title: Case T-19/07: Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/21

         Action brought on 25 January 2007 — Systran and Systran Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-19/07)
   (2007/C 69/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Systran SA and Systran Luxembourg (represented by: J.-P. Spitzer and E. de Boissieu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the immediate cessation of the acts of infringement and of disclosure by the European Community, acting through the Commission;

               —

               order the confiscation of all support material held by the Commission and by the company GOSSELIES on which are reproduced the information technology developments carried out by GOSSELIES from the EC-SYSTRAN Unix and SYSTRAN Unix versions in fraud of SYSTRAN's rights and its delivery up to SYSTRAN, or, at the very least, its destruction under the control of an officer of the Court;

               —

               order the European Community, acting through the Commission, to pay damages to compensate for the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the infringement committed by the Commission and, particularly, by the DGT in the performance of its duties;

               —

               such damages are:

                           —

                           for SYSTRAN Luxembourg, EUR 1 531 000;

                           —

                           for SYSTRAN SA, EUR 47 014 000 subject to addition, and EUR 2 000 000 for non-material damage;

               —

               order the Court's decision to be published, at the Commission's expense, in specialist journals, reviews and internet sites of SYSTRAN's choice;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By user licence agreements relating to the SYSTRAN machine translation software program concluded between the applicants' predecessors in title and the Commission, the latter obtained the right to use the software program for its own needs and for those of the European authorities. The applicants submit that the agreements did not assign any of the intellectual property rights in the SYSTRAN software program to the Commission. From 1999 to 2002, SYSTRAN, through its subsidiary SYSTRAN Luxembourg, brought about, for the Commission, the migration to the new system of exploitation. The contract signed for that purpose with the Commission provided that the Commission's entire translation system would remain its property, ‘without prejudice, however, to any pre-existing intellectual and industrial property rights’.
   In October 2003, the Commission published a call for tenders for the award of a contract relating to the ‘maintenance and linguistic enhancement of the European Commission's machine translation service and associated services’ (1). The applicants did not participate in that procedure. SYSTRAN nevertheless submitted its reservations on the subject-matter of the call for tenders and the ensuing contract since, in its submission, it was liable to infringe its intellectual property rights in the software program.
   In this action, the applicants claim that the award of the contract to a company other than SYSTRAN infringes, in itself, their intellectual property rights and necessitates disclosure of their know-how to the party awarded the contract. They claim that since the carrying-out of the tasks required by the call for tenders consists, among other things, of effecting alterations and adaptations to the system originally conceived by SYSTRAN, it at least requires its prior agreement. They maintain, therefore, that by not having required such agreement, the Commission is guilty of infringement of the intellectual property rights relating to the SYSTRAN system and, consequently, of disclosure of the applicants' know-how in breach of Article 4 of Directive 91/250/EEC (2) as transposed into the national legal systems.
   The applicants then submit that the infringement of the SYSTRAN software program and the disclosure of their know-how are wrongful acts which incur the Community's liability under Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC. They claim also that those wrongful acts caused damage which should be made good by the Commission.

      (1)  Call for tenders No 2003/S 191-171556 (OJ 2003 S 191).

      (2)  Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ L 122, 1991, p. 42).


title: Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Ana María Moles García-Ortúzar against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-216/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/17
Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Ana Maria Moles               As her final plea in support of her application for the
Garria-Ortuzar against the Commission of the European               annulment of the contested decision, the applicant points
                          Communities                               out that there has been a misuse of powers in the present
                       ( Case T-216/95 )                            case, based on the fact that the excessive difficulty of the
                                                                    tests resulted from a wish on the part of the administration
                           96/C 16/37 )
                                                                    not to fill the available posts.
                                                                    The objection of illegality raised against the notice of
               (Language of the case: French)                       competition is based on an alleged infringement of Article
                                                                    1 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 November
1995 by Ana Maria Moles Garcia-Ortuzar, residing in
Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège
Bar .                                                               Action brought on 28 November 1995 by Lucia Passera
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-217/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     ( 96/C 16/38 )
— annul the decision of the competition selection board                               (Language of the case: French)
    not to admit her to the list of successful candidates,
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the notice of internal competition COM/B/9/93               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    based on tests,                                                 Instance of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                    1995 by Lucia Passera, residing at Overijse ( Belgium),
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                           represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    — annul the decision of the competition selection board
                                                                         not to admit her to the list of successful candidates,
The applicant, an official of the Commission in grade CI ,
contests both the decision of the selection board in internal
                                                                    — annul the notice of internal competition COM/B/9/93
competition COM/B/9/93 based on tests to exclude her                     based on tests,
from the list of successful candidates and, by way of
objection of illegality, the notice of competition itself.
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
She pleads, first, a breach of the obligation to provide a          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
statement of reasons, in that the contested decision fails to
mention either the assessment criteria adopted or the way in        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
which those criteria were applied to her. Moreover, the             in Case T-216/95 .
Court should find that the notice of competition has not
been complied with and that the purpose of the tests has not
been observed, inasmuch as, first, the candidates were asked
questions during the oral interview which bore no relation
to those which they were legitimately entitled to expect, and,
second, those questions had no direct bearing on the
functions to be fulfilled or the applicant's ability to perform     Action brought on 4 December 1995 by Christophe
them.                                                                       Gimenez against the Committee of the Regions
                                                                                ( Case T-220/95 )
According to the applicant, the Commission also acted                                           ( 96/C 16/39 )
contrary to the nature of the competition in issue, since the
interviews held by the selection board were based in                                  (Language of the case: French)
particular on the candidates' personal files, whereas the
competition was supposed to have been organized solely on
the basis of tests .                                                An action against the Committee of the Regions was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 4 December 1995 by Christophe Gimenez,
Furthermore, the fact that the applicant, who holds a               residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
university qualification and has been awarded high marks in         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
her staff reports, was not included amongst the successful          at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
candidates demonstrates a manifest error of assessment .            Rheinsheim .


title: Case C-580/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2014  — Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2014 — Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-580/14)
   (2015/C 096/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mrs Sandra Bitter, lawyer, as insolvency administrator of Ziegelwerk Höxter GmbH

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Question referred

   Does the second sentence of Article 16(3) [of Directive 2003/87/EC] (1), according to which the excess emissions penalty shall be EUR 100 for each tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted for which the operator or aircraft operator has not surrendered allowances, infringe the principle of proportionality?

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


title: Case C-235/01: Action brought on 19 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
1.9.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 245/5
(3) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             Action brought on 19 June 2001 by the Commission of
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of                   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing                                     (Case C-235/01)
      inflation, also requires insurance undertakings, if the
      client so requests, to draw up policies the terms of which
      incorporate a bonus-malus arrangement (positive or                                          (2001/C 245/10)
      negative adjustment of the premium on the basis of the
      claims record) subject to an excess in an amount set
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      between the minimum and the maximum level permitted
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 June
      by law?
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(4) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             represented by Bernard Mongin and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                       as Agents.
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      inflation, provides that, on expiry of the period during
      which premium rates were frozen, the insured person              —     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulation and
      may withdraw from the contract if, on the date for annual              administrative provisions necessary for compliance with
      renewal of the policy, an increase is applied to the                   Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending
      premium (not provided for under a customised arrange-                  Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
      ment) higher than the scheduled rate of inflation decided              seafarers (1), or in any event by not forwarding those
      by the Government?                                                     provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(1) OJ L 228 of 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                       —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
Berlin by order of that court of 28 May 2001 in the case               provides that a directive is binding on each Member State to
   of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord                  which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved, involves
                                                                       an obligation on Member States to respect the periods for
                        (Case C-234/O1)                                transposition laid down in directives. That period expired on
                                                                       1 July 1999 without the Italian Republic having issued the
                        (2001/C 245/09)                                provisions necessary for compliance with the directive cited in
                                                                       the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance            (1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.
Court), Berlin, of 28 May 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt (District Tax
Office) Neukölln-Nord on the following question:
Is there an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                       Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic
Article 43 EC) where, under Paragraph 50a(4), first sentence,
                                                                       of Germany against the Commission of the European
point (1) and second sentence, of the Einkommensteuergesetz
                                                                                Communities
(Law on Income Tax) as in force in 1996 (’EStG 1996’), a
Netherlands national who earns in the Federal Republic of
Germany taxable net income of approximately                                                       (Case C-239/01)
DEM 5 000 from self-employed activity in the calendar year is
subject to deduction of tax at source by the person liable to                                     (2001/C 245/11)
pay his fees at the rate of 25 % his (gross) revenue of
approximately DEM 6 000 plus solidarity surcharge, where it
is not possible, by means of an application for a refund or an         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
application for a tax assessment, for him to recover, in whole         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
or in part, the taxes paid?                                            Communities on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and J. Sedemund,
                                                                       acting as Agents.


title: Case T-3/08: Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Coedo Suárez v Council

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/54

         Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Coedo Suárez v Council
   (Case T-3/08)
   (2008/C 64/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Angel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare this application admissible;

               —

               annul the Council's decision of 30 October 2007 in so far it refuses to grant the applicant the access sought to several Council documents relating to, and arising from, an incident between the applicant and one of his colleagues on 19 February 2004 (minutes of internal meetings, investigation findings and a report of the security service);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 30 October 2007, adopted by DG F of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, rejecting his formal request for access to documents relating to an incident between the applicant and one of his colleagues.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on two pleas.
   The first plea alleges infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and infringement of the obligation to state reasons for applying that provision.
   The second plea alleges infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 45/2001 (2) and a manifest error in the application of that regulation.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)


title: Case C-270/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 — Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps — Article 28 — Validity — Legal basis — Powers of intervention conferred on the European Securities and Markets Authority in exceptional circumstances)

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 January 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-270/12) (1)

   (Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 - Short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps - Article 28 - Validity - Legal basis - Powers of intervention conferred on the European Securities and Markets Authority in exceptional circumstances)
   2014/C 85/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: A. Robinson, Agent, J. Stratford QC and A. Henshaw, Barrister)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard, R. Van de Westelaken, D. Gauci and A. Gros-Tchorbadjiyska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Legal, A. De Elera and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and E. Ranaivoson, Agents), Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent and F. Urbani Neri, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, B. Smulders, C. Zadra and R. Vasileva, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Validity of Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 236/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on short selling and certain aspects of credit default swaps (OJ 2012 L 86, p. 1) — Institutional balance — Infringement of the conditions established by the case-law of the Court of Justice for the delegation of powers to agencies — Infringement of Articles 290 and 291 TFEU — Infringement of Article 114 TFEU — Attribution of powers of intervention to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) — Margin of discretion conferred on ESMA as regards the need for it to intervene and the measures to be adopted — Nature of the measures capable of being adopted by ESMA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-568/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 14 November 2011 — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/35

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark), lodged on 14 November 2011 — Agroferm A/S v Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri
      (Case C-568/11)
      (2012/C 25/67)
      Language of the case: Danish

         Referring court

      Vestre Landsret

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Agroferm A/S

         Defendant: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does a product which is manufactured from sugar fermented with the aid of Corynebacterium glutamicum bacteria and which — as specified in more detail in Annex 1 to the order for reference — consists of approximately 65 % lysine sulphate, in addition to impurities from the manufacturing process (unmodified raw materials, reagents used in the manufacturing process, and by-products), come under heading 2309, heading 2922 or heading 3824 in the Combined Nomenclature, in the version resulting from Annex I to [Commission] Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 (1) of 27 October 2005 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?
                  Is it relevant in this connection whether the impurities have been retained deliberately with a view to making the product particularly suitable, or to improve its suitability, for feed production, or whether the impurities have been retained because it is not necessary or expedient to remove them? What guidelines should be used to assess this matter in any given case?
                  Is it relevant to the answer that it is possible to manufacture other products containing lysine, including ‘pure’ (≥ 98 %) lysine and lysine-HCl products that have a higher lysine content than the lysine sulphate product described above, and is it relevant in this connection that the amount of lysine sulphate and other impurities in the lysine sulphate product described above corresponds to that contained in other producers’ lysine sulphate products? What guidelines should be used to assess this matter in any given case?

                  2.

                  If it is assumed that, according to the principle of legality, the production was not covered by the refund scheme, would it be contrary to European Union law for the national authorities, in compliance with national principles of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, to refrain, in a case such as the present, from seeking recovery of refund amounts that the producer accepted in good faith?

                  3.

                  If it is assumed that, according to the principle of legality, the production was not covered by the refund scheme, would it be contrary to European Union law for the national authorities, in compliance with national principles of legal certainty and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, to honour, in a case such as the present, commitments (refund certificates) which were subject to time-limits and which the producer accepted in good faith?

         (1)  OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1.


title: Case C-403/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Metherma GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Headings 8101 and 8102 — Shattering and breaking-up of bars of tungsten or molybdenum obtained simply by sintering — Unwrought tungsten and molybdenum, including bars obtained simply by sintering — Waste and scrap)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Metherma GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-403/07) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Headings 8101 and 8102 - Shattering and breaking-up of bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ - Unwrought tungsten and molybdenum, including bars obtained simply by sintering - Waste and scrap)
   (2009/C 19/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Metherma GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Change of tariff heading for tungsten or molybdenum bars obtained by sintering when the bars are shattered
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Combined Nomenclature which is laid down in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version applicable in 2001, namely that deriving from Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000 amending Annex I to Regulation No 2658/87, must be interpreted as meaning that bars of tungsten or molybdenum ‘obtained simply by sintering’ fall respectively under its subheadings 8101 91 10 and 8102 91 10. Such bars, which consist of the metals in question in their unwrought form and not of articles thereof, cannot be processed, by being broken up or shattered, into scrap falling respectively under subheadings 8101 91 90 and 8102 91 90 of that Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 21.11.2007.


20150731037616952015/C 270/503472015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150618404121Case T-347/15: Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN4010120150618EN0050401412Action brought on 18 June 2015 — Uganda Commercial Impex v Council
   (Case T-347/15)2015/C 270/50Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Uganda Commercial Impex (UCI) Ltd (Kampala, Uganda) (represented by: A. Meskarian, S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, Solicitors, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 (
                  1
               ) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/614 (
                  2
               ) insofar as they apply to UCI (including the entry of UCI in entry b) 9 of the Annex to the Decision and the Regulation);

            —

            insofar as necessary to declare Article 9(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 of 18 July 2005 (as amended) inapplicable to UCI; and

            —

            order the Council to pay UCI’s costs of this application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to undertake any or any adequate independent assessment of UCI’s designation, as it was required to do.

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that in any event, the Council committed a manifest error of assessment and/or UCI’s designation is unlawful because the criteria for designation are not met in UCI’s case.

            3.

            Third plea in law, alleging that UCI’s procedural rights, in particular its rights of defence and rights to effective judicial protection have been violated, and the Council has failed to give adequate reasons.

            4.

            Fourth plea in law, alleging that UCI’s designation is any event in breach of its fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.

      (
         1
      )	Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/620 of 20 April 2015 amending Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 43).
   (
         2
      )	Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/614 of 20 April 2015 implementing Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ L 102, 21.4.2015, p. 10).


title: Case T-716/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/38

         Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Harry’s New York Bar v OHIM — Harrys Pubar (HARRY’S BAR)
   (Case T-716/13)
   2014/C 112/50
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in joined Cases R 946/2012-1 and R 995/2012-1.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HARRY’S BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 378 031

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 995/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 946/2012-1

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.


title: Case T-334/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014  — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Taps)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/26

         Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Roca Sanitario v OHIM — Villeroy & Boch (Taps)
   (Case T-334/14)
   2014/C 261/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Roca Sanitario, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Guerras Mazón, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2014, in Case R 812/2012-3;

               —

               make an order for costs against OHIM and, as the case may be, the intervener if the latter enters an appearance and contests the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Design of a tap — Community design registration number No 1 264 568-0004

      Proprietor of the Community design: Applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Villeroy & Boch AG

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Lack of novelty and of individual character compared with its own design for a tap (No 00 584 560-0004)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of the same regulation.


title: Case C-54/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-54/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 331/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case C-558/13: Order of the President of the Court of 4 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — CD Consulting s. r. o. v Marián Vasko

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — CD Consulting s. r. o. v Marián Vasko
   (Case C-558/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/36
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


20150731053617062015/C 270/352082015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150424282811Case T-208/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2810120150424EN0035281281Action brought on 24 April 2015 — Universiteit Antwerpen v REA
   (Case T-208/15)2015/C 270/35Language of the case: English
      Parties

      Applicant: Universiteit Antwerpen (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: P. Teerlinck and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Research Executive Agency (REA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            decide that the Grant agreement No 238214 ‘C7’ (Cerebellar-Cortical Control: Cells, Circuits, Computation, and Clinic) and the Grant agreement No 238686 ‘CEREBNET’ (Timing and plasticity in the olivo-cerebellar system), concluded in the seventh framework programme (FP7-PEOPLE-ITN-2008) for support for training and career development of researchers and networks for initial training, cannot be interpreted as imposing an obligation on the beneficiaries to provide training to early-stage researchers exclusively on their own premises and, as a consequence, confirm that REA cannot reject as ineligible part of the costs related to the training of early-stage researchers on the basis of this interpretation;

            —

            condemn REA to the payment of the costs related to the training of the early-stage researchers as reported by the applicant in the context of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements, increased with the interests from the date that the payments are due; and

            —

            order REA to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

            1.

            First plea in law, alleging that REA bases its position on an erroneous interpretation of the ‘C7’ and ‘CEREBNET’ Grant agreements. This first plea in law is divided in three limbs: Restricting the possibility of training to the premises of the beneficiary would be contrary to the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme, the People Programme, the 2008 PWP and the European Charter for researchers (First Limb); it can be inferred from the provisions of the Grant agreements and the Guide for applicants that the obligation for the beneficiaries to provide training can also be fulfilled outside their premises (Second Limb); and no provision(s) of the Grant agreements or any other instrument applicable state(s) that the training should be provided exclusively on the premises of the beneficiary (Third Limb).

            2.

            Second plea in law, alleging that REA’s interpretation violates the principle of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of proportionality.


title: Case C-50/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by decision of that court of 4 February 2005 in the case of Maija Terttu Inkeri Nikula

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus by decision of that court of 4 February 2005 in the case of Maija Terttu Inkeri Nikula
   (Case C-50/05)
   (2005/C 93/20)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Korkein Hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) (Finland) of 4 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 8 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning Maija Terttu Inkeri Nikula on the following question:

               Is Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 (1) of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community to be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where a pensioner is entitled under Article 27 of the regulation to claim sickness and maternity benefits only from the institution of the place of residence and at the expense of that institution, the assessment of sickness insurance contributions in such a way that in the pensioner's State of residence both the pensions received from that State and the pensions he receives from another State are taken into account as the basis for determining the amount of those contributions – provided that the sickness insurance contributions do not exceed the amount of pensions awarded by the State of residence – is incompatible with that provision?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition, Series I Chapter 1971 (II), p. 416.


title: Case T-39/01: Action brought on 20 February 2001 by Kabushiki Kaisha Fernandes against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
C 150/30              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     19.5.2001
Action brought on 20 February 2001 by Kabushiki Kaisha                  Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal.
Fernandes against the Office for Harmonization in the                   Appeal:
                        Internal Market
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             Infringement of article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Council Regulation 40/94 (1) or
                         (Case T-39/01)                                                               alternatively, infringement of a
                                                                                rule of law relating to the appli-
                                                                                cation of the Regulation — proof
                        (2001/C 150/59)                                                               of genuine use in the relevant
                                                                                Member States pursuant to
                                                                                article 43(3) of the Regulation.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1)
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2001 by Kabushiki
Kaisha Fernandes, Tokyo, Japan, represented by Richard
Hacon, Nicholas Phillips and Ian Wood of Rowe & Maw,
London. A further party to the proceedings before the Board
of Appeal was Richard John Harrison, Doncaster, United
Kingdom.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 21 February 2001 by Scan Office
                                                                        Design S.A. against Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market dated
      4 December 2000 (Appeal No. R 0116/2000-1)                                                  (Case T-40/01)
—     order the Office to refuse the application to register the
      Community trade mark                                                                       (2001/C 150/60)
—     make an order for the applicant’s costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 21 February 2001 by Scan Office
                                                                        Design S.A. of Brussels, represented by Benoît Mertens and
Applicant for the Com-       Richard John Harrison.
                                                                        Christophe Steyaert, Avocats.
munity trade mark:
The Community trade          Word mark ‘HIWATT’ for certain             The applicant claims that the Court should:
mark concerned:              goods in Class 9.
                                                                        —     order the European Commission to pay the applicant
Proprietor of the right to   The applicant.                                   EUR 118 651 150;
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
proceedings:
Trade mark or sign           German, French and Italian word            Pleas in law and main arguments
asserted by way of oppo-     marks ‘HIWATT’, registered in
sition in the opposition     respect of certain goods in Class
proceedings:                 9.                                         The Commission issued invitation to tender no. 96/31/IX/C1
                                                                        (hierarchical office furniture — OJ S 164 of 27 August 1996)
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition.               pursuant to which the applicant filed a tender which was
sition Division:                                                        rejected by the Commission.


title: Case T-37/17: Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/52

         Action brought on 23 January 2017 — Bank Tejarat v Council
   (Case T-37/17)
   (2017/C 104/73)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Tejarat (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Zaiwalla, P. Reddy, K. Mittal, A. Meskarian, Solicitors, T. Otty, R. Blakeley, V. Zaiwalla, and H. Leith, Barristers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures by way of the following acts, concerning restrictive measures against Iran: Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2012 of 2 August 2012 (OJ 2012 L 208, p. 2), Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/556 of 7 April 2015 (OJ L 92, 8.4.2015, p. 101), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/549 of 7 April 2015 (OJ 2015 L 92, p. 12); the followings sums should be paid to the applicant: 1 494 050 000 USD in respect of material damage, 1 000 000 EUR in respect of non-material damage, and interests on those amounts;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   The applicant alleges that the Council’s imposition of restrictive measures on the applicant was a sufficiently serious breach of obligations intended to confer rights upon individuals and accordingly the non-contractual liability of the European Union is engaged. This breach was the direct cause of significant material and non-material harm to the applicant for which it is entitled to compensation.


title: Case T-248/05: Action brought on 1 July 2005 by MP Temporärpersonal GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/49

         Action brought on 1 July 2005 by MP Temporärpersonal GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-248/05)
   (2005/C 217/104)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by MP Temporärpersonal GmbH, established in Graz (Austria) represented by M. Ciresa, lawyer.
   Manpower Inc, established in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (USA), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 5 April 2005 (Case R 124/2004-4);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

               The word mark I.T.@MANPOWER for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 861 559

               Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

               Manpower Inc.

               Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

               MP Temporärpersonal GmbH

               Grounds for the request for declaration of invalidity:

               Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of Council Regulation No 40/94

               Decision of the Cancellation Division:

               Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional in Contse SA and Others v Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Principle of non-discrimination — Health services of home respiratory treatments — Admission condition — Evaluation criteria)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional in Contse SA and Others v Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Principle of non-discrimination - Health services of home respiratory treatments - Admission condition - Evaluation criteria)
   (2006/C 86/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-234/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain), made by decision of 16 April 2003, received at the Court on 2 June 2003, in the proceedings between Contse SA, Vivisol Srl, Oxigen Salud SA and Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud), interested parties: Air Liquide Medicinal SL, Sociedad Española de Carburos Metálicos SA — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it ruled:
   Article 49 EC precludes a contracting authority from providing, in the tendering specifications for a public contract for health services of home respiratory treatments and other assisted breathing techniques, first, for an admission condition which requires an undertaking submitting a tender to have, at the time the tender is submitted, an office open to the public in the capital of the province where the service is to be supplied and, second, for evaluation criteria which reward, by awarding extra points, the existence at the time the tender is submitted of oxygen production, conditioning and bottling plants situated within 1 000 kilometres of that province or offices open to the public in other specified towns in that province, and which, in the case of a tie between a number of tenders, favours the undertaking which was previously providing the service concerned, in so far as those criteria are applied in a discriminatory manner, are not justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, are not suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue or go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 02.08.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 September 2003 in Case C-74/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/94/EC — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
C 275/18                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 September 2003
                      of 25 September 2003                                   in Case C-77/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen): Erika Steinicke v
                                                                                Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)
in Case C-74/02: Commission of the European Communi-
            ties v Federal Republic of Germany (1)                           (Social policy — Equal treatment for men and women —
                                                                             Scheme of part-time work for older employees — Directive
                                                                             76/207/EEC — Indirect discrimination — Objective justifi-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                                                 cation)
1999/94/EC — Failure to implement within the prescribed
                               period)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (2003/C 275/30)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-77/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                   in the European Court Reports)                            by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen (Germany) for a
                                                                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                             court between Erika Steinicke and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, on
                                                                             the interpretation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directives
                                                                             75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
In Case C-74/02, Commission of the European Communities                      the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
(Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                the principles of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975
W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma): Application for a declaration                  L 45, p. 19), 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the                   implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
measures necessary to comply with Directive 1999/94/EC of                    and women as regards access to employment, vocational
the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December                    training and promotion and working conditions (OJ 1975
1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on                 L 39, p. 40) and 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning
fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing                   the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by
of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16), the Federal                     UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9), the Court
Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations                     (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
under that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rapporteur)
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann                  and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
and A. Rosas, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 Sep-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 September 2003, in                     tember 2003, in which it has ruled:
which it:
                                                                             Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
                                                                             9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal
1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period         treatment for men and women as regards access to employment,
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        vocational training and promotion, and working conditions must be
     comply with Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament             interpreted as precluding a provision, such as point 2 of the first
     and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the                  sentence of Paragraph 72(b)(1) of the Bundesbeamtengesetz (German
     availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO 2           Law on federal public servants), in the version of 31 March 1999 in
     emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the        force until 30 June 2000, by virtue of which part-time work for older
     Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations        employees may be authorised for public servants only if they have
     under that directive;                                                   worked full-time for a total of at least three of the five years preceding
                                                                             such part-time work, when significantly more women than men work
                                                                             part-time and are consequently excluded by that provision from the
2.   Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.                scheme of part-time work for older employees, unless such provision
                                                                             is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on
                                                                             grounds of sex.
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.


title: Case C-528/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 17 October 2016 — Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM: dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 17 October 2016 — Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM: dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt
   (Case C-528/16)
   (2017/C 014/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confédération paysanne, Réseau Semences Paysannes, Les Amis de la Terre France, Collectif vigilance OGM et Pesticides 16, Vigilance OG2M, CSFV 49, OGM: dangers, Vigilance OGM 33, Fédération Nature et Progrès

      Defendants: Premier ministre, Ministre de l’agriculture, de l’agroalimentaire et de la forêt

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do organisms obtained by mutagenesis constitute genetically modified organisms within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive [2001/18/EC] of 12 March 2001, (1) although they are exempt under Article 3 of and Annex IB to the directive from the obligations laid down for release and placing on the market of genetically modified organisms? In particular, may mutagenesis techniques, in particular new directed mutagenesis techniques implementing genetic engineering processes, be regarded as techniques listed in Annex IA, to which Article 2 refers? Consequently, must Articles 2 and 3 of and Annexes IA and IB to Directive 2001/18 of 12 March 2001 be interpreted as meaning that they exempt from precautionary, impact assessment and traceability measures all organisms and seeds obtained by mutagenesis, or only organisms obtained by conventional random mutagenesis methods by ionising radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemical agents existing before those measures were adopted?

               2.

               Do varieties obtained by mutagenesis constitute genetically modified varieties within the meaning of Article 4 of Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, (2) which would not be exempt from the obligations laid down in that directive? Or, on the contrary, is the scope of that directive the same as that which under Articles 2 and 3 of and Annex IB to the Directive of 12 March 2001, and does it also exempt varieties obtained by mutagenesis from the obligations laid down for the inclusion of genetically modified varieties in the common catalogue of agricultural plant species by the Directive of 13 June 2002?

               3.

               Do Articles 2 and 3 of and Annex IB to Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms constitute, insofar as they exclude mutagenesis from the scope of the obligations laid down in the directive, a full harmonisation measure prohibiting Member States from subjecting organisms obtained by mutagenesis to all or some of the obligations laid down in the directive or to any other obligation, or do the Member States, when transposing those provisions, have a discretion to define the regime to be applied to organisms obtained by mutagenesis?

               4.

               May the validity of Articles 2 and 3 of and Annexes IA and IB to Directive 2001/18/EC of 12 March 2001 with regard to the precautionary principle guaranteed by Article 191(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in that those provisions do not subject genetically modified organisms obtained by mutagenesis to precautionary, impact assessment and traceability measures, be called in question, taking account of the development of genetic engineering processes, the appearance of new plant varieties obtained by means of those techniques and the current scientific uncertainty as to their impacts and the potential risks they represent for the environment and human and animal health?

      (1)  Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC — Commission Declaration (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species (OJ 2002 L 193, p. 1).


title: Case T-526/15: Action brought on 07 September 2015 — HK Intertrade/Council

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/36

         Action brought on 07 September 2015 — HK Intertrade/Council
   (Case T-526/15)
   (2015/C 371/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HK Intertrade Co. Ltd (Wanchai, Hong-Kong) (represented by: J. Grayston, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 of 25 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 19) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 of 25 June 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 1), insofar as these acts include the applicant in the category of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures,

               —

               annul the Council Decision contained in the letter of 26 June 2015, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in so far as this decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures,

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons

                           —

                           The decision of 26 June 2015 (the ‘contested review decision’) also served as the letter of notification for the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 (the ‘contested acts’), but no statement of reasons is given in the letter for the adoption of the contested acts. Besides, the statement of reasons provided by the Council does not meet the standard defined by the case-law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           Although owned by NIOC, the applicant constitutes a separate legal entity that is established in Hong Kong and is active in the separate market of Asia that is far removed from any alleged control exercised by NIOC over the activities of the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of defence

                           —

                           By allowing a single unidentified Member State in effect to direct the Council to take a decision without examination of any relevant documents or evidence in support, the Council has unilaterally introduced a new decision making procedure that has no legal basis in Article 215 TFEU or elsewhere in the Treaties. This way of proceeding disrupts the balance between the investigating and decision making powers of the Council and the right of judicial protection of the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of fundamental right to property

                           —

                           The Council has not in any substantial manner provided reasons for the restrictions imposed on the applicant. The listing of the applicant, a Hong Kong based company active in the Asian market, cannot in any way contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, and the Council can provide no evidence to the contrary.


title: Case C-162/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Georgios K. Lagoudakis v Kentro Aniktis Prostasias Ilikiomenon Dimou Rethimnis

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Georgios K. Lagoudakis v Kentro Aniktis Prostasias Ilikiomenon Dimou Rethimnis
   (Case C-162/08)
   (2008/C 171/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georgios K. Lagoudakis

      Defendant: Kentro Aniktis Prostasias Ilikiomenon Dimou Rethimnis
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do clause 5 and clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which forms an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175 p. 43), mean that Community law (by reason of the application of the said Framework Agreement) does not allow a Member State to adopt measures (a) where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement already existed under national law before the directive entered into force and (b) where the measures adopted in order to apply the Framework Agreement reduce the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, is the reduction in the protection afforded to fixed-term workers in the case of a single fixed-term employment contract (rather than several, successive contracts), under which the worker is in fact to provide services to meet ‘fixed and permanent’, rather than temporary, exceptional or urgent, requirements, connected to the application of the said Framework Agreement and the above directive and is such a reduction therefore permitted or not permitted from the point of view of Community law?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where there is an equivalent legal measure under national law, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which existed before Directive 1999/70/EC entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings, an unacceptable reduction in the general level [of protection] afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement:

                           (a)

                           when the scope of the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement extends only to successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships and not to persons who have concluded a single fixed-term contract of employment (rather than several, successive contracts) in order for the worker to meet ‘fixed and permanent’ requirements of the employer, while the earlier equivalent legal measure applied to all fixed-term contracts of employment, even where the worker concluded a single fixed-term employment contract, under which, in fact, the worker was to provide services to meet ‘fixed and permanent’ (rather than temporary, exceptional or urgent) requirements, and

                           (b)

                           when the legal measure in question for application of the Framework Agreement provides, as a legal consequence, for the purpose of protecting fixed-term workers and preventing abuse within the meaning of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, for fixed-term contracts thereafter (ex nunc) to be qualified as contracts of indefinite duration, while the earlier equivalent legal measure made provision for fixed-term contracts of employment to be qualified as contracts of indefinite duration from the time when they were originally concluded (ex tunc)?

               4.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which forms an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, already existed in the national legal order before that directive entered into force, as in the case of Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the choice made by the Greek legislature, in transposing the above directive into Greek law, on the one hand, to exclude the said cases of abuse in which the worker has concluded a single fixed-time contract, under which, in fact, the worker was to provide services to meet ‘fixed and permanent’ (rather than temporary, exceptional or urgent) requirements, from the scope of protection of the above Presidential Decree 164/2004, and on the other hand,not to enact a similar, effective measure/legal consequence specific to the case, affording to workers in such cases of abuse protection over and above the general protection which is provided as standard under general Greek employment law whenever work is provided under an invalid contract, irrespective of whether or not there has been abuse within the meaning of the Framework Agreement, and which includes a claim on the part of the worker to payment of his wages and severance pay, regardless of whether or not he worked under a valid contract, an unacceptable reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement, bearing in mind

                           (a)

                           that the obligation to pay wages and severance pay is provided for under national law for all employment relationships and is not intended specifically to prevent abuse within the meaning of the Framework Agreement, and

                           (b)

                           that the legal consequence of the application of the earlier equivalent legal measure is that a (single) fixed-term contract of employment is recognised as a contract of indefinite duration?

               5.

               If all the above questions are answered in the affirmative, should the national court, in interpreting national law in accordance with Directive 1999/70/EC, disapply the provisions of the legal measure which are not compatible with it, but which were adopted by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement and result in a reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law, such as those in Presidential Decree 164/2004, which tacitly and indirectly (but clearly) deny the relevant protection in cases of abuse when the worker has concluded a single fixed-term contract of employment under which, in fact, he is to provide services to meet ‘fixed and permanent’ (rather than temporary, exceptional or urgent) requirements — and apply instead an equivalent legal measure which existed before the directive entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920?

               6.

               If the national court finds that a provision (in this case Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920) that constitutes an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which is an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, is applicable in principle to a dispute over fixed-term work and, on the basis of that provision, the finding that even a single contract of employment was concluded as a fixed-term contract for no objective reason relating to the nature, type or features of the work offered means that the contract must be recognised as a contract of employment of indefinite duration, then

                           (a)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that the fact that a legal provision governing employment under a fixed-term contract of employment in order to meet seasonal, periodic, temporary, exceptional or additional social needs (in this case Law 3250/2004, FEK A 124A/07.07.2004) was used as the legal basis for concluding a fixed-term contract constitutes an objective reason in all cases for concluding such contracts, even though the requirements covered were in fact fixed and permanent, and

                           (b)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that a provision prohibiting the conversion of fixed-term contracts of employment in the public sector to contracts of indefinite duration must be construed as an absolute prohibition in any circumstance to convert a fixed-term employment contract or relationship in the public sector to a employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration, even if it was wrongfully concluded as a fixed-term contract, that is to say, when the requirements met were in fact fixed and permanent, and that the national court has no discretion in such cases to make a finding as to the true character of the legal employment relationship at issue and correctly qualify it as a contract of indefinite duration? Alternatively should the prohibition in question be restricted solely to fixed-term contracts of employment which were in fact concluded in order to meet temporary, unforeseeable, urgent, exceptional or similar types of special requirements and not to cases in which they were in fact concluded in order to meet fixed and permanent requirements?


title: Case T-302/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Hartmann v OHIM (E) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark E — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Error of law — Lack of real assessment — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/48

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2008 — Hartmann v OHIM (E)
   (Case T-302/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark ‘E’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Error of law - Lack of real assessment - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 209/83)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent)
   Re:
   Action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4) concerning an application for registration of the word mark ‘E’ as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 5 September 2006 (Case R 805/2006-4).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay its own costs as well as those of Paul Hartmann AG.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006


title: Case T-70/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/37

         Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Trajektna luka Split v Commission
   (Case T-70/15)
   (2015/C 118/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trajektna luka Split d.d. (Split, Croatia) (represented by: M. Bauer, H. Freund and S. Hankiewicz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision C(2014) 9236 final of 28 November 2014 on case AT.40199 Port of Split;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and those of the applicant;

               —

               refer the case back to the European Commisison for further investigation and renewed decision; and

               —

               take such other or further actions as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in assessment and error of law by infringing the Commission’s obligations in handling a complaint by incorrectly assessing the European Union interest with regard to all three reasons brought forward by the Commission;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and error of law by infringing the Commission’s obligations in handling a complaint, in particular failing to take into consideration all relevant matters of law and fact.


title: Case C-586/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by Lotte Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2015 in Case T-483/12 Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/2

         Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by Lotte Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2015 in Case T-483/12 Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

   (Case C-586/15 P)
   (2016/C 059/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Lotte Co. Ltd (represented by: M. Knitter, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 15 September 2015 (T-483/12) and dismiss the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 September 2012 in Case R 2103/2010-4;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal of the General Court and refer the case back to that court;

               —

               order Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant claims that Article 15(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark has been infringed. In particular, three errors of law are relied on:

               1.

               The appellant claims that incorrect assessment criteria were used in determining whether there was a permissible difference in actual use of the trade mark cited in opposition under Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009. In that regard, the appellant states that the General Court erred in law in determining the distinctive elements of the trade mark cited in opposition on the basis of the criteria for finding a likelihood of confusion. The character or domination of certain elements within the trade mark, which plays a conclusive role in determining whether there is a likelihood of confusion, cannot be given equal weight in assessing the permissibility of a different use of the trade mark. In that connection, the issue is not whether there is a likelihood of confusion. It is rather whether the form of the use of the registered trade mark differs only in such minor detail that both signs could be regarded, on the whole, as equivalent.

               2.

               In addition, the General Court failed to take account of all relevant circumstances for determining the distinctive elements of the trade mark cited in opposition. The General Court erred in law in adopting the criteria applied by the Board of Appeal without itself addressing the individual and numerous elements of the complex trade mark cited in opposition.

               3.

               In the view of the appellant, there are contradictions and failings in logic in the grounds of the General Court for determining the form of the use of the trade mark. The General Court stated that the sign used may differ only in ‘minor elements’ from the form in which it is registered and that the sign used and the trade mark as registered must be regarded, ‘on the whole, as equivalent’ for a finding of use such as to preserve the rights of the trade mark proprietor. In applying those assessment criteria, the General Court contradicted itself and erred in logic. In addition, the General Court used a rigid assessment for whether the three elements that it considered distinctive were present in the form of the trade mark used. With reference to those criteria, the General Court proceeded on the premiss of use such as to preserve the rights of the trade mark proprietor and failed to take into account that numerous new elements had been added to the form of its use, as a result of which the sign used and the trade mark as registered could no longer be regarded, ‘on the whole, as equivalent’.


title: Case T-247/08: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2010 — C-Content v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Public service contracts — Community tendering procedures — Electronic publication services — Irregularities and infringements of Community law allegedly committed by the Publications Office — Limitation periods — Causal link)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2010 — C-Content v Commission
   (Case T-247/08) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - Public service contracts - Community tendering procedures - Electronic publication services - Irregularities and infringements of Community law allegedly committed by the Publications Office - Limitation periods - Causal link)
   2010/C 317/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: C-Content BV (’s-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, acting as Agents, assisted by O. Soudry, adviser, and A. Nucara, lawyer, and subsequently by E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, assisted by O. Soudry and E. Petritsi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a consequence of irregularities and infringements of Community law committed by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities in connection with a number of Community tender procedures for electronic publication services.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as in part inadmissible and in part unfounded;

               2.

               Orders C-Content BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-472/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León (Spain) lodged on 24 August 2016 — Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza v Ayuntamiento de Valladolid and In-pulso Musical, Sociedad Cooperativa

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/7

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León (Spain) lodged on 24 August 2016 — Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza v Ayuntamiento de Valladolid and In-pulso Musical, Sociedad Cooperativa
      (Case C-472/16)
      (2016/C 441/10)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla y León

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Jorge Luis Colino Sigüenza

         Respondents: Ayuntamiento de Valladolid, In-pulso Musical, Sociedad Cooperativa

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Should it be considered that there is a transfer for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC (1) where the holder of a concession of a Council Music School, which receives all the material resources from that Council (premises, instruments, classrooms, furniture), has engaged its own staff and provides its services during the academic year, ceases that activity on 1 April 2013, two months before the end of the academic year, returning all the material resources to the Council, which does not resume the activity for the remainder of the academic year 2012-2013, but awards a new concession to a new contractor, which resumes the activity in September 2013, at the beginning of the new academic year 2013-14, transferring to the new contractor for that purpose the necessary material resources previously made available to the former contractor by the Council (premises, instruments, classrooms, furniture)?

                  2.

                  If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it to be understood for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC that, in the circumstances described, — in which the failure of the main undertaking (the Council) to fulfil its obligations obliges the first contractor to cease its activity and to dismiss all its staff and immediately afterwards that main undertaking transfers the material resources to a second contractor, which continues with the same activity –, the dismissal of the first contractor’s workers has occurred for ‘economic, technical or organisational reasons entailing changes in the workforce’ or has it been caused by ‘the transfer of the undertaking, business or part of the undertaking or business’, a cause prohibited by that article?

                  3.

                  If the reply to the previous question is that the dismissal has been caused by the transfer and is therefore contrary to Directive 2001/23/EC, is Article 47 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation prohibiting a court from ruling on the substance of the claims of a worker who contests in an individual action the decision to dismiss him, as part of a collective dismissal, in order to defend the rights deriving from Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses and Council Directive 98/59/EC (2) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies, owing to the fact that final judgment has already been given on the collective dismissal in proceedings to which the worker was unable to be a party, although the unions established in the undertaking and all the collective legal representatives of the workers were or were able to be parties?

         (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).

         (2)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16).