title: Case T-333/01: Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer against Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 68/16                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.3.2002
Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel                         Finally, given the significance of the applicant in the market,
N.V. against the Commission of the European Communi-                     the multiplication factor applied as regards the amount of the
                                 ties                                    fine infringes Articles 81 and 83 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                         Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 (1), inasmuch as, according
                                                                         to the applicant, the Commission may only take into account
                         (Case T-330/01)                                 the seriousness and duration of the breach and may not take
                                                                         account of the economic weight attaching to the undertaking
                                                                         concerned. Moreover, an insufficient statement of reasons has
                          (2002/C 68/28)                                 been given for that multiplication factor.
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        (1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles [81]
                                                                             and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
                                                                             p. 87).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Akzo Nobel
N.V., established at Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by
Martijn van Empel and Christoforus Raymundus Albertus
Swaak, lawyers.
                                                                         Action brought on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                         against Council of the European Union and Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-333/01)
(1) annul Articles 3 and 4 of the Commission’s decision of
      2 October 2001 in so far as it concerns the applicant,
      alternatively annul Article 3 of the decision in conjunction                                 (2002/C 68/29)
      with point 388 in the preamble thereto, by declaring void
      the multiplication factor of 2,5 in so far as this is applied                         (Language of the case: French)
      to the applicant;
(2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 28 December 2001 by Karl L. Meyer, residing in Uturoa
                                                                         (French Polynesia), represented by Jean-Dominique des Arcis,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant is the parent company of Akzo Nobel Chemicals              The applicant claims that the Court should:
B.V., which was in turn involved, through Glucona N.V., in a
cartel relating to the sale of sodium gluconate. In the contested        —     declare that the Commission of the European Communi-
decision, the applicant was ordered to pay a fine pursuant to                  ties committed an administrative fault characterised by
Article 81 of the EC Treaty.                                                   serious failure to act and by the unlawful failure to fulfil
                                                                               its obligations to implement and monitor the proper
                                                                               application in French Polynesia of decisions on the
                                                                               association of the overseas countries and territories
According to the applicant, the Commission has infringed the                   (PTOMs);
principle of proportionality and Article 253 of the EC Treaty
by failing, when fixing the fine, to take sufficient account of
                                                                         —     declare that the European Commission committed an
the limited size of the product market and the significance of
                                                                               administrative fault by providing false information to the
each undertaking in that market.
                                                                               European Parliament regarding the origin of the funds
                                                                               borrowed from the SOCREDO development bank and
                                                                               the applicant’s rights under decisions on the association
The applicant further pleads infringement of Articles 81                       of the PTOMs, which have direct effect;
and 253 of the EC Treaty. According to the applicant, the
Commission has not shown that the applicant can be held                  —     declare that such failures have caused damage to the
liable for the offences committed by Glucona B.V. and the                      applicant which the European Council and the European
applicant’s subsidiary company.                                                Commission must make good;
 ---pagebreak--- 16.3.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/17
—      grant the applicant a period of 12 months to submit                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       figures for its claims;
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted on 26 September 2001 by
—      order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.                   the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                                ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                and opposition decision No 601/2000 of 28 March
                                                                                2000;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant is a smallholder in French Polynesia, where he
suffered damage as a result of the non-compliance in that
territory with Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (1) and
91/482/EEC (2) on the association of the PTOMs. The applicant             Pleas in law and main arguments
claims that the Commission has not fulfilled its obligations in
that it has not monitored sufficiently closely the local auth-
orities in French Polynesia and the SOCREDO development
bank with regard to compliance with Community law and
has not required the application and publication of the                   Applicant for the Com-        Chassot AG
abovementioned Council decisions. The Commission has thus                 munity trade mark:
infringed the principle of good administration and the principle
of good faith. Moreover, the applicant complains that he
                                                                          The Community trade           the verbal mark ‘HIPOVITON’ for
has been discriminated against by comparison with other
                                                                          mark applied for:             goods in Class 31 (feedingstuffs)
smallholders in French Polynesia.
                                                                          Proprietor of the trade-      the applicant
( 1) Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association
                                                                          mark right opposed in
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          the opposition proceed-
     Economic Community (OJ 1986 L 175, p. 1).                            ings:
(2) 91/482/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1991 on the association
     of the overseas countries and territories with the European          Trade-mark right oppo-        the German verbal mark ‘HIPPO-
     Economic Community (OJ 1991 L 263, p. 1).                            sed:                          VIT’ for goods in Class 31
                                                                                (feedingstuffs)
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                          Appeal:
Action brought on 24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfel-
de GmbH, Unternehmen für Ernährung, against the Office                    Grounds of claim:             —     infringement of Articles 8
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                                                         and 15 of Regulation (EC)
                             and Designs)                                                                     No 40/94 (1);
                                                                                —     misinterpretation of Arti-
                           (Case T-334/01)                                                                    cle 15 of the regulation;
                                                                                —     violation of the right to a fair
                            (2002/C 68/30)                                                                    hearing;
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                      —     infringement of the first and
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has                                             second       sentences        of
                                                                                Article 74(1) of the regu-
                         been drafted: German)
                                                                                lation;
                                                                                —     infringement of Article 73 of
                                                                                the regulation.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
24 December 2001 by MFE Marienfelde GmbH, Unternehmen                     (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
für Ernährung, of Hamburg (Germany), represented by Sabine                    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Rojahn and Stefan Freytag, lawyers. A further party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Chassot AG of
Belp (Switzerland).


title: Case T-508/13: Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/17

         Action brought on 20 September 2013 — Government of Malaysia v OHIM — Vergamini (HALAL MALAYSIA)
   (Case T-508/13)
   2013/C 352/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Government of Malaysia (Putrajaya, Malaysia) (represented by: R. Volterra, Solicitor, R. Miller, Barrister, V. von Bomhard and T. Heitmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paola Vergamini (Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 326/2012-1; and

               —

               Order that the costs of proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, if it joins as the intervener.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘HALAL MALAYSIA’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 18, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 169 343

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The non-registered figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘HALAL MALAYSIA’, which is well known in all 27 Member States of the European Union within the meaning of Article 8(2)(c) CTMR in conjunction with Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and for the purpose of Article 8(4) CTMR a non-registered figurative mark in the United Kingdom

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division): The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: H. & R. Ecroyd Holdings Ltd and John Rupert Ecroyd (Milk production quota scheme - Allocation of special reference quantities - Powers and/or duties of the Member States)

text:
 20 . 7 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 210/ 1
                                                                    I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                        of 6 June 1996
in Case C-101 /94: Commission of the European                          (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
              Communities v. Italian Republic ( ] )
              (Dealing in transférable securities)
                         ( 96/C 210/01 )
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                   ( Fifth Chamber )
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 6 June 1996
                                                                      in Case C-127/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
In Case C-101 /94 : Commission of the European                        the High Court of Justice, Queens Bench Division ): The
Communities ( Agents : Antonino Abate and Ben Smulders,               Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex
assisted by Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo ) v . Italian Republic        parte: H. 5c R. Ecroyd Holdings Ltd and John Rupert
(Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza , assisted by Ivo Maria                                            Ecroyd ( 1 )
Braguglia, Avvocato dello Stato ) — application for a                  (Milk production quota scheme — Allocation of special
declaration that, by restricting the activity of dealing in           reference quantities — Powers and/or duties ofthe Member
transferable securities ( apart from by banks ) to companies                                          States)
or firms whose registered office is in Italy, the Italian                                        ( 96/C 210/02 )
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52
and 59 of the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P.                              (Language of the case: English)
Puissochet ( Rapporteur ) and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J.
G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and M.                  In Case C-127/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Wathelet, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June            of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queens
1 996 , in which it:                                                  Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                      pending before that court between The Queen and the
                                                                      Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food , ex parte: H. &
                                                                      R. Ecroyd Holdings Ltd and John Rupert Ecroyd — on the
1 , declares that, by restricting the activity of dealing in          interpretation of Article 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) of Council Regulation
     transferable securities (apart from by banks) to                 ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules
     companies or firms whose registered office is in Italy, the      for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5 ( c ) of
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under      Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products
     Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty;                             sector ( OJ No L 90 , 1984 , p . 13 ), as amended by Council
 ---pagebreak--- No C 210/2            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20 . 7 . 96
Regulation ( EEC ) No 764/89 ( OJ No L 84, 1989 , p . 2 ) and          3 . Consideration of Article 3 (a), and in particular the
by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( OJ No L 150,                       second indent of the last subparagraph ofparagraph (1 ),
1991 , p . 35 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of:                    of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho                     Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 and Regulation (EEC)
de Almeida, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and                            No 1639/91 , in so far as that provision excludes
L. Sevon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                     producers finding themselves in the abovementioned
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June                   circumstances from the award of a special reference
1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                            quantity, has not revealed any factor ofsuch a kind as to
                                                                              affect its validity in the light of the principle of the
                                                                              protection of legitimate expectations.
As regards Ecroyd Limited
                                                                       (•) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
1 . The competent national authority had no duty under
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March
    1 984 adopting general rules for the application of the
    levy referred to in Article 5 (c) of Regulation (EEC)
    No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as
    amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of
    20 March 1 989, and in particular under Article 3 (a) (1 )
    thereof, to award a provisional special reference
    quantity to producers finding themselves in the
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    circumstances described under points (a) to (e) of
    Question 1 , nor did it have the power to do so .                                            ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 6 June 1996
2 . The competent national authority had no duty,                           in Case C-l 98/94 : Italian Republic v. Commission (^
    following the judgment of 3 December 1992 in Case                     (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1991 financial year)
    C-264/90 Wehrs v. Hauptzollamt Liineburg, to award a
                                                                                ( 96/C 210/03 )
    provisional special reference quantity to producers
    finding      themselves      in     the     abovementioned
    circumstances, nor did it have the power to do so.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
3 . Article 3 (a) (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as
    amended by Regulation (EEC) No 764/89, is invalid in               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    so far as it excludes producers finding themselves in the                     published in the European Court Reports)
    abovementioned circumstances from the award of a
    special reference quantity.
                                                                       In Case C-l 98/94 : Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto
                                                                       Leanza, assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli ) v . Commission of the
4 . Before the adoption of further Community legislation               European Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March, assisted
    intended to cure the invalidity found, the competent               by Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for the annulment of
    national authority has no duty to award a special                  Commission Decision C(94 ) 1011 final, of29 April 1994 on
    reference quantity to producers finding themselves in              the clearance of accounts of Italy for certain expenditure
    the abovementioned circumstances, nor does it have the
                                                                       financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and
    power to do so.                                                    Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee Section, for the
                                                                       financial year 1991 — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed
As regards Rupert Ecroyd                                               of: D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P.
                                                                       Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Léger,
1 . The competent national authority had no duty under                 Advocate-General; H. A. Rùhl , Principal Administrator, for
    Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by                          the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 1 996 , in which
    Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 and by Council                          it :
    Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 of 13 June 1991 , and in
    particular by the second indent of the last subparagraph
    of Article 3 (a) ( 1 ) thereof, to award a special reference       1 , dismisses the application;
    quantity to producers finding themselves in the
    circumstances described under points (a) to (k) of
    Question 1 , nor did it have the power to do so .                  2 , orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2 . The competent national authority had no duty,                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 254, 10 . 9 . 1994 .
    following the judgment in Wehrs, cited above, to award
    a special reference quantity to producers finding
    themselves in the abovementioned circumstances, nor
    did it have the power to do so .


title: Case T-360/13: Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — VECCO and Others v Commission (REACH — Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation — Uses or categories of uses exempted from the authorisation requirement — Concept of ‘existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance’ — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Rights of the defence — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 September 2015 — VECCO and Others v Commission
   (Case T-360/13) (1)

   ((REACH - Inclusion of chromium trioxide in the list of substances subject to authorisation - Uses or categories of uses exempted from the authorisation requirement - Concept of ‘existing specific Community legislation imposing minimum requirements relating to the protection of human health or the environment for the use of the substance’ - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Rights of the defence - Principle of sound administration))
   (2015/C 389/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) (Memmingen, Germany) and the other 185 applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to the judgment (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Talabér-Ritz and J. Tomkin, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Assogalvanica (Padua, Italy) and the 31 other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to the judgment (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem and J. Beck)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: W. Broere, M. Heikkilä and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 348/2013 of 17 April 2013 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) (OJ 2013 L 108, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Verein zur Wahrung von Einsatz und Nutzung von Chromtrioxid und anderen Chrom-VI-verbindungen in der Oberflächentechnik eV (VECCO) and the applicants whose names are listed in Annex I to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders Assogalvanica and the other interveners whose names are listed in Annex II to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-126/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public contracts — Waste transport services — Procedure without prior publication of a contract notice — Contract concluded by a contracting authority in relation to an economic activity subject to competition — Contract concluded by a contracting authority in order to be able to submit an offer in a tender procedure — Proof of the service provider's capabilities — Possibility of relying on the capabilities of a third party — Subcontracting — Consequences of a judgment finding a failure to fulfil an obligation)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-126/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public contracts - Waste transport services - Procedure without prior publication of a contract notice - Contract concluded by a contracting authority in relation to an economic activity subject to competition - Contract concluded by a contracting authority in order to be able to submit an offer in a tender procedure - Proof of the service provider's capabilities - Possibility of relying on the capabilities of a third party - Subcontracting - Consequences of a judgment finding a failure to fulfil an obligation)
   (2005/C 6/21)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-126/03: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 March 2003, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner) and Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing assisted by H.-J. Prieß) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and K. Schiemann, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, as the contract for the transport of waste from the discharge points in the Donauwald region to the Munich-North thermal power station was awarded by the City of Munich in breach of the procedural rules laid down in Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of that directive, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case C-297/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring B.V. v Orifarm A/S

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/34

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sø- og Handelsretten (Denmark) lodged on 18 June 2015 — Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring B.V. v Orifarm A/S
   (Case C-297/15)
   (2015/C 294/42)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Sø- og Handelsretten

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ferring Lægemidler A/S, acting on behalf of Ferring B.V.

      Defendant: Orifarm A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7(2) of Directive 2008/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks and the related case-law be interpreted as meaning that a trade mark proprietor may lawfully object to the continued marketing of a medicinal product by a parallel importer, where the importer has repackaged the medicinal product in a new, outer packaging and reaffixed the trade mark in a situation where the trade mark proprietor has marketed the medicinal product in the same volume and packet sizes in all EEA countries where the medicinal product is sold?

               2.

               Will the answer to the first question be different if the trade mark proprietor in both the country of export and the country of import has marketed the medicinal product in two different packet sizes (10-piece packets and 1-piece packets) and the importer has purchased 10-piece packets in the country of export and repackaged them in 1-piece packets, on which the trade mark has been reaffixed before the products are marketed in the country of import?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.


title: Case T-238/02: Action brought on 9 August 2002 by José Barbosa Gonçalves against Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.9.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case is contesting the decision to          By application of 15 April 2002 the applicant, a manufacturer
transfer him from the Commission’s delegation in Luanda to               of special glass, requested, pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regu-
the Directorate-General for Development in Brussels. That                lation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
decision is allegedly connected with illness caused by personal          the Council (1), access to documents relating to various State
conflicts in which he was involved within the said delegation            aid procedures. Two of those procedures concerned the
in Luanda.                                                               applicant itself as a presumed recipient of State aid; the others
                                                                         concerned one of its competitors on the special glass markets,
In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:                          the firm Schott Glass. The applicant’s action is directed at the
                                                                         Commission’s decision of 28 May 2002 in so far as it refuses
—     failure to provide a statement of reasons, inasmuch as the         to grant access to the documents in the aid procedures
      mere reference to the interests of the service cannot be           concerning the applicant itself and in procedures concerning
      regarded as satisfactory in that respect;                          Schott Glass and are already completed.
—     infringement of the principle of proper administration,            The applicant submits that the Commission’s refusal manifestly
      alternatively failure to discharge the duty to have regard         infringes Article 2(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/
      for the welfare and interests of officials;                        2001. The applicant had a right to access which was not
                                                                         restricted by Article 4 of the regulation. In particular, the
—     non-compliance with the principle that the interested
                                                                         Commission had not proved the existence of any specific
      party should be heard in advance of the adoption of a
                                                                         impairment of the protected interests set out in Article 4(2) of
      decision, inasmuch as the contested decision was taken
                                                                         the regulation.
      without any prior notice to the person concerned;
—     the decision at issue is indicative in several respects of a       Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission
      misuse of powers, since it is apparent from the overall            wrongly relied on the exception relating to the protection of
      circumstances of the case that the objective actually              the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. Referring
      pursued was not of a merely organisational nature but              to Article 4(7) of the regulation, the applicant submits that it
      was to distance the applicant from Angola and from the             has at the very least the right to access to documents in
      functions which he was responsible for performing there.           examination procedures which have already been completed.
                                                                         Moreover, it ought to have been possible for the Commission
                                                                         to grant the applicant access to a document in which business
                                                                         secrets had been obscured and thus to grant partial access in
                                                                         accordance with Article 4(6) of the regulation.
Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Technische Glaswer-                   Finally, the Commission infringed its obligation to state
ke Ilmenau GmbH against the Commission of the Euro-                      reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC, since it had merely
                        pean Communities                                 given a general statement of reasons.
                         (Case T-237/02)
                                                                         (1 ) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
                                                                              of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                         (2002/C 233/61)                                      European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
                                                                              2001 L 145 p. 43).
                   (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Technische                      Action brought on 9 August 2002 by José Barbosa
Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH, whose registered office is at                    Gonçalves against Commission of the European Com-
Ilmenau (Germany), represented by G. Schohe and Ch. Arhold,                                           munities
lawyers, acting as agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.                                                                                (Case T-238/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should                                                        (2002/C 233/62)
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 May 2002
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
      concerning the applicant’s application for access to
      documents — D(2002) 330168 — except for the part in
      which access is refused to documents directly connected
      with the pending aid procedure concerning Schott;                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              European Communities on 9 August 2002 by José Barbosa
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/36               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.9.2002
Gonçalves, residing in Viana do Castelo, represented by João               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Dias Gonçalves, lawyer.
                                                                           —     annul the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     in the alternative, declare, under Article 241 of the
                                                                                Treaty, unlawful and inapplicable Article 22 of Regulation
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                        No 4253/88 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of
      compensate him at a rate to be set by the Court but at no                  Regulation No 1866/90;
      less than EUR 1 016 200;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs;
—     order the Commission to publish the order against it in
      the European daily and weekly newspapers with the                    Pleas in law and main arguments
      greatest circulation.
                                                                           The present action has been brought against Commission
                                                                           Decision of 31 March 2000, 004484, fixing the final amount
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            in respect of the files ‘Public Bodies’ — P.O. 901010 I1,
                                                                           906022 I1, 906030 I6 and 936030 I6, concerning contri-
                                                                           butions by the European Social Fund. That decision reduced
                                                                           the ESF assistance initially granted to Italy by Decisions of
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges errors in the
                                                                           12 December 1990, C(90) 3017 and of 17 December 1990,
tests in General Competition COM/A/6/01, irregularities in
                                                                           C(90) 2682 and C(90) 2746, adopted pursuant to Article 14(3)
the marking of the tests, infringement of the rules of the
                                                                           of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December
competition, of the general principles of transparency, neu-
                                                                           1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation
trality and impartiality, and failure to treat the candidates
equally.                                                                   (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of
                                                                           the different Structural Funds between themselves and with
                                                                           the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                           existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1), in
In the applicant’s view, his legitimate professional expectations          respect of the financing of operational programmes concerning
were thus prejudiced, so that annulment of the competition
                                                                           Objectives 3 and 4, actions of the Economic Public Bodies to
would not suffice to make good the damage suffered. He                     be undertaken in the southern-central and southern regions,
therefore asks for the material and non-material damage                    and relating to structural action by the Bodies themselves in
suffered by him as a result of its conduct to be compensated,              the regions covered by Objective 1.
in particular loss of earnings, including the benefits which the
applicant should have obtained in all likelihood or probability.
                                                                           In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                           —     infringement of the rights of the defence, since at no time
                                                                                during the administrative procedure was it given an
                                                                                opportunity to make its views known either to the
                                                                                national authorities or to the Commission itself.
Action brought on 14 August 2002 by Ricostruzione                          —     misapplication of the relevant legislation, in particular of
Industriale (IRI) SpA against Commission of the European                         the provisions on ECU/national currency exchange rates
                           Communities                                           to be applied for the purpose of determining the avail-
                                                                                ability of financing for individual operational pro-
                                                                                grammes within the framework of the ESF, the initial
                         (Case T-249/02)
                                                                                request having been submitted in the national currency,
                                                                                which led to a reduction by comparison with the
                         (2002/C 233/63)                                         maximum payable amount under the original decision
                                                                                granting the funds.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                         —     the existence of manifest errors of assessment in
                                                                                implementing a number of deductions on final settlement
                                                                                of the operational programme which is covered by the
                                                                                contested decision. In particular, it contains a number of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        computational errors committed by the national auth-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       ority, when it drew up the request for the balance, which
European Communities on 14 August 2002 by Ricostruzione                          did not carry out the checks which it was required to do
Industriale (IRI) SpA, represented by Gian Michele Roberti,                      under the relevant Community legislation regarding ESF
Alessandra Franchi and Roberto De Lisa, lawyers.                                 assistance.


title: Case C-22/07: Action brought on 24 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/24

         Action brought on 24 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-22/07)
   (2007/C 56/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, and in any case, by failing to communicate them the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition into national law of Directive 2004/27/EC expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 136, 2004, p. 34.


title: Case C-282/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 April 2007 — Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-282/05 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) - Reimbursement of bank guarantee charges)
   (2007/C 96/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Holcim (Deutschland) AG, formerly Alsen AG (represented by: P. Niggemann and F. Wiemer, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, and G. Wilms, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 21 April 2005 in Case T-28/03 Holcim (Deutschland) v Commission, dismissing an action for damages which sought to obtain, following the annulment of the Commission's decision imposing a fine in a proceeding under Article 81 EC, the reimbursement of charges in respect of a bank guarantee lodged in order to avoid immediate payment of the fine in question.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Holcim (Deutschland) AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case T-543/11: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Ghreiwati v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/9

         Order of the General Court of 3 July 2012 — Ghreiwati v Council
   (Case T-543/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 273/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Emad Ghreiwati (Al Maliki, Syria) (represented by: P.-F. Gaborit, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.-M. Joséphidès and B. Driessen, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by S. Bartelt and E. Cujo, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 of 2 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 1), and of Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP of 2 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 228, p. 16) and, second, of Council Regulation (EU) No 950/2011 of 23 September 2011 amending Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 3), and of Council Decision 2011/628/CFSP of 23 September 2011 amending Decision 2011/273/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2011 L 247, p. 17), in so far as the applicant is named in the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action;

               2.

               The Council of the European Union is ordered to pay the costs;

               3.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-33/95: Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Former national expert on secondment - Daily subsistence allowance - Installation allowance - Reimbursement of removal expenses - Place of recruitment)

text:
  No C 54/ 18            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 2 . 97
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 12 December 1996                                                    of 12 December 1996
                                                                         in Case T-74/95 : Viriato Monteiro da Silva v. Commission
 in    Case    T-33/95 :   Maria     Lidia  Lozano    Palacios  v.
                                                                                of the European Communities (')
         Commission of the European Communities (')
                                                                          (Officials — Former national expert on secondment —
  (Officials — Former national expert on secondment —                    Daily subsistence allowance — Installation allowance —
 Daily subsistence allowance — Installation allowance —                                        Place of recruitment)
  Reimbursement of removal expenses — Place of                                                       ( 97/C 54/27 )
                              recruitment)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                             ( 97/C 54/26 )
                                                                         In Case T-74/95 : Viriato Monteiro da Silva, an official of
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                  (Language of the case: French)                         Brussels, represented by Thierry Demaseure and Ariane
                                                                         Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, and, in the oral procedure, by
                                                                        Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
 In Case T-33/95 : Maria Lidia Lozano Palacios, an official              Sari , 1 rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
 of the Commission of the European Communities, residing                 Communities ( Agents : Julian Currall and Denis
 in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, of the                    Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the decision
 Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              of the Commission of 6 April 1994 fixing Brussels as the
 the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 rue Glesener, v.              applicant's place of recruitment and refusing to grant him
 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Julian               the installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance
 Currall and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for               — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),
 annulment of the decision of the Commission of 12 April                composed of: H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy
 1994 fixing Brussels as the applicant's place of                       and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
 recruitment and refusing to grant her the installation                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 allowance , to reimburse her removal expenses and to pay                12 December 1996 , in which it:
 the daily subsistence allowance and, second, for an order
 requiring the Commission to make those payments — the                   1 . Annuls the Commission s decision of 6 April 1994
 Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of:                     inasmuch as it fixes Brussels as the applicant 's place of
H. Kirschner, President, and C. W. Bellamy and A.                             recruitment and refuses to grant him the installation
 Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,                  allowance provided for by Article 5 (1 ) of Annex VII
 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December                       to the Staff Regulations and the daily subsistence
 1996 , in which it:                                                          allowance provided for by Article 10 (1 ) of that
                                                                              Annex .
                                                                       2 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
 1 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of 12 April 1994,
                                                                        (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
      inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the
      installation allowance provided for by Article 5 ( 1 ) of
      Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2 . Orders the Commission to pay the said allowance to                                       of 12 December 1996
      the applicant, together with default interest at the rate        in Case T-99/95 : Peter Esmond Stott v. Commission of the
      of 8% per annum from the date when it became                                         European Communities (')
      payable, in accordance with Annex VII to the Staff
      Regulations.                                                      (JET Joint Undertaking — Person claiming the status of a
                                                                                member of the temporary staff)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/28 )
3 . Dismisses the remainder of the action.                                              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       In Case T-99/95 : Peter Esmond Stott, represented by
                                                                       Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri Thompson, Barrister, of
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to               the Bar of England and Wales, having an address for
     pay one third of the applicant 's costs. The applicant is         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
      ordered to bear two thirds of her own costs.                     Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities ( Agents : Hans Gerald
                                                                       Grassland and Julian Currall ) — application for
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                       annulment of the decision of 28 September 1994 by which
                                                                       the Commission rejected the applicant's complaint against
                                                                       a decision of the Director of JET of 13 June 1994 refusing


title: Case C-444/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the case of J.E. van den Hout-van Ejnsbergen against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Leiden

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the case of J.E. van den Hout-van Ejnsbergen against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Leiden
   (Case C-444/04)
   (2005/C 6/50)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court), Third Chamber (Netherlands) of 15 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J.E. van den Hout-van Ejnsbergen against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Leiden on the following question:
   Must Article 13(A)(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive (1) be construed as meaning that psychotherapeutic treatments provided by a person carrying on a profession who satisfies the legal requirements for registration listed in paragraph 3.1, and is registered in the Register of Psychotherapists, are exempt from VAT, even where those interventions cannot be subsumed within the exercise, by the person carrying out those interventions, of a medical or paramedical profession as defined by the Member State concerned?

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 4 of Madrid by order of that court of 30 May 1997 in the case of Teresa Fernández de Bobadilla against (1) Museo Nacional del Prado, (2) Ministerio Fiscal and (3) Comité de Empresa del Museo del Prado (Case C-234/97)

text:
No C 252/20             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                            16 . 8 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo                     — FF 103 286 730 eligible expenditure corresponding
Social No 4 of Madrid by order of that court of 30 May                           to intervention measures concerning the public
1997 in the case of Teresa Fernandez de Bobadilla against                         storage of cereals,
( 1 ) Museo Nacional del Prado, (2 ) Ministerio Fiscal and
          ( 3 ) Comite de Empresa del Museo del Prado                      — FF 720 720 eligible expenditure under the export
                                                                                refund system in respect of an export operation of
                         ( Case C-234/97)                                         73,5 tonnes of processed cheese for Saudi Arabia ,
                           ( 97/C 252/39 )
                                                                      — in         the  alternative,    consider    the   correction        of
                                                                            FF 103 286 730 concerning the public storage of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      cereals to be disproportionate in amount,
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo
Social No 4 ( Social Court No 4 ) of Madrid of 30 May                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
1997, received at the Court Registry on 26 June 1997, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Teresa Fernandez de               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Bobadilla against ( 1 ) Museo Nacional del Prado, ( 2 )
Ministerio Fiscal and ( 3 ) Comite de Empresa del Museo               ( As regards expenditure in the cereal sector )
del Prado on the following question:
                                                                      — France would put forward the same pleas as it did in
                                                                            Case C-232/96 ( 2 ).
Does the provision contained in the Collective Agreement
of an Autonomous Organization of the Spanish State                    ( As regards the application of the export refund system in
which requires, for pursuit of the profession of restorer (a          respect of consignment of processed cheese exported to
non-regulated profession), prior validation of the academic           Saudi Arabia )
qualification obtained in another Community country —
such validation involving a comparison of the study                   — Breach of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of
programmes in Spain and in the other country and the                        21 April 1970 on the financing of the common
passing of theoretical and practical tests in the subjects in               agricultural policy ( 3 ): the export operation took place
the Spanish programme of studies which do not appear in                     in accordance with the Community rules in force, in
the programme of studies of the other Community country                     particular in compliance with Articles 5 and 13 of
in question — infringe the right to freedom of movement                     Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 3665/87 of
for workers ?                                                               27 November 1987 laying down common detailed
                                                                            rules for the application of the system of export
                                                                            refunds on agricultural products (4 ). In the absence of
                                                                            Community standards, the Member States are
                                                                            competent to define the ' sound and fair marketable
                                                                            quality' of products . The French Commission
                                                                            Interministerielle     de   Coordination     des      Controles
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the French Republic                       ( Interministerial Commission for Coordinating
    against the Commission of the European Communities                      Controls ) considered that the criteria for determining
                           Case C-235/97 )                                  that the product in question was not of sound and fair
                                                                            marketable quality were not satisfied. The cheese was
                           ( 97/C 252/40 )                                  destroyed in order to preserve the product's brand
                                                                            image after the customs formalities had been
                                                                            completed and despite the fact that the Saudi
An action against the Commission of the European                            authorities had not expressed any reservations on
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                      importation.
27 June 1997 by the French Republic, represented by
Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director of the Legal                 H OJ No L 139, 30 . 5 . 1997, p . 30 .
Affairs Directorate at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and           (2 ) OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 , p. 9 .
Frederic Pascal, Attache from the Central Administration              (3 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 ( 1 ), p. 218 .
                                                                      (4 ) OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
in the same Department, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B
Boulevard Joseph II.
The French Republic claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret
                                                                      by order of 24 June 1997 in the case of Skatteministeriet
— declare null and void Commission Decision 97/333/EC                            v. Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet Codan
      of 23 April 1997 (') on the clearance of the accounts                                     ( Case C-236/97)
      presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/41 )
      expenditure for 1993 on the Guarantee Section of the
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
      ( EAGGF), inasmuch as that decision disallows for               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      France :                                                        European Communities by order of 24 June 1997 from


title: Case C-301/05 P: Order of the Court of 11 October 2007 — Hans Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word sign ROCKBASS — Refusal to register — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/24

         Order of the Court of 11 October 2007 — Hans Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-301/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word sign ‘ROCKBASS’ - Refusal to register - No need to adjudicate)
   (2007/C 315/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hans Peter Wilfer (represented by: A. Kocklauner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Schennen, O. Montalto and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 8 June 2005 in Case T-315/03 Wilfer v OHIM by which the Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision refusing to register the mark ‘ROCKBASS’ — Descriptive character of the trade mark
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by Mr Wilfer.

               2.

               Mr Wilfer is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281 of 12.11.2005.


title: Case F-118/07: Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/49

         Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-118/07)
   (2007/C 315/94)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the amount of EUR 1 000, for non-material damage, including damage to his health, in the period from 8 September 2006 to 7 October 2006 caused to him by the fact that, until the latter date, the Commission had failed to adopt a lawful decision on his application of 7 March 2005 for a finding that his illness was occupational in nature and annul to that extent the Commission's decisions to the contrary of 12 January 2007, 26 February 2007 and 20 July 2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the amount of at least EUR 10 000 for material damage and non-material damage, including damage to his health which the applicant suffered between 1 November 2006 and 31 December 2006 as a result of unlawful conduct on the part of the Commission and annul to that extent the Commission's decisions to the contrary of 12 January 2007, 26 February 2007 and 20 July 2007;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay interest for delayed payment on the amounts due under the above heads of claim, for the period from 26 February 2007 to the date on which payment is actually made, at a rate of 2 % per year above the main refinancing operations rate fixed by the European Central Bank for the period in question;

               —

               Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his claim for damages, the applicant relies on the fact that the Commission and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) committed a large number of administrative errors and unlawful acts in regard to him in the years from 2000 to 2006. That relates, in particular, to his work environment and mobbing in the workplace, the treatment of his whistle-blowing, the way in which the procedures for assessments and promotions were carried out, the unlawful communication of his personal data, obstruction of his attempts to obtain an explanation for, and proof of, those infringements of the law and the circumstances surrounding the unlawful and delayed processing of his applications under Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (Staff Regulations)
   The applicant claims that the defendant thereby infringed the rules concerning the protection of health, Article 255 EC, Articles 1, 3, 8 and Article 41 et seq of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Articles 8 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Regulations Nos 1049/2001 and 45/2001, Articles 11a, 12, 22a, 22b, 24, 25, 26, 26a, 43, 45, 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations, the legal instruments on the basis of which OLAF was set up and, in particular, the duty of care and the prohibition of arbitrary action.
   The defendant thereby caused the alleged material and non-material damage, since, as the defendant has accepted in the interim in the context of the procedure under Articles 73 and 78 of the Staff Regulations, the applicant became ill as a result of those administrative errors and was ultimately invalided. The unlawful and delayed execution of the abovementioned procedure caused him additional non-material damage.


title: Case C-89/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-83/10 Riva Fire v Commission

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/24

         Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation, against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 9 December 2014 in Case T-83/10 Riva Fire v Commission
   (Case C-89/15 P)
   (2015/C 146/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Riva Fire SpA, in liquidation (represented by: M. Merola, M. Pappalardo, T. Ubaldi and M. Toniolo, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               primarily, set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as the General Court holds that the appellant’s rights of the defence have not been infringed and, consequently, annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside only the part of the judgment under appeal which fixes the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant at 3 % and, consequently, exercising its unlimited jurisdiction under Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), either reduce the fine imposed on the appellant by the highest amount it deems appropriate or refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs, including those pertaining to the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               incidentally, declare that the procedure followed before the General Court infringed the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in so far as the General Court disregarded the rule that it must adjudicate within a reasonable time.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal.

               1.

                  First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when assessing whether the procedural rules laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004
                   (2)
                  and the appellant’s rights of the defence had been infringed

               The General Court erred in law in holding that the comparisons made by the appellant between the contested decision and the Commission’s decision of 2002 were irrelevant and in concluding that the Commission was not obliged to issue a new statement of objections allowing the undertakings concerned to comment on the facts at issue.

               2.

                  Second ground of appeal: the General Court erred in law and provided an inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal when determining the final amount of the fine

               When re-determining the amount of the fine, the General Court exercised its unlimited jurisdiction in a way which was incorrect in two respects:

                           (i)

                           it is not possible to ascertain from the grounds of the judgment under appeal whether, in reducing the amount of the fine by 3 %, the General Court gave due consideration to the fact that the infringement imputable to the appellant was less serious and of shorter duration;

                           (ii)

                           the judgment under appeal is contradictory and vitiated by errors of law in so far as it extends the liability for other undertakings’ conduct between 25 November 1997 and 30 November 1998 to the appellant and implicitly imposes such liability on that company for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine.

               3.

                  Third ground of appeal: the General Court contradicted itself and erred in law in the part of the judgment under appeal in which it categorised the appellant as a party to the December 1998 agreement and therefore included that company in the cartel for the purposes of determining the amount of the fine

               The General Court erred in law in giving it to be understood that the appellant was involved in the December 1998 agreement on sales quotas without acknowledging the fact that, during the period in which the agreement was devised, the appellant disassociated itself from the part of the cartel responsible for that agreement. That error of law affected the computation of the basic amount of the fine in terms of determining the seriousness and the duration of the infringement imputable to the appellant.

               4.

                  Fourth ground of appeal: the General Court failed to provide a statement of reasons in relation to the impact of the involvement of the appellant’s directors on the increase in the starting amount of the fine

               The General Court does not explain what evidence it used as its basis for concluding that the involvement of the appellant’s directors was not a decisive factor in increasing the basic amount of the fine. If the General Court had established that the multiplier applied to the basic amount of the fine imposed on the appellant had been calculated partly on the basis of the involvement of that undertaking’s directors, it should have annulled the Commission’s decision and, consequently, reduced the amount of the fine.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).


title: Case T-59/99: Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Ventouris Group Enterprises SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.5.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 136/17
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA                        Action brought on 1 March 1999 by Ventouris Group
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     Enterprises SA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                         (Case T-56/99)                                                           (Case T-59/99)
                        (1999/C 136/37)                                                          (1999/C 136/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 1 March 1999 by Ventouris
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Group Enterprises SA whose registered office is in Panama,
European Communities on 25 February 1999 by Marlines SA                  represented by Maria Proestou and Maria Velmakhou, of the
whose registered office is in Monrovia, Liberia, represented by          Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Dimitrios Papatheofanous, of the Athens Bar, with an address             Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt,
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Paul Attallas (J. P.          L-2010 Luxembourg.
Lorang SA) route de Trèves, L-1010 Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claim that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the Commission decision of 9 December 1998
                                                                             relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty
— annul the Commission decision of 9 December 1998                           (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);
    relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the Treaty
    (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);                                     — in the alternative, amend the contested decision in the
                                                                             applicant’s favour so that any fine imposed on it is the
                                                                             lowest provided for;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         — in the further alternative, amend the contested decision in
                                                                             the applicant’s favour to take account of the extenuating
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                     circumstances put forward;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— The applicant, being a management company, did not
    have the power to enter into an agreement on prices
    with competing companies and for that reason did not                 Grounds for annulment and main arguments
    participate in discussions of that nature or send documents
    to the other companies accepting their views on the                  — The fact that the Commission found that the applicant was
    carriage charges.                                                        party together with other companies to an agreement or
                                                                             agreements for the joint setting of the carriage charge for
                                                                             lorries is attributable to an error by the Commission in
— The pricing policy which the applicant pursued during the                  assessing the submissions made, and the evidence adduced,
    period at issue was independent and different from that of               by the applicant. If the Commission had not erred in that
    the other companies.                                                     way, it would have accepted that the applicant had no
                                                                             reason at all to be party to agreement or agreements of
                                                                             such a kind.
— While the Commission accepts in Article 1(2) of the
    contested decision that the applicant was not in any way
    party to agreements amounting to infringements of Article            — The Commission erred in its assessment both of the factors
    85 (1) of the Treaty, it finds in Article 1(2), in vague terms           selected by it and of the submissions put forward, and
    and mistakenly, that the applicant infringed that provision.             evidence adduced, by the applicant in finding that the
                                                                             applicant was party with other companies to an agreement
                                                                             for the joint setting of the carriage charges for the
— The Commission manifestly erred as to the facts, and either                Patras-Bari route.
    the contested decision lacks reasoning so far as concerns
    the applicant or its reasoning is inadequate.                        — Even if it is accepted that specific documents taken into
                                                                             account by the Commission show the applicant was party
                                                                             to an agreement or agreements contrary to Article 85 (1)
                                                                             of the Treaty, those documents were not obtained lawfully
                                                                             by the Commission, and thus must be disregarded by the
                                                                             Court of First Instance.
 ---pagebreak--- C 136/18               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.5.1999
— In the alternative, the Commission calculated arbitrarily              Grounds for annulment and main arguments
    the period during which the applicant is alleged to have
    been party to an agreement or agreements for the joint
    setting of the carriage charges.                                     — Manifest errors by the Commission in its assessment of the
                                                                             facts and with regard to the applications of Article 85 (1)
                                                                             of the Treaty and of Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86.
— Assuming that the applicant was party to such an agree-
    ment, that agreement is not covered by the prohibition in                Insufficient reasoning in relation to the Commission’s view
    Article 85 (1) of the Treaty, being an agreement of minor                that the applicant had not lost its independence so far as
    significance, because as the Commission acknowledged,                    concerns the setting of carriage charges in the international
    the applicant is a small or medium-sized enterprise.                     section of the timetable.
    Furthermore, the Commission contradicted itself because,
    while it accepted that the infringement had limited impact,              The above defects in the contested decision lead to the
    it stated that the agreement significantly impeded compe-                conclusion that the Commission misused its power to
    tition in a substantial part of the relevant market.                     impose fines.
— In the further alternative, the amount of the fine imposed             — Manifest error by the Commission in its assessment of
    on the applicant offends against the principle of pro-                   the content of the letters from the Greek Permanent
    portionality.                                                            Representative’s Office and the Greek Ministry for
                                                                             Merchant Shipping and failure to set out the reasons why
                                                                             it ignored the applicant’s analysis of those letters.
                                                                         — Manifest error by the Commission relating to the appli-
                                                                             cation of Community law and insufficient reasoning: the
                                                                             consultation between the companies involved does not fall
                                                                             within the scope of Article 85 (1) of the Treaty.
                                                                         — The fine which the Commission imposed on the applicant
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi                           amounts to a misuse of powers.
Naftiliaki AE against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                         — In the alternative, that fine is disproportionately high.
                         (Case T-65/99)
                                                                         — Finally, it is alleged that the illegality of the inspection
                                                                             carried out by the Commission at the offices of the
                        (1999/C 136/39)                                      company ETA constitutes a substantive infringement.
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 1999 by Grammes Strintzi
Naftiliaki AE, whose registered office is in Piraeus, Greece,            Action brought on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes Grammes
represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Basilios                  ANE against the Commission of the European Communi-
Akritidis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                                            ties
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 rue
Mathias Hardt, L-2010 Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-66/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     (1999/C 136/40)
— annul in its entirety the Commission decision of 9
    December 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85                                 (Language of the case: Greek)
    of the Treaty (IV/34.466 — Greek Ferry Boats);
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— in the alternative, annul Article 1 of that decision with
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    regard to the duration of the infringement of Article 85 (1)
                                                                         European Communities on 4 March 1999 by Minoikes
    of the Treaty so far as concerns the applicant, or in any
                                                                         Grammes ANE whose registered office is in Heraklion, Crete
    event reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
                                                                         (Greece), represented by Ilias Soufleros, of the Athens Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue, L-1661 Luxembourg.


title: Case T-431/15: Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Takko (FRUIT)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/39

         Action brought on 30 July 2015 — Fruit of the Loom v OHIM — Takko (FRUIT)
   (Case T-431/15)
   (2015/C 320/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fruit of the Loom, Inc. (Bowling Green, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Takko Holding GmbH (Telgte, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘FRUIT’ — Community trade mark registration No 5 077 508

      Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 1641/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-510/09: Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2011 — V v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Recruitment — Refusal of appointment on grounds of failure to meet physical fitness requirements necessary for the performance of the functions — Duty on the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 June 2011 — V v Commission
   (Case T-510/09) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Recruitment - Refusal of appointment on grounds of failure to meet physical fitness requirements necessary for the performance of the functions - Duty on the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)
   2011/C 219/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: V (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Curral and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 21 October 2009 in Case F-33/08 V v Commission ECR II-0000 seeking the annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 21 October 2009 in Case F-33/08 V v Commission to the extent that the Civil Service Tribunal omitted to rule on a plea in law raised by Ms V at the hearing, alleging that the president of the medical committee was not enrolled in the Belgian Medical Association;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by Ms V before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-33/08;

               4.

               Orders Ms V to bear her own costs and those incurred by the European Commission at the present instance. Further orders the costs incurred at first instance, in the case which gave rise to the judgment in V v Commission, to be borne in accordance with the ruling given in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.