

         Order of the General Court of 15 June 2011 — Ax v Council
   (Case T-259/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - European Union financial assistance to a Member State experiencing serious economic or financial disruption - Regulation establishing the conditions and procedures under which European Union financial assistance may be granted - Article 263, fourth paragraph, TFEU - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 232/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Ax (Neckargemünd, Germany) (represented by: J. Baumann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Middleton, M. Bauer and D. Gregorio Merino, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, J.-P Keppenne, H. Krämer, Agents) and Republic of Latvia (represented by: M. Borkoveca and A. Nikolajeva, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 407/2010 of 11 May 2010 establishing a European financial stabilisation mechanism (OJ 2010 L 118, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Thomas Ax is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The Republic of Latvia and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.