title: Case T-89/17: Action brought on 7 February 2017 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/43

         Action brought on 7 February 2017 — Erwin Müller v EUIPO — Novus Tablet Technology Finland (NOVUS)
   (Case T-89/17)
   (2017/C 112/60)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Erwin Müller GmbH (Lingen, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Novus Tablet Technology Finland Oy (Turku, Finland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘NOVUS’ — Application for registration No 13 206 611

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 November 2016 in Case R 2413/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul in part the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office of 2 October 2015, Application No B 2 456 336, namely in so far as they relate to goods in Class 9 — ‘bags adapted for laptops; holders adapted for mobile phones; computer peripheral devices’;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

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


title: Case C-48/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 70/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                      22.3.2003
The Applicant submits that the documents communicated to                Action brought on 10 February 2003 by the Commission
the Commission constituted an application for final payment             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
in accordance with Article 52(5) and that in concluding to the                                        Republic
contrary the Commission erred in law and/or made a manifest
error of assessment.
                                                                                (Case C-48/03)
It is also submitted that the Commission’s interpretation of the                                   (2003/C 70/28)
Regulation infringes the principles of legal certainty and of
proportionality.
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The Applicant submits that if the Commission’s interpretation           10 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
of Article 52(5) of the Regulation and/or the Annex to its              Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, acting
Decision C(92) 1358/8 is correct, the absolute nature of those          as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
provisions is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Furthermore, those provisions contravene the principle of
legal certainty in that they are not sufficiently clearly and           The applicant claims that the Court should:
precisely drafted and that, in these circumstances, it is submit-
ted that, by virtue of Article 241 EC, the provisions of the            —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Regulation and the Decision are inapplicable against the United               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Kingdom.                                                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Directive 2000/16/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                              the Council of 10 April 2000 amending Council Directive
The Applicant maintains that the decision of the Commission                   79/373/EEC on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs
contained in its letter of 22 November 2002 does not disclose                 and Council Directive 96/25/EC on the circulation of feed
the principle issues of law and of fact upon which it is based                materials, and, in any event, by failing to inform the
and should therefore be annulled on grounds of lack of                        Commission thereof, the Portuguese Republic has failed
reasoning.                                                                    to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned direc-
                                                                              tive;
                                                                        —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
2)    T h e D eci si o n to s eek r ecov ery                  of
      9 2 7 2 76 7 E uro s of E RD F As si st an ce
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The Applicant submits that the decision letter of 22 November
2002 by which the Commission notified the United Kingdom                The period for transposition expired on 2 May 2001.
that it was obliged to issue a recovery order for the sum of
9 272 767 Euros should be annulled on the following grounds:
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 2000 L 105, p. 36.
—      that the Commission erred in law and/or erred in
       interpretation and/or made a manifest error of assess-
       ment;
—      that the decision contravened the principles of good
       administration, Community solidarity, regional partner-          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel
       ship and the principle of cooperation between Com-               de Rennes, Septième Chambre by judgment of that Court
       munity institutions and Member States (Article 10 EC);           of 5 February 2003 in the case of Alain Rousseau against
                                                                        Association Comité Économique Régional Fruits et
                                                                                Légumes de Bretagne (CERAFEL)
—      lack of adequate reasoning.
                                                                                (Case C-49/03)
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying
                                                                                (2003/C 70/29)
     down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ L 161,
     26.06.1999, p. 1).
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel de


title: Case C-240/08: Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/17

         Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-240/08)
   (2008/C 183/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on minimum conditions for the implementation of Council Regulations (EEC) No 3820/85 and (EEC) No 3821/85 concerning social legislation relating to road transport activities and repealing Council Directive 88/599/EEC (1) or, in any event, by not informing the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposing Directive 2006/22/EC expired on 1 April 2007. At the time the action was brought, the defendant had still not taken the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 102, p. 35.


title: Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-269/97)

text:
20 . 12 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 387/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Action brought on 12 May 1997 by the Region of
                                                                        Tuscany against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
By the contested decision, the defendant, amending
Decision C(95 ) 444/3 of 5 April 1995 concerning the                                              ( Case T-265 /97 )
grant of a contribution from the EAGGF, changed the                                                  ( 97/C 387/40 )
Leader II Operational Programme as regards Point 1.3 and
Point 6.1 , and in so doing failed to include among the
areas for action the territory of the Comunita Montana                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Penisola Sorrentina, since 'on the basis of the provisions of
the programme, it does not appear necessary to promote                  An action against the Commission of the European
and implement further Programmi di Azione Locale ( Local                Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Action Programmes — " PALs "), in view of the fact that in              the European Communities on 12 May 1997 by the
the latter area socioeconomic development is more                       Region of Tuscany, represented by Vito Vacchi and Lucia
advanced and more integrated than in the other areas                    Bora , of the Florence Bar, with an address for service in
concerned '. According to the applicant, those statements               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue
are not only incorrect but also lack any basis whatsoever.              de Vianden, and subsequently referred, on the ground of
                                                                        manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, to the
                                                                        Court of First Instance by order of the Court of Justice of
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement            1 October 1997 .
of Article 190 of the Treaty of Rome, breach of essential
procedural requirements, breach of the obligation of
sound administration and of the principle of the                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
protection of legitimate expectations, as well as a total
lack of any statement of reasons and manifest lack of any
proper basis.                                                           — annul Memorandum VI/040551 of the European
                                                                            Commission — Directorate General for Agriculture —
                                                                            of 21 November 1994,
It is alleged, first, that the contested decision is based on
the misconception that a PAL had already been approved                  — annul the act — never notified to the applicant region
for the area in question, in disregard of the fact that the                 — by which the European Commission withdrew the
PAL submitted by the applicant had not been granted                         Community assistance earmarked under the Integrated
financing. Furthermore, the area in question is not among                   Mediterranean Programme ( IMP ) for Project
the most developed in Campania .                                            No 88.20.IT.006.0 ( works for the supply of potable
                                                                            water in Tuscany ),
The applicant also alleges that the choice made by the
defendant is contradictory. It is considered in that regard             — annul the European Commission's memorandum of
that in the Regional Programme for implementation of the                     31 January 1997, received by the applicant on
Leader II, described above, the Campania Region, in                          7 February 1997, by which the Commission informed
applying Directive 75/268/EEC ('), initially included                        it that the assistance had been withdrawn .
Penisola Sorrentina among the so-called 'less-favoured '
areas for action on the basis of certain socio-economic
indicators and then, in the light of the same indicators,               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
decided that it was unnecessary to promote and
implement further PALs in that area .                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are those adduced
                                                                        in Case T-81 /97 Region of Tuscany v. Commission (').
The defendant confined itself to excluding the Sorrentina
Area on the ground that it was developed, without                       (') OJ C 166 , 31 . 5 . 1997, p . 21 .
however giving the slightest indication of the reasons
justifying that decision and without undertaking an
appropriate inquiry.
In the applicant's view, such an inquiry would have made
it clear that the area in question is classified, within the            Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Azienda Agricola
meaning of the abovementioned Directive 75/268/EEC, as                  Tre e Mezzo against Commission of the European
 'a mountain area and less favoured area ' and that, for that                                          Communities
precise reason, it was included in the Leader II                                                   ( Case T-269/97 )
Programme, among priority areas for action .
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/41 )
 (') Council Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on mountain
     and hill farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas ( OJ                     (Language of the case: Italian)
     L 128 , 19 . 5 . 1975 , p. 1 ).
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
 ---pagebreak--- C 387/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20 . 12 . 97
the European Communities on 13 October 1997 by                       bringing about conversion of European agriculture to
Azienda Agricola Tre e Mezzo, represented by Carlo                   farming of a kind which uses everdecreasing quantities of
Piccoli and Fabrizio Fabbri, of the Forli Bar ( Cesena ), and        plant-protection products and to that end a large
Francois Turk, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                proportion of the aid in the industry is directed towards
for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 13A              organic farming — but by adopting the contested
Avenue Guillaume .                                                   regulation, the defendant made a sudden change of
                                                                     direction, pursuing aims different from those declared
                                                                     earlier, so that more difficulties and problems are
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         encountered in implementing organic methods owing to
                                                                     the reduction of the technical resources available to
                                                                     farmers who are adopting or wish to adopt such methods .
— declare that the applicant has locus standi as such,
                                                                     (') Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1488/97 of 29 July 1997
                                                                           amending Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2092/91 on organic
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1488/97 of                         production of agricultural products and indications referring
                                                                           thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs ( OJ L 202 ,
     29 July 1997 published in Official Journal of the                     30 . 7 . 1997, p. 12 ).
     European Communities L 202 of 30 July 1997, p. 12 ,             ( 2 ) OJ L 198 , 22 . 7 . 1991 , p . 1 .
     in so far as it does not include, in the new wording of         (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on
     Annex lib of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2092/91 ,                  agricultural production methods compatible with the
     the following plant-health products : preparations from               requirements of the protection of the environment and the
     Ryania speciosa, propolis, diatomaceous earth, stone                  maintenance of the countryside ( OJ L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 85 ).
     meal , Bordeaux mixture, Burgundy mixture , sodium
     silicate, sodium bicarbonate , and plant and animal
     oils,
— order the European Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                     Action brought on 16 October 1997 by Pierre Richard
                                                                                against the European Parliament
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                ( Case T-273/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 387/42 )
The applicant, a company producing organic products and
duly accredited as such by one of the eight certificatory                                 {Language of the case: French)
authorities recognized by the Italian State, opposes the
removal by the contested regulation (') of certain plant
health products from the list of those allowed in organic            An action against the European Parliament was brought
agriculture .                                                        before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 16 October 1997 by Pierre Richard, of
                                                                     Luxembourg, represented by Andre Lutgen, of the
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges, first,              Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
infringement of the last indent of Article 155 of the EC             Luxembourg at his Chambers, 1 , Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur.
Treaty, which provides that the powers conferred on the
Commission by the Council are to be exercised for the
implementation of the rules laid down by the Council .               The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant considers that Council Regulation No 2092/
91 ( 2 ) was designed to favour and promote the
development and expansion of organic production                      — annul the decision of the appointing authority
methods, by regulating that activity and providing                          rejecting the applicant's application for the post
incentives in the form of contributions and financing. In                   advertised by Notice of Vacancy No 8011 ,
actual fact, the wording of Annex lib, and all the products
included in it, resulted from a precise choice which
mentioned specified products rather than others,                     — annul the decision to appoint the successful Swedish
regardless of whether or not their use had been authorized                  candidate,
by individual Member States . The Commission's decision
to exclude from the list of permitted products the new
plant-protection products mentioned above , solely by                — annul the decision taken by the Bureau, at its meeting
reference to the criterion of lack of ' authorization or use '              of 17 July 1997, to reject the applicant's complaint
is therefore open to criticism .                                            against that decision,
The applicant also alleges misuse of powers, in that the             — take formal notice that he reserves the right to claim
Council, by Regulation No 2078/92 ('), introduced                           compensation, as and when appropriate, for the
agricultural and environmental measures capable of                          material and non-material damage suffered.


title: Judgment of the Court of 25 June 2002 in Case C-66/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Parma): Dante Bigi (Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin of agricultural products and foodstuffs — Article 13 — System of derogations — Scope)

text:
C 191/4                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           10.8.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           of 25 June 2002
                                                                                of 18 June 2002
in Case C-66/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
             the Tribunale di Parma): Dante Bigi (1)                         in Case C-92/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien): Hospital
                                                                             Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-GmbH (HI) v
                                                                                Stadt Wien (1)
(Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Protection of geographical
indications and designations of origin of agricultural prod-
ucts and foodstuffs — Article 13 — System of derogations                     (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Pro-
                               — Scope)                                      cedure for the award of public service contracts — Directive
                                                                             89/665/EEC — Scope — Decision to withdraw an invitation
                                                                                to tender — Judicial review — Scope)
                           (2002/C 191/05)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/06)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-92/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) for a
In Case C-66/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
by the Tribunale di Parma (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the            between Hospital Ingenieure Krankenhaustechnik Planungs-
criminal proceedings before that court against Dante Bigi,                   GmbH (HI) and Stadt Wien, on the interpretation of
third party: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano,                    Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
on the interpretation of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC)              ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical                 administrative provisions relating to the application of review
indications and designations of origin for agricultural products             procedures to the award of public supply and public works
and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1), as amended by Council                  contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council
Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of 17 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 83,                    Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-
p. 3), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                     nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts
President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr                   (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) and of Directive 92/50 in the version
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                        thereof resulting from European Parliament and Council
J.-P. Puissochet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;               Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the               92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordi-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 2002, in which it                 nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts,
has ruled:                                                                   public supply contracts and public works contracts respectively
                                                                             (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                             of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
On a proper construction of Article 13(2) of Council Regulation              J.-P. Puissochet, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha
(EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of                        Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural         Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 June 2002, in which it
products and foodstuffs, as amended by Council Regulation (EC)               has ruled:
No 535/97 of 17 March 1997, products are not covered by the
system of derogations set up by Article 13(2) where they originate in        1.    Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December
the State of the protected designation of origin the protection of which           1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
under Article 13(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2081/92, as                        administrative provisions relating to the application of review
amended, is at issue and they do not meet the product specification                procedures to the award of public supply and public works
for that protected designation of origin.                                          contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
                                                                                18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for
                                                                                the award of public service contracts, requires the decision of the
                                                                                contracting authority to withdraw the invitation to tender for a
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                         public service contract to be open to a review procedure, and to
                                                                                be capable of being annulled where appropriate, on the ground
                                                                                that it has infringed Community law on public contracts or
                                                                                national rules implementing that law.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-63/05 (1)

   (2006/C 60/68)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 14 December 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-63/05: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 02. 04. 2005.


title: Case F-70/08: Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Ziliene v Parliament

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/26

         Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Ziliene v Parliament
   (Case F-70/08)
   (2008/C 247/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Veronika Ziliene (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of the decision of the appointing authority of 17 July 2007 not to grant the applicant the daily allowance referred to in Article 10 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations and, second, order the defendant to pay the daily allowances from the date the applicant took up his duties as an official, plus interest along with EUR 1 damages for the non-material loss suffered.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 17 July 2007 not to grant the applicant the daily allowance referred to in Article 10 of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the daily allowances from the date the applicant took up his duties as an official, plus interest at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations applicable during the periods concerned plus two percentage points, until payment in full;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 1 damages for the non-material loss suffered;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-20/00: Action brought on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Camacho-Fernandes against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 122/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.4.2000
— order the Council and the ECB to pay the costs.                         — annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Febru-
                                                                              ary 1999 refusing to recognise the occupational cause of
                                                                              his wife’s illness;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the fees and expenses incurred
                                                                              by the applicant in accordance with Article 23(2) of the
I. Against the Council’s decision                                             Rules on the insurance of officials of the European
                                                                              Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
                                                                              pational disease;
    1. Infringement of the fundamental principle of protec-
         tion of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the costs.
         principle of sound administration, deceit and total bad
         faith on the part of the Council
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of Com-
         munity law concerning the citizen’s right of access to
         documents and of Article 1 of Council Decision                   According to the applicant, his wife suffered a high degree of
         93/731                                                           exposure to contaminating agents during her working life, in
                                                                          particular exposure to asbestos while she was working in the
    3. Infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty: absence              ‘Berlaymont’ Building from 1974 to 1979. In his view, it
         of legal reasoning.                                              follows that the lung cancer of which his wife died had an
                                                                          occupational cause.
II. Against the ECB’s decision                                            In support of his claims, he alleges:
    1. Infringement of essential procedural requirements (lack            — that the opinion of the medical committee was unlawful.
         of reasoning) and misuse of powers
                                                                              The meeting of the medical committee took place under
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of trans-                    improper circumstances. The committee’s opinion did not
         parency and the right of access to documents.                        express a view as to certain important matters, was
                                                                              based on inaccuracies and showed no comprehensible
                                                                              connection between the medical findings and the con-
                                                                              clusions it contains;
                                                                          — unequal treatment and a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                              The Commission recognised the occupational cause of
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Camacho-Fer-                         the disease of another official who developed pathology
nandes against Commission of the European Communi-                            absolutely similar to that of the applicant’s wife, following
                                ties                                          exposure to asbestos.
                          (Case T-20/00)
                         (2000/C 122/54)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sabbioni
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          (Case T-22/00)
European Communities on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Cama-
cho-Fernandes, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by                                      (2000/C 122/55)
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Becker & Cahen, 3
Rue des Foyers.                                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 October 1999                       European Communities on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sab-
    rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged pursuant to                bioni, represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Marina S. Mori,
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the appointing         of the Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar,
    authority’s decision refusing to acknowledge the occu-                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    pational cause of the lung cancer from which his wife died;           Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.


title: Case C-59/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 February 2012 — BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 6 February 2012 — BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.
   (Case C-59/12)
   2012/C 138/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: BKK Mobil Oil, a body governed by public law

      Respondent on a point of law: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V.

      Question referred

   Is Article 3(1), in conjunction with Article 2(d), of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) on unfair commercial practices to be interpreted as meaning that the action of a statutory sickness fund in making (misleading) statements to its members concerning the disadvantages that those members would suffer were they to move to another statutory sickness fund can also constitute an act by a trader in the form of a business-to-consumer commercial practice?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case T-506/15: Action brought on 29 August 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/28

         Action brought on 29 August 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-506/15)
   (2015/C 371/31)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Κanellopoulos, Ε. Leftheriotou, O. Τsircinidou and Α.-Ε. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Commission Implementing Decision of 22 June 2015‘excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 4076) (1)’, to the extent that there is excluded from European Union financing expenditure which was incurred in the area of decoupled direct aid in the 2009, 2010 and 2011 claim years and in the area of cross-compliance in the 2011 claim year, and by reason of the Commission’s failure to repay to the Hellenic Republic the sum of EUR 1 0 4 60  620,42, on the basis of the judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 in Case Τ-632/11 Greece v Commission, in accordance with the facts as set out in the application and the pleadings set out in the pleas of law in support of annulment; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.
   In particular, with respect to the financial correction which is imposed within the framework of the decoupled direct aid scheme, the Hellenic Republic relies on four pleas in support of annulment.

               1.

               The first plea in support of annulment is raised with respect to the 25 % flat-rate correction imposed for weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pastures for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 claim years, based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 (2) (and the successor Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009 (3)).

               2.

               The second plea in support of annulment is also raised with respect to the 25 % flat-rate correction imposed for weaknesses in the definition and checking of permanent pastures for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 claim years, based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines, with respect to whether the preconditions for the imposition of a 25 % financial correction were met — failure to state reasons — the fact that the Commission exceed the limits of its discretion and a breach of the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               The third plea in support of annulment is raised in connection with the imposition of a flat-rate 5 % correction for weaknesses in the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) in the first year of its application (2009), based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of the guidelines — the fact that the Commission exceed the limits of its discretion and a breach of the principle of proportionality.

               4.

               The fourth plea in support of annulment is raised with respect to the imposition of flat-rate corrections for weaknesses in on-the-spot inspections and, specifically, with respect to the 2 % correction as regards the ineffectiveness of risk analysis for the 2010 claim year, based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1122/2009 (4) and of Article 27 of Regulation No 796/2004 — breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
               Further, with regard to the remaining contested heads of the Commission’s Implementing Decision the following two pleas in law in support of annulment are relied on:

               5.

               The fifth plea in support of annulment relates to the financial correction at a flat-rate 2 % which is imposed in the context of the cross-compliance scheme for the 2011 claim year, based on the misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 11 of Regulation No 885/2006 (5) and of Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 (6) — insufficient statement of reasons — errors as to the facts, with respect to the 2 % flat-rate correction for the 2011 claim year.

               6.

               The sixth plea in support of annulment concerns the amount which is to be reimbursed to the Hellenic Republic in implementation of the judgment of the General Court of 6 Νοvember 2014 in Case Τ-632/11, based on infringement of Articles 266 and 280 TFEU in relation to the Commission’s duty to take measures to ensure that the judgment of the General Court is complied with, and no reasons are stated for the failure to reimburse the sum of EUR 1 0 4 60  620,42 to the Hellenic Republic, following the judgment of the General Court in Case Τ-632/11.

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 1122/2009 of 30 Νovember 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 as regards cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system, under the direct support schemes for farmers provided for that Regulation, as well as for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards cross-compliance under the support scheme provided for the wine sector (OJ 2009 L 316, p. 65).

      (5)  Commision Regulation (ΕC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

      (6)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case F-108/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Civil service — Officials — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Summary of the pleas in law in the application — No prior administrative complaint — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/61

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-108/07) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Summary of the pleas in law in the application - No prior administrative complaint - Manifestly inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/116)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M Stenier and G. Corstens, agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the Court of Auditors to renew the mandate for its Secretary General for a period of six years starting on 1 July 2007 and, alternatively, of the decision of the Appointing Authority not to promote the applicant to the grade LA5 for the 2004 promotion exercise following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Nijs v Court of Auditors

   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22 of 26.1.2008, p. 56.


title: Case C-94/09: Action brought on 6 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/25

         Action brought on 6 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-94/09)
   2009/C 113/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Alfonso, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not applying a single rate of VAT to all services provided by funeral directors, or to related supplies of goods, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 to 99(1) of the VAT Directive (1);

               —

               Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Commission claims that French tax legislation distorts the functioning of the VAT system to the extent that it applies two VAT rates to services and goods supplied by funeral directors to the families of deceased persons whereas they constitute, in practice, a single complex transaction which should be subject to a single rate of tax.
   The applicant complains in particular about the unjustified splitting off by the defendant of the service involving the transportation of the body by a vehicle designed especially for that purpose, for which a reduced VAT rate is applicable, from the other services carried out by funeral directors, such as the use of persons to move the body or the supply of a coffin, which, for their part, are subject to the normal rate of VAT. According to settled case-law, a transaction which comprises a single supply from an economic point of view should not be artificially split, so as not to distort the functioning of the VAT system. In the circumstances, the vast majority of families requesting the undertaking to organise funerals would moreover consider the activities in question as forming the same single supply.
   The Commission also contests the defendant’s choice to apply variable reduced rates to the services provided by funeral directors. Article 98(1) of the VAT Directive does not allow a reduced rate to be applied to certain transportation services and a normal rate to other services carried out by the undertakings in question, since that is bound to make the actual rate of tax lower than the normal rate applicable in France. In addition, the level of that reduced tax varies from transaction to transaction according to the relative extent, in each case, of the services provided at a reduced rate, which is also prohibited by the directive.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-85/06: Order of the President of the Court of 9 October 2006 — Commission of European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/53

         Order of the President of the Court of 9 October 2006 — Commission of European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-85/06) (1)

   (2006/C 326/111)

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.03.2006.


title: Case C-368/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 1 September 1999 in the case of La Chemise Lacoste S.A. v Coalle FA-93

text:
C 366/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.12.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
                                                                        Conseil d’État (Council of State), by order of that court of
                                                                        28 July 1999 in the case of Joseph Griesmar v Minister
                                                                        for Economic Affairs, Finance and Industry and Minister
Portugal is appealing the decision to extend the restriction on
                                                                         for the Civil Service, State Reform and Decentralisation
exports, laid down in Article 4 of Decision 98/653/EC, to
1 February 2000, adopted by the Commission by Decision
99/517/EC, on the following grounds:                                                              (Case C-366/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/25)
— Lack of statement of reasons or facts: the Commission was
     required to show that the extension of the period was
     justified and that the facts justify a derogation from             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Article 28 of the EC Treaty. In view of the findings of the        European Communities by an order of the French Conseil
     mission of 14 to 18 June 1999, the Commission failed to            d’État, of 28 July 1999, which was received at the Court
     do so.                                                             Registry on 4 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        case of Joseph Griesmar v Minister for Economic Affairs,
                                                                        Finance and Industry and Minister for the Civil Service, State
— The decision is contrary to the Animal Health Code of the             Reform and Decentralisation on the following questions. The
     International Office of Epizootic Diseases: the Commission         French Council of State asks the Court of Justice to rule on the
     disregarded the Code in decisions 98/653/EC and                    following questions:
     99/517/EC. Contrary to Article 3.2.13.8 Portuguese
     exports of meat and meat products are totally prohibited           1. Are the pensions provided by the French retirement
     until 1 February 2000 despite the fact that Portugal, which             pension scheme for civil servants pay within the meaning
     falls within the category of countries with a low incidence             of Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome (now Article 141 of
     of BSE, observed the conditions laid down in                            the Treaty establishing the European Community)?
     Article 3.2.13.8.
                                                                             If so, in the light of the requirements of paragraph 3 of
                                                                             Article 6 of the agreement annexed to Protocol No 14 on
— Breach of essential procedural requirements and of the                     social policy, is the principle of equal pay breached by the
     principle of sound administrative practice: the Standing                provisions of Article L. 12(b) of the civil and military
     Veterinary Committee did not have access to all the                     retirement pensions code?
     relevant and recent information (in particular the ‘draft’
     findings of the mission of the Food and Veterinary Office          2. If Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome is not applicable, do
     (FVO-DG XXIV) of 14 to 18 June 1999 and Portugal’s                      the provisions of Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
     comments) which were made available to the Commission                   1978 (1) prevent France from maintaining in force pro-
     and/or should have been made available before the Stand-                visions such as Article L. 12(b) of the civil and military
     ing Veterinary Committee was consulted and before the                   retirement pensions code?
     decision was adopted to extend the period prescribed by
     Article 4 of Decision 98/653/EC.                                   (1) On the progressive implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                            treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ
                                                                            1979 L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24).
— Breach of the principle of proportionality: extension of the
     period prescribed in Article 4 of Decision 98/653/EC
     exceeds the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in
     view of the grounds and objectives of Decision 98/653/EC,
     regard being had to the situation in Portugal, the level of
     its exports of beef and meat products, and the policy of
     the Commission and the Community vis-à-vis the United
     Kingdom and Switzerland.                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                        Korneuburg (Austria) by order of that court of 1 Septemb-
                                                                        er 1999 in the case of La Chemise Lacoste S.A. v Coalle
                                                                                FA-93
(1) Commission Decision 99/517/EC of July 1999 amending Decision
    98/653/EC concerning emergency measures made necessary by                                     (Case C-368/99)
    the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Portugal
    — OJ 1999 L 197, p. 45.
 2
                                                                                (1999/C 366/26)
( ) Decision 98/653/EC concerning emergency measures made
    necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopa-
    thy in Portugal — OJ 1998 L 311, p. 23.                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Landesgericht
                                                                        (Regional Court) Korneuburg (Austria) of 1 September 1999,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of La Chemise Lacoste S.A. v
                                                                        Coalle FA-93 on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 18.12.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 366/17
On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council                        lation; is it relevant whether in this operation there is
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                            an intention to bring the goods — inter alia through
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,                      completion of the operation — into circulation within
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of                         the Community contrary to the Community pro-
counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European                  visions; or
Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994) also applicable to
situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in             (c) should the words ‘cease to be covered’ be construed as
the course of transit between two countries not belonging to                     referring to the totality of the operations which result
the European Community, temporarily detained by the cus-                         in the goods being brought into circulation within the
toms authorities in a Member State on the basis of that                          Community otherwise than in a regular manner?
regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that
his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has                2. If the answer to the first question is in accordance with
its registered office in a Member State of the European                     heading (c), where does this cessation occur: does it occur
Community?                                                                  in the place where the first irregular operation is carried
                                                                            out, or in the place where a subsequent operation is carried
                                                                            out, in particular the place where the goods — in the
                                                                            present case following breaking of the seals — are unloaded
                                                                            from the means of transport?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 23 June 1999
in the case of Liberexim B.V. v Inspecteur Belasting-                   Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Kingdom of
                dienst/Douane District Arnhem                           Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                         (Case C-371/99)
                                                                                (Case C-374/99)
                         (1999/C 366/27)                                                           (1999/C 366/28)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                   ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 7 October
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 23 June               1999 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by Mónica
1999, received at the Court Registry on 4 October 1999, for a           López-Monı́s Gallego, Abogado del Estado, with an address for
preliminary ruling in the case of Liberexim B.V. v Inspecteur           service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard
Belastingdienst/Douane District Arnhem (Tax Inspector-                  E. Servais.
ate/Arnhem Customs District) on the following questions:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
1. What is to be understood by the words ‘cease to be
    covered’ (‘onttrekken’) by the external transit arrangements        — Annul the Commission’s decision of 28 July 1999
    within the meaning of Article 7(3) of the Sixth Directive, if           amending Decision 99/187/EC (1) as regards the financial
    such cessation does not occur in a regular manner — that                adjustments imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and
    is to say, otherwise than by the goods being declared for               contested in the application, and
    free circulation:
                                                                        — order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
    (a) is this the first operation which, in relation to the
         goods, is carried out contrary to any provision connec-        Pleas in law and main arguments
         ted with those arrangements, and is it relevant whether
         in this operation there is an intention to bring the
         goods — inter alia through completion of the oper-             The Kingdom of Spain challenges the contested decision as
         ation — into circulation within the Community con-             regards the financial adjustments imposed in the following
         trary to that provision; or                                    sectors:
    (b) does such cessation occur (only) once the goods — in
         the present case following breaking of the seals —             1. A i d f o r t h e c o n s u m p t i o n o f o l i v e o i l
         have been unloaded from the means of transport
         without compliance with the obligation to produce the          PTE 6 206 113 141 corresponding to an adjustment of 10 %
         goods with documentation at the office of destination          of the expenditure incurred by Spain for the 1994 and 1995
         in accordance with Article 22(1) of the transit regu-          financial years.


title: Case T-226/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/12                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (Case T-225/03)
03 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 239/20)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Pat Fitzpatrick,
                                                                              Inishmore, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-224/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                            (2003/C 239/19)                                          Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application in respect of the MFV Shauan Ann;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           ings.
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Thomas Faherty,
Kilronan, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
                                                                              03 (1).
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW trawler
       vessel to replace the MFV Westward Isle;
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                munities
       ings.
                                                                                (Case T-226/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (2003/C 239/21)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Ocean Trawlers
                                                                              Limited, Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
                                                                              A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/13
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                ings.
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,                Pleas in law and main arguments
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety                  03 (1).
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel,
       MFV Golden Rose;
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eugene Hannigan
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                                (Case T-228/03)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.                                                                   (2003/C 239/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Brendelen Limited                           European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Eugene Hannigan,
   against the Commission of the European Communities                         Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                             (Case T-227/03)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (2003/C 239/22)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                      (Language of the case: English)                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                capacity application for a proposed new vessel MFV
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                Niamh Eoghan;
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Brendelen
Limited, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                              —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                ings.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,                03 (1).
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety                  (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       capacity application to lengthen the MFV Brendelen and
       for a proposed new vessel to replace the MFV Brendelen;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 October 1997 in Case C-1/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach): Hellen Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern (Equal treatment for men and women - Public servant - Part-time employment - Calculation of length of service)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 357/3
     were granted that they were for a maximum of three                     sessions of the institution for 1996 to the extent that it
     years and restricted to specific work, in this case as a               does not provide for 1 2 ordinary plenary part-sessions
     specialist chef, for a specific employer.                              in Strasbourg in 1 996;
                                                                       2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs;
3 . Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 is to be interpreted
     as requiring account to be taken, for the purpose of
     calculating the periods of legal employment referred to           3 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear its
     in that provision, of short periods during which the                   own costs .
     Turkish worker did not hold a valid residence or work
     permit in the host Member State and which are not                 (') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
     covered by Article 6 (2) of that Decision, where the
     competent authorities of the host Member State have
     not called in question on that ground the legality of
     the residence of the worker in the country but have,
     on the contrary, issued him with a new residence or
     work permit.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
(') OJ C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
                                                                       in Case C-l/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach): Hellen
                                                                                Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern (')
                                                                       (Equal treatment for men and women — Public servant —
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Part-time employment — Calculation of length of service)
                         of 1 October 1997                                                         ( 97/C 357/05 )
in Case C-345/95 : French Republic, supported by Grand
      Duchy of Luxembourg v. European Parliament (')                                   (Language of the case: German)
(Seat of the institutions — European Parliament — Part-
                                sessions)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 97/C 357/04 )
                                                                       In Case C-l /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: French)                        of the EC Treaty from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                       ( Bavarian Administrative Court), Ansbach ( Germany), for
                                                                       a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                       that court between Hellen Gerster and Freistaat Bayern —
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                                                                       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                       to the application of the principle of equal pay for men
In Case C-345/95 : French Republic ( Agents: Marc Perrin               and women ( OJ L 45, 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ) and Council
de Brichambaut and Denys Wibaux), supported by Grand                   Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit ) v.                        implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
European Parliament ( Agent: Gregorio Garzón Clariana,                 men and women as regards access to employment,
assisted by Christian Pennera and Hans Krück ) —                       vocational training and promotion, and working
application for annulment of the vote of the European                  conditions ( OJ L 39, 14. 2. 1976, p. 40 ) — the Court
Parliament of 20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of               ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: J. L.Murray ( Rapporteur ),
part-sessions of the institution for 1996 — the Court,                 President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.                of the Sixth Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L.                Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,               judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), M.
Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the                    1 . Article 119 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as
Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1997, in                       applying to employment relationships arising in the
which it:                                                                   public service.
                                                                       2 . A provision of national law which requires that, for
1 . annuls the vote of the European Parliament of                           the purposes of calculating the length of service of
     20 September 1995 adopting the calendar of part                        public servants, periods of employment during which
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/4                Hen-!                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 11 . 97
     the hours worked are between one half and two thirds                 the President of the Sixth Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and
     of normal working hours are counted only as two                      G. Hirsch, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. A.
     thirds of normal working hours does not fall with the                Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     scope of Article 119 of the Treaty or of Council                     a judgment on 2 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
     Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
     approximation of the laws of the Member States
     relating to the application of the principle of equal pay            Article 3 (1 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of
     for men and women.                                                   9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
                                                                          equal treatment for men and women as regards access to
                                                                          employment, vocational training and promotion, and
3 . Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on                    working conditions precludes, in cases where far more
     the implementation of the principle of equal treatment               women will be affected than men, national legislation
     for men and women as, regards access to employment,                  which provides that, in the case of part-time employment
     vocational training and promotion, and working                       involving working hours of no less than one half of
     conditions precludes national legislation which                      normal working hours, the total length of professional
     requires that, for the purposes of calculating the length            experience required for exemption from the qualifying
     of service of public servants, periods of employment                 examination for tax advisers is to be extended on a pro
     during which the hours worked are between one half                   rata basis, save where such legislation is justified by
     and two thirds of normal working hours are counted                   objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on
     only as two thirds of normal working hours, save                     grounds of sex.
     where such legislation is justified by objective criteria
     unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.                   (') OJ C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
(') OJ C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 October 1997
                             ( Sixth Chamber)
                          of 2 October 1997                               in Case C-259/95 : European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                          European Union, supported by Kingdom of Sweden and
in Case C-100/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         Commission of the European Communities (')
the Finanzgericht Bremen ): Brigitte Kording v. Senator fiir
                                 Finanzen (')                              (Annulment of Council Decision No 95/184/EC —
                                                                                Prerogatives of the Parliament)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Public servant —
Part-time employment — Right of exemption from a                                                       ( 97/C 357/07 )
qualifiying examination for entry to a profession —
                       Indirect discrimination)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                               ( 97/C 357/06 )
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                  (Language of the case: German)                                    published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            In Case C-259/95 : European Parliament ( Agents: Christian
           published in the European Court Reports)                        Pennera and Auke Baas ) v. Council of the European Union
                                                                           ( Agent: Guus Houttuin ), supported by Kingdom of
                                                                           Sweden ( Agent: Lotty Nordling) and Commission of the
In Case C-100/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177                European Communities ( Agents: John Forman and
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court),                  Dominique Maidani ) — application for the annulment of
Bremen ( Germany ), for a preliminary ruling in the                        Council Decision No 95/ 184/EC of 22 May 1995
proceedings pending before that court between Brigitte                     amending Decision No 3092/94/EC introducing a
Kording and Senator fiir Finanzen — on the interpretation                  Community system of information on home and leisure
of Article 3 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of                      accidents ( OJ L 120, 31 . 5 . 1995 , p. 36 ) — the Court
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of                  ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to                     of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur), H.
employment, vocational training and promotion, and                         Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La Pergola,
working conditions ( OJ L 39, 14 . 2 . 1976, p. 40 ) — the                 Advocate-General;            H.    von      Holstein,   Assistant
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for               2 October 1997, in which it:


title: Case T-37/11: Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/7

         Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Republic of Hungary v European Commission
   (Case T-37/11)
   2011/C 95/12
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Republic of Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and G. Koós, Agents)

      Defendant(s): European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Commission debit note and recovery order No 3241011280, in so far as, in respect of the Republic of Hungary, it classifies as not eligible for subsidy under the Schengen Facility certain expenditure relating to measures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of objective III/A, to the customs objective III/B and, under objective I/C, to the Mohács inland waterway border control facility and the railway station at Eperjeske.

               —

               In the alternative, partial annulment of the Commission debit note and recovery order No 3241011280, in so far as, in respect of the Republic of Hungary, it classifies as not eligible or only partially eligible for subsidy under the Schengen Facility certain expenditure relating to measures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of objective III/A, and to the customs objective III/B.

               —

               An order that the Commission pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant raises the following pleas in law in support of its application:
   1.   Principal claim: breach of legitimate expectations, breach of trust and breach of the principle of legal certainty
   The applicant states that, having regard to the lack of clarity in the legal background and the considerable amount of aid paid out of the Schengen Facility, it considered it reasonable to rely, throughout the implementation of the programme, on the information provided by the Commission in response to express requests for its position and in the frequent reports issued on the Indicative Schedule.
   In the opinion of the applicant, approval of the Indicative Schedule, by way of prior authorisation, the checks carried out by the Commission during the implementation of the schedule and the cooperation with the Member States entail that, given that the Commission carries out ex post facto checks of the eligibility for subsidy of projects, the eligibility for subsidy of projects reviewed several times without being criticised by the Commission may not be questioned. The applicant states that the Commission gave ‘guarantees’ in the financing decisions which caused it to have a legitimate expectation that the measures listed in the Indicative Schedule were eligible for subsidy.
   The principle of cooperation in good faith also imposes reciprocal obligations on the institutions of the European Union to cooperate with the Member States.
   In the view of the applicant, if, in such an unclear legislative context, in which the rules are still malleable, it were not even possible to expect the Commission to give prior and definite information as to whether a project is eligible for subsidy, the principle of legal certainty would be seriously undermined.
   2.   Claim in the alternative: misinterpretation of the concept of full border controls and lack of any justification for financial corrections
   The applicant takes the view that, in the contested decision, the Commission considered not eligible or only partially eligible for subsidy the expenditure mentioned in the claim in the alternative on the ground that it was not, or was only partly, for the purpose of a full border control. In the view of the applicant, the Commission reached that conclusion as a result of a misinterpretation of the concept of full border control.
   The applicant adds that the Commission, as regards the information made available, did not carry out the required checks to determine the exact amount which needed to be paid back in relation to all the measures and, as regards some of them, erroneously fixed the amounts at a flat rate. According to the applicant, the Commission fixed that flat rate on the basis of the supposed ratio between the border control activities and other activities carried out by the competent authorities, rather than basing it on the provisions contained in Article 22(3)(b) of Commission Decision C(2004) 248 of 5 February 2004 on the management and monitoring of the Schengen Facility and, therefore, on the seriousness of the breaches of the legislation found, or on the scale of the faults in the system of management and control and the financial consequences thereof which gave rise to the irregularities complained of.


title: Case C-255/06 P: Appeal brought on 6 June 2006 by Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2006 in Case T-367/03: Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/14

         Appeal brought on 6 June 2006 by Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 30 March 2006 in Case T-367/03: Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-255/06 P)
   (2006/C 212/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (represented by: S. Sariibrahimoglu and R. Sinner, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in the matter of Yedas v. Commission and Council (Case T-367/03) in its entirety,

               —

               Refer the case of Yedas back to the Court of First Instance to review the case,

               —

               Grant an oral procedure,

               —

               Award costs to the Applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to give the Association Agreement between Turkey and the European Economic Community (‘the Ankara Agreement’) and Protocols any proper legal significance or effect, contrary to the settled case-law of the European Court of Justice and by wrongly determining that the principles and rules contained in the Ankara Agreement and protocols are not such as to constitute legal norms against which acts of the Community institutions can be measured. According to the Applicant the provisions of the Ankara Agreement are directly applicable and capable of conferring rights upon individuals.
   The Applicant also submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law by failing to examine the argument that the Republic of Turkey was eligible to be treated, in the matter of assistance, on a par with States such as Spain, Portugal and Greece and by holding that the Community institutions had no duty to act with respect to the position of Greece in respect of allocation of financial support to Turkey.
   Finally the Applicant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its legal assessment that there was no causal link between the alleged unlawful conduct of the Community institution and the alleged damage suffered.