title: Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Adriaan Al and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-171/95)

text:
25 . 11 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315/ 15
and also, in the oral procedure, by Harold Nyssens of the             1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  inadmissible.
the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                   2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992 , 31 December              f 1 ) OJ No C 23 , 31 . 1 . 1990 .
1992 ( implicit rejection ) and 3 March 1993 concerning the
maintenance of the applicant's personal file and certain
measures taken to assist him, and for an order requiring the
Commission to pay damages for the harm which the
applicant claims to have suffered as a result of the existence
of a separate file — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts , President, and R.
                                                                                of 29 September 1995
Schintgen and R. Garcίa-Valdecasas, Judges; B. Pastor,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 October 1995 , in               in Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani and Others
which it :                                                                         v. Council of the European Union ( J )
                                                                       (Appointment of the members of the Economic and Social
1 . Annuls the decisions of the Commission of 1 June 1992              Committee — Manifest inadmissibility — Application to
     and 3 March 1993 inasmuch as they reject the                                                        intervene)
     applicant 's request for the inclusion in his personal file                                    ( 95/C 315/33 )
      of certain documents relating to his administrative
     position and reports concerning his ability, efficiency or
      conduct.                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of             In Case T-381 /94 : Sindacato Pensionati Italiani,
      Bfrs 1 00 000 as compensation for the non-material              Federazione nazionale Pensionati , Unione Italiana
      damage suffered by him .                                        Lavoratori Pensionati , represented by Massimo Severo
                                                                       Giannini and Massimo d'Antona, of the Rome Bar, and
                                                                      Mario Chiti, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service
3 . Dismisses the remainder of the action .
                                                                       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                       Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union
4 . Orders the Commission to pay all of the costs.                     ( Agents : Giorgio Maganza and Antonio Tanca ) —
                                                                       application for the annulment of Council Decision
 (•) OJ No C 188 , 10 . 7. 1993 and OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .       94/660/EC, Euratom of 26 September 1994 appointing the
                                                                       members of the Economic and Social Committee for the
                                                                       period from 21 September 1994 to 20 September 1998 ( OJ
                                                                       1 994 L 257, p. 20 ) in so far as it appoints Filippo de Jorio —
                                                                       the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                       B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington and A. Saggio,
                                                                      Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 September
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                       of 5 October 1995
                                                                        1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
 in Case T-165 /89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug v. Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of
                          (Interpretation)                                   the defendants.
                           ( 95/C 315/32 )
                                                                        (') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                 (Language of the case: French)
 In Case T-165/89 ( 129 ): Onno Plug, a former member of the
 temporary staff of the Commission of the European
  Communities ,      residing     at   Thonex      ( Switzerland ),     Action brought on 19 September 1995 by Adriaan A1 and
 represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar,              Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
  of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of                                     ( Case T-171 /95 )
  the European Communities ( Agent: Sean Van                                                          ( 95/C 315 /34 )
  Raepenbusch ) — application for interpretation of the
  judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Fourth                             (Language of the case: French)
  Chamber ) on 27 February 1992 in Case T-165/89 (( 1992 )
  ECR 11-367 ) — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
  Chamber ) made an order on 5 October 1995 , the operative             An action against the Commission of the European
  part of which is as follows :                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- No C 315/ 16           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25 . 11 . 95
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September                          abovementioned provisions, as interpreted by case-law,
1995 by Adriaan A1 and the 99 other applicants listed in the                  that the weighting for each Member State must be fixed
Annex hereto, all residing in Germany, represented by                         with reference to the cost of living in its capital, and that
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar,                     the Council has no discretion whatever to decide
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                   whether or not measures intended to ensure the
Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.                                        application of that principle should have retroactive
                                                                              effect. The new weighting has been fixed to take effect
The applicants claim that the Court should :                                  only from 1 July 1994; consequently, the weighting for
                                                                              Germany in respect of the period from 3 October 1990
— annul the applicants' pension statements for December                       to 30 June 1994 has been fixed at the rate applying in
      1994, drawn up pursuant to Council Regulation
     No 3161 /94 of 19 December 1994, inasmuch as that
                                                                              relation to Bonn, that is to say, a city which is not its
                                                                              capital.
     regulation lays down a weighting for Germany at the
     rate fixed for its capital, Berlin, only with effect from
                                                                        ( b ) Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
      1 July 1994 and not from 3 October 1990, and, in so far                 expectations: the applicants consider that, in adopting
     as may be necessary, annul the decision of the
                                                                              Regulation ( ECSC, EC, Euratom ) No 3161/94, the
     Commission of 26 July 1995 rejecting the applicants'
                                                                              Community legislature failed to take into consideration
     complaint,                                                               the special situation of officials and servants who
— reinstate the applicants' pension rights in full, weighted                  decided, following their retirement and before 1 July
     at the rate fixed for Berlin, with effect from 3 October                 1994 , to settle in Germany and who were legitimately
      1990 ,                                                                  entitled to expect that it would adopt the measures
                                                                              necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of
— order the defendant to pay default interest on the                          First Instance of 27 October 1994 in Case T-536/93 , in
     pension arrears for the period from 3 October 1990 to                    which a regulation fixing the weighting for Germany at
     30 June 1994, calculated in relation to the same period,                 a rate other than that of its capital, Berlin, was held to
     at the annual rate of 10% ,                                              be unlawful .
— order the defendant to pay all of the costs .
                                                                        ( c ) Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                           applicants consider that the statement of reasons for
                                                                              Regulation ( ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161 /94 is
The applicants state that the contested pension statements                    neither adequate nor correct as regards the fixing of the
are the first to have been drawn up pursuant to Council                       weighting for Germany at the rate applicable to its
Regulation ( ECSC, EC, Euratom ) No 3161 of 19 December                       capital .
1994 adjusting, with effect from 1 July 1994, the
remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of
                                                                        The applicants further maintain that, by failing to ensure
the European Communities and the weightings applied                     that the calculation of the weighting for Germany was fixed,
thereto. They maintain that that Regulation is vitiated by              in accordance with the Staff Regulations, at the rate
illegality, in that Article 6 ( 1 ) thereof applies the weighting       applicable to its capital, Berlin, the defendant disregarded its
for Germany at the rate fixed for its capital, Berlin, with             duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials .
effect from 1 July 1994 and not from 3 October 1990, when               They also point out that the Commission has not brought
Berlin became the capital of Germany.                                   proceedings for the annulment of the Regulation at issue ,
The applicants rely on the following pleas in support of their          despite its manifest illegality, and has thus failed to perform
objection of illegality:                                                its task of ensuring compliance with Community law; where
                                                                        the unlawful role of secondary legislation is addressed to
( a ) Infringement of Articles 63 to 65a of the Staff                   officials and servants, that task also falls within the scope of
       Regulations of officials and of Annex XI thereto:                the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
       according to the applicants, it is apparent from the             officials .
 ---pagebreak--- 25 . 11 . 95         EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                         No C 315/ 17
                                                            ANNEX
                                                        Case T-171 /95
                                                       List of applicants
             Adriaan Al                                                   Horst Kutter
             Wolfgang Balzer                                              Heinz Lehnefinke
             Artin Barth                                                  Hans Lehnoch
             Rolf Bauch                                                   Egon Lessle
             Ingrid Becker                                                Friedrich Maino
             Irmgard Bering                                               Robert Mandler
             Heinrich  Beulke                                             Nikolaus Mayer
             Gerhard   Birkhoff                                           Josef Merfels
             Gerhard   Bittner                                            Karl H. Meyer-Uhlenried
             Heinrich  Blenkers                                           Karl Moos
             Josef Bohdansky                                              Peter Mörk-Mörkenstein
             Ulrich Bruns-Wüstefeld                                       Derek Murphy
             Manfred Caspari                                              Jürgen Nickel
             Roger de Meester                                             Hermann Ollenhauer
             Klaas Deelstra                                               Siegfried Pätzold
             Robert Eberhard                                              Klaus G. Pingel
             Josef Eder                                                   Eva Presser
             A. Peter Eisenmenger                                         Albert Reinhardt
             Heia Emde-Klinkenberg                                        Rudolf Resch
             Bernhard Eschment                                            Willi L. Riebold
             Annelies Fiehn                                               Gerhard Ruffer
             Ernst A. Findorff                                            Bernhard Schelten-Petersen
             Margit Fischer                                               Erhard Schleicher
             Johann Gay                                                   Helmut Schmeichler
             Monique Genevois-Rossbach                                    Guenter Schmidt
             Karl-Heinz Günther                                           Heinrich Schöne
             Horst Günther                                                Lily Schuerer
             Friedrich W. A. Habermann                                    Willi Schupp
             Richard Häckel                                               Wilhelm Schwarz
             Ernst Hampe                                                  Karl Seger
             Heinrich Hark                                                Horst Siebel
             Ursula Hartte                                                Heinz Stangl
             Wilhelmine Heidweiler-Scheffelaar                            Wolfgang Stephan
             Ingeborg Hentel                                              Helmut Stern ~
             Georg-Wilhelm Henze                                          Hermann Stirm
             Karl Heinz Hettinger                                         Felicitas Stottrop
             Peter Hochgrassl                                             Hans Thoma
             Hortense Hoffmann                                            Hans . J. Vogt
             Hella Hopf-Barufke                                           Christiane von Brandenstein-Groll
             Werner Jedamzik                                              Astrid von Hardenberg
             Norbert Kalthoff                                             Hans-Ludolf von Kotze
             Anna-Maria Kleinsimon                                        Ursula von Riedel
             Reinhard Klötzer                                             Joachim Wedel
             Walter Konrad                                                Peter Weisgerber
             Ernst Kotzur                                                 Werner Wenz
             Hans-Broder Krohn                                            Hans J. Wetekam
             Kurt Kühner                                                  Erika Winterer-Müller
             Karl Kujath                                                  Hermann Wundt
             Toni Kummer                                                  Walter Zilly
             Siegfried Kumpf                                              Horst Zöllner


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-316/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien): Eva Glawischnig v Bundesminister für soziale Sicherheit und Generationen (Freedom of access to information — Information relating to the environment — Directive 90/313/EEC — Breaches of the rules on labelling of foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms)

text:
C 184/10                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
Österreichische Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- AG (ÖSAG)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
21 December 1989, on the coordination of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions relating to the application of                                            (Fifth Chamber)
review procedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by Council
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordina-
tion of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ                                        of 12 June 2003
1992 L 209, p. 1), and Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June
1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                 in Case C-316/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                     the      Unabhängiger         Verwaltungssenat           Wien):      Eva
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha              Glawischnig v Bundesminister für soziale Sicherheit und
Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,                                           Generationen (1)
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
19 June 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                             (Freedom of access to information — Information relating to
                                                                             the environment — Directive 90/313/EEC — Breaches of the
                                                                             rules on labelling of foodstuffs produced from genetically
                                                                                modified organisms)
1.    Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989, on the
      coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provi-                                   (2003/C 184/18)
      sions relating to the application of review procedures to the
      award of public supply and public works 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                             (Language of the case: German)
      contracts, does not preclude that, in the context of an applica-
      tion brought by a tenderer seeking a declaration, for the purpose
      of subsequently obtaining damages, that the decision awarding a        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
      public supply contract was unlawful, the review body should, of                              the European Court Reports)
      its own motion, take account of the unlawfulness of a decision
      of the contracting authority other than the decision being
      contested by that tenderer. On the other hand, that directive
      precludes dismissal by the review body of the application
      brought by the tenderer on the ground that, as a result of the         In Case C-316/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      unlawfulness raised ex proprio motu, the award procedure               EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) for a
      was in any event tainted and the tenderer would none the               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      less have been harmed, even in the absence of the                      court between Eva Glawischnig and Bundesminister für soziale
      unlawfulness alleged by him.                                           Sicherheit und Generationen, on the interpretation of Article 2
                                                                             (a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
                                                                             freedom of access to information on the environment (OJ
                                                                             1990 L 158, p. 56), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
                                                                             (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges;
                                                                             A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Admin-
2.    Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures            istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June
      for the award of public supply contracts prohibits a public            2003, in which it has ruled:
      contracting authority conducting public supply contract award
      procedures from taking account of the number of references
      relating to the products offered by tenderers to other clients not
                                                                             Article 2(a) of Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
      as proof of the tenderers' suitability but to satisfy an award
                                                                             freedom of access to information on the environment is to be
      criterion.
                                                                             interpreted as meaning that the name of the manufacturer and the
                                                                             product description of foodstuffs which have been the subject of
                                                                             administrative measures for controlling compliance with Council Regu-
                                                                             lation (EC) No 1139/98 of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory
                                                                             indication [in] the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from
                                                                             genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided
3.    Directive 93/36 precludes, in the context of a public supply           for in Directive 79/112/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation
      contract, that the requirement that there should be an opportu-        (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000, the number of administrative
      nity to inspect the subject of the invitation to tender within a       penalties imposed following those measures, and the producers and
      300 kilometre radius of the authority issuing the invitation to        products concerned by such penalties do not constitute information
      tender should serve as an award criterion.                             relating to the environment within the meaning of that provision.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                                  (1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden (Case C-468/98)

text:
13.3.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 71/9
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission               II. Order Sweden to pay the costs of the present
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                      proceedings.
                           Sweden
                      (Case C-468/98)
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                       (1999/C 71/15)                              in Case C-471/98 (5).
                                                                   (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
                                                                   (3) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
                                                                   (4) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            (5) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon and
Christina Tufvesson, Legal Advisers in the Commission's
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                   Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-469/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/16)
I.  Declare:
                                                                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    Ð that, by individually negotiating, signing and               on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the
        concluding an Open Skies' agreement with the              European Communities, represented by Allan Rosas,
        USA in the air-transport sector, Sweden acted in           Principal Legal Adviser, and Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser,
        breach of the EC Treaty, including Articles 5 and          acting as Agents, with an address for service in
        52 thereof, and also contrary to the secondary             Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
        law adopted thereunder, in particular Regulation           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
        (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) on licensing of air carriers,
        Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1) of 23 July
        1992 on access for Community air carriers to
        intra-Community routes, Regulation (EEC) No                The Commission claims that the Court should:
        2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for
        air services, Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2) of
        24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
        No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of            1. Declare that, by individually negotiating and
        conduct for computerised reservation systems, and               concluding in 1995 an open skies' air traffic
        Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January 1993                agreement with the United States of America, the
        on common rules for the allocation of slots at                  Republic of Finland is in breach of the EC Treaty,
        Community airports;                                             inter alia Articles 5 and 52 thereof, and of secondary
                                                                        law adopted on the basis of that Treaty, in particular
                                                                        Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July
                                                                        1992 on licensing of air carriers (1), Council
    Ð in the alternative, and in addition to the foregoing,             Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
        that, in so far as the 1995 agreement cannot be                 access for Community air carriers to intra-Community
        regarded as having radically amended and thus                   air routes (2), Council Regulation (EEC) No 2409/92
        replaced agreements previously concluded, Sweden                of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for air services (3),
        infringed Article 234 of the EC Treaty, as amended              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July
        by Article 6 of the Act of Accession, by not                    1989 on a code of conduct for computerised
        rescinding the provisions in the agreement which                reservation systems (4), as amended by Council
        are incompatible with the EC Treaty, in particular              Regulation (EEC) No 3089/93 (5), and Council
        Article 52, and with the secondary law adopted                  Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on
        thereunder, or by failing to adopt all possible legal           common rules for the allocation of slots at
        measures to that end;                                           Community airports (6); and


title: Case T-46/08 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Officials — Request for information regarding personal effects dispatched from the place of employment to the place of residence — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-46/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Officials - Request for information regarding personal effects dispatched from the place of employment to the place of residence - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2009/C 282/91
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06 Marcuccio v Commission, not yet published in the ECR), seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.


title: Removal from the register of C-203/97

text:
13.6.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 184/9
         Removal from the register of C-365/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-203/97 (1)
                        (98/C 184/14)                                                      (98/C 184/15)
By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-365/96 (reference for          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):               removal from the register of Case C-203/97: Commission
Ruhrgas AG and Thyssengas GmbH v. Bundeskartellamt.                of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany.
(1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 28 April 1998                                                   of 30 April 1998
in Case T-184/95: Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             in Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale v. European
mbH against Council of the European Union and                                               Parliament (1)
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Exchanges of officials between the Parliament
(Non-contractual liability for an unlawful act Ð                   and national administrations Ð Subsistence allowance Ð
Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90 Ð Embargo on trade with                Travel expenses Ð Complaint Ð Express rejection Ð
Iraq Ð Impairment of rights equivalent to expropriation                             Inadmissibility of the action)
        Ð Liability for an unlawful act Ð Damage)
                                                                                (98/C 184/17)
                        (98/C 184/16)
               (Language of the case: German)                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case T-184/95, Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft             In Case T-205/95: Giampaolo Cordiale, a former member
mbH, established in Munich (Germany), represented by               of the temporary staff of the European Parliament,
Professor Karl M. Meessen, with an address for service in          residing at Messina (Italy), represented by Jean-NoeÈl
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Patrick Kinsch, 100                  Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio, of the
Boulevard de la PeÂtrusse, against Council of the European         Reggio di Calabria Bar, with an adress for service in
Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien, then Stephan               Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Marquardt and Antonio Tanca) and Commission of the                 Rue de Cessange, v. European Parliament (Agents:
European Communities (Agents: Peter Gilsdorf, Allan                Manfred Peter and Antonio Caiola) Ð application, first,
Rosas and Jörn Sack) Ð application for compensation for            for annulment of the decision of the Parliament refusing to
the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result         grant the applicant the subsistence allowance and travel
of the adoption of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2340/90             expenses provided for by the Parliament's decision of
of 8 August 1990 preventing trade by the Community as              26 October 1988 and, second, for damages Ð the Court
regards Iraq and Kuwait (OJ L 213 of 9.8.1990, p. 1) Ð             of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended              Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
Composition), composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President,           Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
V. Tiili and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,            given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it:
gave a judgment on 28 April 1998 in which it:
                                                                   1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                   2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.                                          (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail, Nivelles, by judgment of that court of 16 January 1996 in the case of Vito Casano v. (1) Institut National d'Assurance Maladie Invalidité and (2) Union Nationale des Mutualités Libres (Case C-19/96)

text:
No C 77/8                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                           16 . 3 . 96
       the constituents referred to in paragraph 1 ( a ) of              Travail ( Labour Court ), Nivelles, of 16 January 1996 ,
       Section I of Annex I ( for example, in the case of water          which was received at the Court Registry on 22 January
       with a low sodium content)?                                       1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Vito Casano
                                                                         against ( 1 ) Institut National d'Assurance Maladie Invalidite
3 . How are the expressions 'properties favourable to                    and ( 2 ) Union Nationale des Mutualites Libres on the
       health' in paragraph 2 of Section I of Annex I and                following questions:
       'certain effects' in paragraph 1 ( a ) of Section I ( see also
       point 1.4.1 of Section II of Annex I ) to be differentiated
       from one another ?                                                1 . Where an authority in a Member State does not comply
                                                                             with Article 51 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
(') OJ No L 229, 1980, p. 1 .                                                No 1408/71 on the application of social security
                                                                             schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons
                                                                             and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                             Community ( ] ), is the adjustment to the entitlement of
                                                                             the invalid worker affected to take effect from the date
Action brought on 19 January 1996 by the Commission of                       on which the invalidity benefit first became payable or
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                              from the date falling two years prior to the worker's
                                Belgium                                      application for rectification, as laid down by the
                                                                             national legislation of the Member State concerned, in
                           ( Case C- 18/96 )
                                                                             this case, Article 106 of the Law of 9 August 1963
                             ( 96/C 77/ 15 )                                 setting up and organizing a scheme for compulsory
                                                                             insurance against sickness and invalidity ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
19 January 1996 by the Commission of the European                        2 . Is it for the national legislation of each Member State to
Communities, representend by Hendrik van Lier and                            determine the limitation period applicable to claims by
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for                 migrant workers for invalidity pensions ?
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971(11 ), p. 416 .
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should :
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
      necessary to comply with Council Directive
      91/338/EEC ( 1 ) of 18 June 1991 relating to restrictions          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Social Security
      on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
                                                                         Commissioner, by decision of 17 January 1996, in the case
      substances and preparations, the Kingdom of Belgium                 of Kelvin Albert Snares against the Adjudication Officer
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
                                                                                ( Case C-20/96 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                                    ( 96/C 77/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those               European Communities by a decision of the Social Security
in Case C-5/96 (2); the time limit for transposition expired             Commissioner of 17 January 1996 , which was received at
on 31 December 1992 .                                                    the Court Registry on 22 January 1996 , for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Kelvin Albert Snares against the
O OJ No L 186 , 12 . 7. 1991 , p . 59 .                                  Adjudication Officer, on the following questions:
( 2 ) See Case C-5/96 above .
                                                                         1 . Is the effect of the terms of Articles 4 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 10 ( a ) of
                                                                             Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                             on the application of social security schemes to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                        employed persons and their families moving within the
Travail, Nivelles, by judgment of that court of 16 January                   Community (*), as inserted by Regulation ( EEC ) No
1996 in the case of Vito Casano v. ( 1 ) Institut National                   1247/92 ( 2 ) with effect from 1 June 1992 , to remove
d'Assurance Maladie Invalidite and ( 2 ) Union Nationale des                 from the scope of Article 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No
                          Mutualites Libres                                  1408/71 a benefit which prior to 1 June 1992 would
                                                                             have been accepted, in the case of a person who by
                           ( Case C- 19/96 )                                 reason of previous occupational activity was or had
                               96/C 77/16                                    been covered by the social security legislation of the
                                                                             relevant Member State, as falling within the scope of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       Article 4(1 ), with the consequence that a person who
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                          after 1 June 1992 becomes entitled to such a benefit


title: Case C-450/01: Action brought on 20 November 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
19.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/9
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
                                                                          in Case C-435/01 (3); the time-limit prescribed in Article 2 of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Directive 98/81/EC expired on 5 June 2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 L 93, p. 27.
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC is            (2) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1.
such as to require Member States to whom directives are                   (3) See page 8 of this Official Journal.
addressed to adopt the measures needed to comply with them
before the expiry of the time-limit prescribed in such directives.
The time-limit prescribed in Article 21(1) of Directive 96/61
expired on 30 October 1999 but the Kingdom of Belgium has
not adopted the requisite provisions.
(1) OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 November 2001 by the Com-
                                                                          mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
                                                                                ic Republic
                                                                                (Case C-450/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/15)
Action brought on 12 November 2001 by the Com-                            An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
mission of the European Communities against the                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 No-
                        Kingdom of Belgium                                vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
                          (Case C-436/01)
                                                                          The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (2002/C 17/14)                                 —      declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
                                                                                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive
                                                                                1999/8/EC (1) of 18 February 1999 amending Council
                                                                                Directive 66/402/EEC on the marketing of cereal seed,
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                             the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       under the Treaty and that directive;
12 November 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent.                 —      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    declare that, by failing within the time-limits prescribed
      to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive               directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
      98/81/EC (1) of 26 October 1998 amending Directive                  each Member State to which they are addressed.
      90/219/EEC (2) on the contained use of genetically modi-
      fied micro-organisms, or at any rate to notify the same to
      the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to                Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;                        to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
                                                                          to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
                                                                          or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                      Community.
 ---pagebreak--- C 17/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.1.2002
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt          It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.                   measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic             The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-         has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.                         ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(1) OJ L 50, 26.2.1999, p. 26.                                          (1) OJ L 209, 7.8.1999, p. 22.
Action brought on 21 November 2001 by the Com-                          Action brought on 22 November 2001 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-                 mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
                            ic Republic                                                               ic Republic
                         (Case C-451/01)                                                           (Case C-453/01)
                          (2002/C 17/16)                                                            (2002/C 17/17)
                                                                        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 No-
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 No-
                                                                        vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
vember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
ties, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, Legal Adviser.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —      declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
—      declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid                down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
       down the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/58/EC (1)
       necessary to comply with Commission Directive                           of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals
       1999/78/EC (1) of 27 July 1999 amending Directive                       kept for farming purposes, the Hellenic Republic has
       95/10/EC, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
       obligations under the Treaty and that directive;                        directive;
—      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                    —      order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon           directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which they are addressed.                          each Member State to which they are addressed.
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are           Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,        to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty       to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the               or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community.                                                              Community.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 14 December 1995 in Joined Cases C-106/94 and C-139/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Bourges (France) and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris): criminal proceedings against Patrick Colin and Daniel Dupré (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain chemical products - Throat pastilles - Tonic beverages - Tariff classification)

text:
16 . 3 . 96           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 77/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       court to apply Articles 3 (f), 85, 86 and 90 of the EC
                     of 14 December 1995                                   Treaty even when the party with an interest in
                                                                           application of those provisions has not relied on them,
in Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431 /93 ( references for a                  where domestic law allows such application by the
preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ):                   national court.
Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes Nicolaas Cornelis van
Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten ( 1 )
                                                                       2 . Community law does not require national courts to raise
(Treatment of an occupational pension fund as an                           of their own motion an issue concerning the breach of
undertaking — Compulsory membership of an                                  provisions of Community law where examination of
occupational pension scheme — Compatibility with the                       that issue would oblige them to abandon the passive role
rules ofcompetition — Whether a point of Community law                     assigned to them by going beyond the ambit of the
may be raised for the first time in cassation, thereby altering            dispute defined by the parties themselves and relying on
the subject-matter of the proceedings and entailing an                     facts and circumstances other than those on which the
                     examination of facts)                                 party with an interest in application of those provisions
                          ( 96/C 77/01 )                                   bases his claim .
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                          (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431 /93 : references to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hoge
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Raad der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands )
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                                    ( Fourth Chamber )
that court between Jeroen van Schijndel and Johannes                                      of 14 December 1995
Nicolaas Cornelis van Veen and Stichting Pensioenfonds
voor Fysiotherapeuten — on ( i ) the interpretation of                 in Joined Cases C-106/94 and C-139/94 ( references for a
Community law with regard to the power of a national                   preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Bourges ( France)
court to consider of its own motion the compatibility of a             and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris ): criminal
rule of domestic law with Articles 3 ( f), 5 , 85 , 86 and/or 90       proceedings against Patrick Colin and Daniel Dupré ( } )
of the EC Treaty and ( ii ) the interpretation of those                (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain
provisions — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez                    chemicalproducts — Throatpastilles — Tonic beverages —
Iglesias , President, C. N. Kakouris , D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                               Tariff classification)
Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.                                        ( 96/C 77/02 )
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,                           (Language of the case: French)
P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, and H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 ,              (Provisional translation; the definitive verison will be
in which it rules :                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
 1 . In proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations            In joined Cases C-106/94 and C-139/94 : references to the
     freely entered into by the parties, it is for the national        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Cour
 ---pagebreak--- No C 77/2             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16 . 3 . 96
d'Appel, Bourges ( France ) and the Tribunal de Grande                    purposes, it cannot be regarded as a pharmaceutical
Instance ( Regional Court), Paris for a preliminary ruling in             product falling under that heading.
the criminal proceedings pending before those courts
against Patrick Colin attended by Distrithera SARL
( C-106/94 ) and Daniel Dupre attended by Laboratoires              (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 ; OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
Valda SA ( C-139/94 ) on the interpretation, in Case                ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 21 . 3 . 1985 , p . 13 .
C-106/94, of the Common Customs Tariff as regards the
classification of tonic beverages and throat pastilles and, in
Case C-139/94 , of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No
717/85 of 19 March 1985 on the classification of goods
within subheading 17.04 D I of the Common Customs
Tariff (2 ) and Chapter 30 of the Common Customs Tariff
and the Combined Nomenclature as regards the
classification of throat pastilles, the Court ( Fourth
Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray                                                 ( Fifth Chamber)
( Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate General :
D. Loutermann-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                                    of 14 December 1995
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 1995 , in            in Case C-162/94: Commission of the European
which it ruled :                                                                       Communities v. Ireland ( 1 )
                                                                    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/662/EEC —
                                                                               Veterinary checks — Failure to transpose)
1 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and                                          ( 96/C 77/03 )
    purpose, pastilles such as red Pulmoll pastilles fall under
    heading 17.04 of the Common Customs Tariff.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
2 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and            In Case C-162/94 : Commission of the European
    purpose, pastilles such as green Pulmoll pastilles fall         Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and James
    under heading 17.04 of the Common Customs                       Macdonald Flett) v. Ireland (Agent: Michael A. Buckley) —
    Tariff.                                                         application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
                                                                    force the laws , regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                    necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/662/EEC of
                                                                    11 December 1989 - concerning veterinary checks in
3 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and            intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the
    purpose, beverages such as Sangart mixture fall under           internal market ( OJ No L 395 , 1989, p. 13 ), Ireland has
    heading 22.09 of the Common Customs Tariff.                     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, in
                                                                    particular Article 22 thereof, and under the Treaty
                                                                    establishing the European Community — the Court ( Fifth
                                                                    Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
4 . Having regard to their composition, presentation and            President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
    purpose, beverages such as Quintonine fall under                C. Gulmann, L. Sevon and M Wathelet, Judges : C. O. Lenz,
    heading 22.09 of the Common Customs Tariff.                     Advocate General; R. Grass , Registrar, has given a
                                                                    judgment on 14 December 1995 , in which it:
5 . Regulation (EEC) No 71 7/85 of 1 9 March 1 985 on the           1 . Declares that, by failing to bring into force all the laws,
    classification of goods within subheading 17.04 D I of                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    the Common Customs Tariff may not be interpreted as                   comply with Council Directive 89/662/EEC of
    referring to goods whose composition (percentage by                   11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in
    weight) is different from that indicated in Article I of              intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of
    that Regulation.                                                      the internal market, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Article 22 of that Directive.
6 . Heading 30.03 of the CCT, which covers medicaments,
                                                                    2 . Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    is to be interpreted as including a product consisting of
    sugar, but above all of active flavouring agents with
    medicinal properties in such a proportion that it is used       0 ) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
    only for therapeutic and prophylactic purposes.
    Nevertheless, where the proportion offlavouring agents
    in the composition of each product does not enable the
    product to be used only for therapeutic or prophylactic


title: Case T-281/17: Action brought on 10 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/27

         Action brought on 10 May 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-281/17)
   (2017/C 269/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: M. Sfyri and C-N. Dede, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s award decision regarding Phase 2 of the restricted procurement procedure (reference EuropeAid/138143/DH/SER/AL), communicated to the applicants with its letter of 6 March 2017, by which they were informed that their bid had not been successful and that the contract was awarded to another tenderer;

               —

               order the defendant to provide the applicants with compensation in the form of damages for the loss of opportunity to be awarded a contract, in the amount of EUR 240 000 (two hundred and forty thousand Euros);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicants exemplary damages in the amount of EUR 40 000 (forty thousand Euros);

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the applicants’ legal fees and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant infringed the EU law of public procurement, the principles of transparency and equal treatment and the provisions of the Financial Regulation, by not communicating to the applicants the award decision at the same time it communicated it to the other tenderers and by refusing to respect the standstill period. The applicants argue that the defendant acted in breach of the principle of sound administration by adversely affecting the applicants’ right to an effective remedy against the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant changed the tender specifications a few days before the deadline for the submission of tenders, introducing new terms. By doing so, the defendant infringed Article 112 of the Financial Regulation, since changes to procurement documents occurred through contacts during the procurement procedure and more specifically through clarifications that were given to the tenderers.

               3.

               By their third plea, the applicants argue that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment, which are depicted in the extracts of the Evaluation Report communicated to the applicants and that the defendant introduced new and unknown criteria at the stage of the evaluation of the offers.


title: Case T-536/11: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of computing services for the development and maintenance of software, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications — Ranking of a tenderer’s bid in the cascade for different lots and ranking of the bids of other tenderers — Obligation to state reasons — Award criterion — Manifest error of assessment — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2015 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v Commission
   (Case T-536/11) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of computing services for the development and maintenance of software, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications - Ranking of a tenderer’s bid in the cascade for different lots and ranking of the bids of other tenderers - Obligation to state reasons - Award criterion - Manifest error of assessment - Non-contractual liability))
   (2015/C 279/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg); European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis and N. Theologou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by S. Delaude and V. Savov, and subsequently by S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by O. Graber-Soudry, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union of 22 July 2011 to rank the applicants, in respect of the bids they submitted in response to the call for tenders AO 10340, concerning the provision of computing services for the development and maintenance of software, consultancy and assistance for different types of IT applications (OJ 2011/S 66-106099), in the third place in the cascade for lot 1, in the third place in the cascade for lot 4 and in the second place in the cascade for lot 3, as well as the decisions awarding the contracts at issue to other tenderers in as much as they refer to their ranking, and, second, for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-280/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 4 June 2010 — Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz (a partnership) v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland), lodged on 4 June 2010 — Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz (a partnership) v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   (Case C-280/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/37
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Kopalnia Odkrywkowa Polski Trawertyn P. Granatowicz, M. Wąsiewicz (a partnership)

      Respondent: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is an entity, in the persons of future partners, which effects investment expenditure before formal registration of the partnership as an entity governed by commercial law or registration for purposes of value added tax, entitled, following registration of the partnership as an entity governed by commercial law and registration for purposes of value added tax, to exercise, pursuant to Article 9 and Articles 168 and 169 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) the right to deduct input tax incurred in connection with investment expenditure which is used for taxable activities carried out within the framework of the partnership?

               2.

               Does an invoice documenting incurred investment expenditure which was issued to the partners, and not to the partnership, preclude exercise of the right to deduct input tax incurred in connection with investment expenditure as referred to in Question 1?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-386/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Süleyman Eker v. Land Baden-Württemberg (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Association Council - Free movement of workers - Renewal of residence permit after one year's legal employment - Employment with two employers in succession)

text:
12 . 7 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 212/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                          of 29 May 1997                                                          of 29 May 1997
                                                                       in Case C-386/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-329/95 :            (reference to the Court for a
                                                                       the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Süleyman Eker v. Land
preliminary ruling by the Läsräten i Stockholms lan ):                                       Baden-Württemberg (')
  Administrative proceedings brought by VAG Sverige AB ( 1 )
                                                                       (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
(Vehicle registration — National exhaust emission                      Association Council — Free movement of workers —
    certificate — Compatibility with Directive 70/156/EEC)             Renewal of residence permit after one year's legal
                                                                       employment — Employment with two employers in
                            ( 97IC 212/05 )                                                             succession)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/06 )
                 (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case T-386/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
In Case C-329/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungs
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Läsräten i Stock                  gericht ( Federal Administrative Court ) ( Germany ), for a
 holms lan ( Sweden ) for a preliminary ruling in the                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 administrative proceedings brought before that court by                court between Süleyman Eker and Land Baden-Württem
VAG Sverige AB — on the interpretation of Council                       berg, joined to the proceedings : the Oberbundesanwalt
 Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the                         beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht and the Vertreter des
 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                öfentlichen Interesses bei den Gerichten der allgemeinen
 to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers              Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in Baden-Württemberg — on
 ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 I, p. 96 )            the interpretation of the first indent of Article 6 ( 1 ) of
 and Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — the Court                    Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
 ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Mointinho de                       development of the Association, adopted by the Council
 Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                of Association established by the Association Agreement
 Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ),              between the European Economic Community and Turkey
 Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                 — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.
 Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 May 1997, in                   Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G.
 which it ruled :                                                       Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                        Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
  Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the
 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
  to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers,             The first indent of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of
 as amended by Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June                    19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
  1992, must be interpreted as precluding national                      adopted by the Council of Association established by the
  legislation under which motor vehicles covered by a valid             Association Agreement between the European Economic
  Community type-approval certificate cannot be registered               Community and Turkey must be interpreted as making the
  unless a national certificate is produced attesting to their           extension of a Turkish worker's residence permit in the
  conformity with national requirements concerning exhaust               host Member State subject to his having been legally
  emissions .                                                            employed continuously for one year with the same
                                                                         employer.
   (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case T-356/10: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Nike International v OHIM — Deichmann (VICTORY RED) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the Community word mark VICTORY RED — Earlier international and national word marks Victory — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2011 — Nike International v OHIM — Deichmann (VICTORY RED)
   (Case T-356/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the Community word mark VICTORY RED - Earlier international and national word marks Victory - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 331/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 May 2010 (Case R 1309/2009-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Deichmann SE and Nike International Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nike International Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Case C-445/93: European Parliament v. Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
 9 . 11 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/ 15
 Chamber, G. F. Mancini and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur),                 1 . Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; D.                          period the laws, regulations and administrative
 Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                          provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 1996 , in                    Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
 which it rules :                                                             coordination ofthe laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions relating to the application of review
 1 . By adopting four Ministry of Health Decrees, namely                     procedures to the award of public supply and public
      No 256 of 1 August 1990, No 257 of 1 August 1990 and                    works contracts, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      those of 1 September 1990 and 7 June 1991 , without                    fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 5 of that
      notifying them to the Commission at the draft stage, the                Directive;
      Italian Republic failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant
      to Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of                  2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the
      provision of information in the field of technical               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
      standards and regulations, as amended by Council                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 1989 , p . 33 .
      Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988.
2 . The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
(M OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
( 2 ) OJ No L 109 , 1983 , p . 8 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 81 , 1988 , p . 75 .                                                               of 11 July 1996
                                                                       in Case C-445/93 : European Parliament v. Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities, supported by the French
                                                                       Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                                Northern Ireland ( 1 )
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Case not proceeding to judgment)
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( 96/C 336/28 )
                     of 19 September 1996
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       in Case C-236/95 : Commission of the European
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( x )                    In Case C-445/93 : European Parliament ( Agents : J. Schoo
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure         and J. L. Rufas Quintana ) v. Commission of the European
to implement Directive 89/665/EEC within the prescribed                Communities ( Agents : J.-L . Dewost, D. Sorasio and P. van
period — Review procedures relating to public supply and              Nuffel ), supported by the French Republic ( Agents : J. F.
                    public works contracts)                            Dobelle, C. de Salins and C. Chavance ) and the United
                            ( 96/C 336/27)                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agent: J. E.
                                                                       Collins, assisted by The Right Honourable the Lord Rodger
                 (Language of the case: Greek)                         of Earlsferry, S. Richards and E. Sharpston ) — application
                                                                       for a declaration that the Commission has failed, contrary to
                                                                      the Treaty, to submit the necessary proposals for the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          establishment of freedom of movement for persons within
           published in the European Court Reports)                   the internal market, pursuant to Article 7a of the EC Treaty
                                                                      — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
In Case C-236/95 : Commission of the European                         President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic                and G. Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Republic ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoni-Rantou and Dimitra              Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.
Tsagkaraki ) — application for a declaration that by not              Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet
adopting or not notifying to the Commission within the                 ( Rapporteur ), Judges; A. La Pergola , Advocate-General; R.
prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative            Grass, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 1996, the
provisions necessary to comply fully with Council Directive           operative part of which is as follows :
89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating           1 . There is no need to give a decision on the
to the application of review procedures to the award of                      application.
public supply and public works contracts (2 ), the Hellenic
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Treaty and that Directive — the Court ( Fifth Chamber),               2 . The parties, including the interveners, are ordered to
                                                                             bear their own costs .
composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,                            (') OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 ( not for publication in the Court
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for                   Reports ).
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 ,
in which it:


title: Case T-77/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2010 — hofherr communikation GmbH v OHIM (NATURE WATCH) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark NATURE WATCH — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 March 2010 — hofherr communikation GmbH v OHIM (NATURE WATCH)
   (Case T-77/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark NATURE WATCH - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 113/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: hofherr communikation GmbH (Innsbruck, Austria) (represented by: S. Warbek, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2008 (Case R 1410/2008-1) concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of the word sign NATURE WATCH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders hofherr communikation GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case F-53/08: Action brought on 28 May 2008 — Bouillez and Others v Council

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/35

         Action brought on 28 May 2008 — Bouillez and Others v Council
   (Case F-53/08)
   (2008/C 183/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Vincent Bouillez (Overijse. Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority not to promote the applicants to grade AST 7 for the 2007 promotion exercise.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the appointing authority not to promote the applicants to grade AST 7 for the 2007 promotion exercise (2007 session) and, in so far as it is possible, the decisions to promote to that grade, for the same promotion exercise, the officials whose names appear in the list of promotions published in Staff Note No 136/07 of 16 July 2007 and who were performing duties at a lower level of responsibility than theirs;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-99/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon (France) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon (France) lodged on 19 February 2016 — Jean-Philippe Lahorgue v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
   (Case C-99/16)
   (2016/C 165/08)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jean-Philippe Lahorgue

      Defendants: Ordre des avocats du barreau de Lyon, Conseil national des barreaux ‘CNB’, Conseil des barreaux européens ‘CCBE’, Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg

      Question referred

   Is the refusal to issue a secure router for accessing the Private Virtual Network for Lawyers (RPVA) to a lawyer duly registered at the Bar of a Member State in which he wishes to practise his profession as a free provider of services contrary to Article 4 of Directive 77/249/EC, (1) on the basis that it constitutes a discriminatory measure which could impede the practice of his profession as a free provider of services?

      (1)  Council Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17).