title: Case T-98/01: Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Filippos Pierros v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 186/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       30.6.2001
—     Infringement of the principle of equal treatment                    —     Order the defendant to pay the balance of pay corre-
                                                                                sponding to the difference between the remuneration of
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-                  a person in Grade A, Step 3, and that of a person in the
            tion board varied and it was unable to carry out a                  grade above, together with interest thereon at the rate of
            valid comparison of the candidates;                                 8 % per annum as from 1 March 2000;
      (b) infringement because of the time which had passed
            since the original test period of December 1997;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay damages, calculated pro-
      (c)   infringement because the applicant (and he alone)                   visionally on an ex aequo et bono basis, as EUR 1;
            was examined by all the regular and substitute
            members of the selection board;
                                                                          —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
      (d) infringement regarding the ratio of members of
            the selection board appointed by the appointing
            authority to members appointed by the personnel
            committee;
—     Infringement of the rules governing the operation of
      selection boards                                                    Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
      (a)   infringement because the composition of the selec-
            tion board varied;
      (b) infringement because the regular and substitute
            members participated on the selection board simul-            The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
            taneously;                                                    to classify him in Grade A 5, step 3. He contends that the
                                                                          appointing authority did not comply with Article 31(2) and
      (c)   infringement because the requirement for impar-               Article 32 of the Staff Regulations. According to the applicant,
            tiality was not observed.                                     the appointing authority took no account of his experience or
                                                                          his exceptional qualifications, nor of the specific requirements
                                                                          of the service, when deciding on his grade and the step.
Claim for compensation
The sum sought by the applicant in compensation amounts to
EUR 50 000 .
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of non-
                                                                          discrimination by the appointing authority. He was classified
                                                                          in Grade A 5, Step 3, despite his experience or his exceptional
                                                                          qualifications, yet other persons, without exceptional qualifi-
                                                                          cations, were classified in the same grade and step. Likewise,
                                                                          there was discrimination between the applicant and the
                                                                          other persons to whom the appointing authority applied
                                                                          Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations even though the profile
Action brought on 4 May 2001 by Filippos Pierros v                        of such persons was less exceptional. According to the
          Commission of the European Communities                          applicant, the principle of non-discrimination is not upheld by
                                                                          Articles 31 and 32 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
                                                                          alleges discrimination between persons who have acquired
                          (Case T-98/01)                                  experience within the institutions and thous who have acquired
                                                                          experience outside the Communities as far as deciding on a
                         (2001/C 186/27)                                  person’s grade and step is concerned.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant also alleges infringement of the duty to have
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 regard for the interests of its staff, infringement of the rules on
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 4 May              the free movement of persons and, finally, a breach of the
2001 by Filippos Pierros, residing in Brussels, represented by            obligation to state reasons.
the lawyers Georges Vandersanden and Laue Levi.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 June
      2000 classifying the applicant in Grade 5, Step 3, and, so
      far as may be necessary, annul the implied decision
      rejecting the applicant’s complaint;


title: Case C-265/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 29 May 2012 — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 29 May 2012 — Citroën Belux NV v Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)
   (Case C-265/12)
   2012/C 258/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Citroën Belux NV

      Respondent: Federatie voor Verzekerings- en Financiële Tussenpersonen (FvF)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, (2) which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service?

               2.

               Must Article 56 TFEU, concerning the freedom to provide services, be interpreted as precluding a provision, such as Article 72 WMPC, which — subject to the cases which are exhaustively listed in the law — generally prohibits any combined offer to the consumer as soon as at least one component is a financial service?

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

      (2)  Wet betreffende marktpraktijken en consumentenbescherming (Belgian Law on Market Practices and Consumer Protection).


title: Case T-271/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2010 — H v Council and Others (Application for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — National official seconded to the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina — Decision to redeploy and downgrade — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — Lack of urgency)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/36

         Order of the President of the General Court of 22 July 2010 — H v Council and Others
   (Case T-271/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - National official seconded to the European Union Police Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina - Decision to redeploy and downgrade - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - Lack of urgency)
   2010/C 246/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: H (Catania, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Velardo, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and G. Marhic, acting as Agents) and European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the decision of 7 April 2010 of the Head of the European Union Police Mission (EUPM) in Bosnia and Herzegovina having the effect of downgrading and redeploying the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Council of the European Union and the European Commission are considered to be the only defendants.

               2.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-280/02: Action brought on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.11.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 289/29
of the European Communities on 10 September 2002 by                       Communities on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and
Dyson Limited, Malmesbury, Wiltshire (United Kingdom),                    Others, represented by M.J. van Dam and R.D. Ouwerling.
represented by D. Barron, C. Jones and C. Loweth, Lawyers.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) Annul the Decision of the European Commission of
—     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the                      16 July 2002 (E1/L 02157 D(2002) 11796;
      Office of 2 July 2002 (Case R655/2001-1),
—     remit the decision to the Board for further consideration           (2) Order the defendants to pay the costs.
      in respect of the other absolute grounds of refusal raised
      by the examiner under Articles 7(1)(b) and 7(3) of
      Regulation No 40/94,
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                          The applicants own the inland waterway vessel Factotum. In
                                                                          1997 the mid and bow sections of the Factotum were replaced.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           At the same time the tonnage of the Factotum was increased
                                                                          through lengthening the mid and bow sections. The old mid
                                                                          and bow sections were left unused by the applicants. The
Trade Mark:                   ‘Feature of goods’ consisting of            original plans to make this segment into a pusher craft were
                              ‘a transparent bin or collection            not put into effect because of a possible old-for-new obligation
                              chamber forming part of an exter-           pursuant to Regulation No 1101/89 ( 1).
                              nal surface of a vacuum cleaner’
                              — Application No 522144
                                                                          However, the Netherlands Fund imposed a levy on the
Goods and services:           ‘Apparatus for cleaning, polishing
                              and shampooing floors and car-              applicants pursuant to the old-for-new rule in Regu-
                              pets; vacuum cleaners; carpet               lation 1101/89. According to the applicants, the Factotum
                                                                          was hereby regarded as a newly constructed motor-vessel.
                              shampooers; floor polishers; parts
                              and fittings for all the aforesaid
                              goods’ in Class 7 of the Nice
                              classification).                            The applicants then asked the Commission how Article 8
                                                                          of Regulation 1101/89 should be applied in the specific
Decision       challenged     Refusal by the examiner to regis-           circumstances. The applicants’ present action contests the
before the Board of           ter.                                        interpretation given by the Commission.
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                 Misinterpretation                   of      The applicants submit that the alterations to the Factotum did
                              Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation No            not constitute a newly constructed vessel or any of the other
                              40/94.                                      cases set out in Article 8 of Regulation 1101/89. According to
                                                                          the applicants, the replacement of the section of the Factotum
                                                                          increases the total capacity of inland waterway vessels only in
                                                                          so far as it lengthens the Factotum. In other words, the old-
                                                                          for-new obligations should have been limited to the additional
                                                                          tonnage.
Action brought on 15 September 2002 by J.J. Pikaart and                   The applicants also submit that if the old mid and bow section
Others against Commission of the European Communities                     were to be converted to a pusher vessel, that is no reason to
                                                                          impose old-for-new obligation in respect of the motor-vessel
                                                                          tonnage of the Factotum. The applicants submit that this
                        (Case T-280/02)
                                                                          extension concerns pusher vessel tonnage for which the old-
                                                                          for-new obligations are less severe than those for motor-vessel
                        (2002/C 289/54)                                   tonnage.
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1101/89 of 27 April 1989 on
                                                                               structural improvements in inland waterway transport (OJ L 116,
                                                                               p. 25).
An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case T-299/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Carles Dedeu i Fontcuberta against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 289/38               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.11.2002
In addition, the contested act infringes the principles of the            —     infringement of the principle of non-discrimination,
protection of legitimate expectations and of proportionality,                   inasmuch as the case involves a difference in treatment
in so far as the Italian State has been ordered by the defendant                between personal situations which are substantially the
to recover the alleged aid.                                                     same, since no account has been taken, for the purposes
                                                                                of calculating the reference period, of the periods of work
                                                                                completed, prior to their engagement, by certain officials
                                                                                employed in Brussels in offices of German Länder or of
                                                                                United Kingdom federations.
Action brought on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero                           The applicant also pleads failure to comply with the obligation
Romeu against the Commission of the European Com-                         to provide a statement of reasons.
                             munities
                         (Case T-298/02)
                         (2002/C 289/68)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                        Action brought on 30 September 2002 by Carles Dedeu i
                                                                          Fontcuberta against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (Case T-299/02)
European Communities on 1 October 2002 by Anna Romero
Romeu, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-
Gallardo Gil-Fournier and Javier Guillem-Carrau, lawyers.                                          (2002/C 289/69)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 June
      2002 in so far as it does not recognise the applicant’s
      entitlement to the expatriate allowance and, consequently,          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      her entitlement to the other associated allowances in               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      accordance with the decision in Lozano;                             European Communities on 30 September 2002 by Carles
                                                                          Dedeu i Fontcuberta, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represent-
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                           ed by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and J. Guillem-Carrau,
                                                                          lawyers.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the present action, the applicant, an official of the defendant        —     annul the decision of 23 September 2002, implicit in the
institution, is contesting the appointing authority’s decision                  Commission’s silence, rejecting complaint 275/02, and
refusing to recognise her entitlement to the expatriation                       refusing to acknowledge his right to the expatriation
allowance (Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations); in                 allowance and, therefore, other associated benefits, in
the applicant’s view, that allowance is due to her inasmuch as                  accordance with the judgment in Lozano;
her habitual residence and centre of interests during the
relevant period under the Staff Regulations was Barcelona and             —     order the Commission to pay the full costs.
not Brussels.
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     commission of a manifest error of assessment of the facts,
      inasmuch as, first, the contested decision did not treat the
      work done for the representative office of a Spanish                The pleas in law and main arguments have already been put
      Autonomous Community in Brussels as ‘work done for                  forward in Case T-298/02 Ana Herrero Romeu v Commission.
      another State’ and, second, it failed to take account of the
      applicant’s personal situation as regards lasting links with
      the country of employment;


title: Case T-447/07: Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Scovill Fasteners v Commission

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/31

         Action brought on 5 December 2007 — Scovill Fasteners v Commission
   (Case T-447/07)
   (2008/C 37/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Scovill Fasteners, Inc. (Clarkesville, United States) (represented by: O. Dugardyn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 19 September 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners);

               —

               in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4257 final of 19 September 2007 in Case COMP/E-1/39.168 — PO/Hard Haberdashery: Fasteners, by which the Commission found that the applicant's subsidiary, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC by agreeing on coordinated price increases and exchanging confidential information on prices and the implementation of price increases.
   In support of its application, the applicant contends that the Commission erroneously considered that the applicant forms a single economic entity with its subsidiary and that the applicant should not be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the fine imposed on its subsidiary for the subsidiary's alleged infringements.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to prove to the requisite standard that the applicant's subsidiary participated in the cartel after 1997.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission:

               —

               committed manifest errors when calculating the fine,

               —

               did not take all relevant circumstances into account when assessing the duration and the gravity of the infringements; and

               —

               omitted to assess the attenuating circumstances, such as the minor role played by the applicant's subsidiary.


title: Case T-149/09: Action brought on 10 April 2009 — Dover v Parliament

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/53

         Action brought on 10 April 2009 — Dover v Parliament
   (Case T-149/09)
   2009/C 141/108
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Densmore Ronald Dover (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vaughan, QC Barrister, M. Lester, Barrister and M. French, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of contested decision;

               —

               measures of organisation pursuant to Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, as specified in the application;

               —

               order that the Parliament pays the applicant’s costs on this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application the applicant seeks the annulment of Parliament Decision D(2009) 4639 of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of the parliamentary assistance allowance.
   In support of his application, the applicant puts forward five pleas in law.
   First, he claims that the Parliament has misinterpreted and misapplied Article 14 of the Rules governing the payment of expenses and allowances to members of the European Parliament (PEAM Rules), inter alia by seeking to impose, with retrospective effect, onerous requirements on the applicant which were never requirements on MEPs at the relevant time and by failing to identify precisely which item of expenditure is considered to have been paid unduly.
   Second, he submits that the Parliament has relied on an alleged ‘conflict of interest’ with violation of the principle of legal certainty as it acted incompatibly with past custom and practice, inconsistently with its published rules, and without setting out clear and transparent standards. The applicant claims that the Parliament decision lacks any legal or factual basis.
   Third, the applicant argues that the Parliament has not complied with the fundamental procedural requirements of Article 27 of the PEAM Rules inter alia regarding the prior consultation of the quaestors, justifying the ‘exceptional case’ circumstances, hearing the applicant before a decision had been taken as well as the requirement of a decision that should be taken by the Bureau.
   Fourth, he contends that the defendant has sought to reclaim VAT from the applicant without having legal basis for doing so.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Parliament has referred the applicant’s case to OLAF prematurely, in breach of the applicant’s right of defence and without legal basis or justification.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of that Court of 2 March 1995 in the case of Sodemare SA Anni Azzurri Holding and Others (Case C-70/95)

text:
No C 159/ 12            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24 . 6 . 95
    subsequently returns or seeks to return to the territory of            ( Such cases being those in which the Member State has
    the Member State concerned, in respect of:                             an 'obligation' (which, for the Italian Constitutional
                                                                           Court, is a 'precise obligation': see judgment of the
    ( a ) the refusal of an application for a residence permit;            Constitutional Court (4 July), 11 July 1989 , No 389, last
          or                                                               subparagraph of paragraph 4 of the grounds of the
                                                                           judgment) to remove from its legal order those
    ( b ) the refusal of an application for entry; or                      provisions which are incompatible with Community
                                                                           law: judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 104/86
    (c ) a decision ordering expulsion ?                                   [ 1988 ] ECR 1799 )).
5 . Do the answers to question 4 vary according to                      — Is a national provision which (without stating reasons )
    whether :
                                                                           reserves to non-profit-making 'companies and firms ' the
                                                                           provision of an entire category of services, which are
    ( a ) the applicant has entered the territory of the                   important inter alia from the financial point of view,
          Member State before asking for a residence                       contrary to Article 58 of the EEC Treaty, in so far as
          permit;                                                          that Article makes a clear distinction between 'profit
                                                                           making companies and firms ' and 'non-profit-making
    ( b ) the applicant has been expelled from the Member                  companies and firms '?
          State before he has asked for a residence permit, or
          has never asked for a residence permit;
                                                                        — Do Articles 52,58 and 5 9 of the Treaty prohibit national
    ( c ) the earlier departure was as a result of a decision              legislation which hampers the pursuit of a business
          ordering expulsion, or of a threat of detention and              activity by imposing on an undertaking established in a
          expulsion and was followed by a decision to                      particular Member State, which wishes to establish itself
          exclude ?                                                        in another Member State within the meaning of the
                                                                           Treaty, the alternative of either carrying on that activity
(') OJ No L 56 , 4 . 4 . 1964, p . 850 .                                   on a non-economic basis — in that case adopting one of
                                                                           the legal forms which are listed exhaustively but do not
                                                                           coincide with those that facilitate establishment — or —
                                                                           if it intends carrying on the activity on an economic basis
                                                                           — accepting the burden of services which should be
                                                                           provided at the expense of the public health service ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia by order of                   — Does Article 59 of the Treaty prohibit national
that Court of 2 March 1 995 in the case of Sodemare SA Anni                legislation which, by virtue of the procedures laid down
                 Azzurri Holding and Others                                by domestic law, directs the users of welfare services —
                          ( Case C-70/95 )                                 who are allowed by the said domestic law to choose who
                            ( 95/C 159/24 )                                is to provide them — solely towards undertakings to
                                                                           which, exclusively by reference to their legal structure,
                                                                           the State reimburses the costs of the health services
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     which all the authorized undertakings are required to
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale                          provide, thereby, first, channelling the demand for
Amministrativo          Regionale        per    la     Lombardia           services towards certain providers and, secondly,
(Administrative Court for the Lombardy Region ) of                         depriving the user of real freedom of choice ?
2 March 1995 which was received at the Court Registry on
2 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sodemare SA and Others against Regione Lombardia,                       — Do Articles 3 ( f), 5 , 85 and 86 , possibly in conjunction
intervener Fermabel on the following questions :                           with Article 90 of the Treaty, prohibit the legislation at
                                                                           issue which, under the machinery provided by national
— Under Article 190 of the EEC Treaty, must a national                     law:
    provision which, although dealing with a matter falling
    'within the field of application' of the Community
    Treaties , nevertheless contains no statement whatsoever               ( a ) allows only companies with a particular legal
    of the reasons on which it is based , be regarded as                          structure to provide, without charges to be borne by
    contrary to Community law with the result that that                           the undertaking, services which are ancillary to the
    national provision, lacking a statement of reasons,                           services provided by it against payment;
    cannot be applied by the national court: that result being
    limited to those cases — of which the present case
    appears to be one — where the national provision                       ( b ) allows them to present themselves on the market as
    creates an ambiguous state of affairs, in that it keeps the                   a category of undertakings which, having similar
    persons concerned in a state of uncertainty regarding the                     qualitative and quantitative characteristics, are
    possibilities available to them of relying on Community                       described to users as a largely unitary
    law ?                                                                         organization;
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/ 13
     (c ) makes it possible to channel towards the                      — Lack of competence: Regulation ( EC ) No 3303/94
           undertakings referred to in paragraph ( b ) the                  introduces measures with regard to the three countries in
           demand for welfare services provided to old                      question which are at variance with Regulation ( EC )
           people;                                                          No 404/93 . Under Article 149 ( 3 ) of the Act of
                                                                            Accession, that power was vested in the Council and not
     ( d ) allows imposition on undertakings of the obligation              in the Commission .
           to provide, at their own expense, services ancillary
           to those provided by them in return for payment;             — Inadequate statement of reasons .
                                                                        0 ) OJ No L 341 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 46 .
     ( e ) gives rise to arrangements whose effect is to impose
           on non-participating undertakings the obligation to
           provide at their own expense services ancillary to
           the service offered , passing the cost thereof on to
           users ;                                                      Action brought on 13 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against SA Royale Belge and
     ( f) thus creates the necessity of transferring to users the                                         Others
           economic burden of such services, which are
                                                                                ( Case C-76/95 )
           otherwise, where users avail themselves of the
                                                                                95/C 159/26
           services of the undertakings participating in the
           arrangement, free of charge ?
                                                                        An action against SA Royale Belge, acting on its own
                                                                        account and as agent and nominee for the following
                                                                        insurance companies : 1 . SA Assurances générales de France;
                                                                        2 . Caisse nationale de prévoyance ; 3 . Les Mutuelles du
                                                                        Mans; 4 . SA Assurantie van de belgische Boerenbond; 5 . SA
                                                                        Hannover; 6 . AG-Securitas and 7. Condor, was brought
Action brought on 14 March 1995 by the Kingdom of                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Belgium against the Commission of the European                          13 March 1 995 by the Commission of the European
                              Communities                               Communities, represented by Julian Currall, of the Legal
                                                                        Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Jean-Luc Fagnart, of the
                           ( Case C-71/95 )                             Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                             ( 95/C 159/25 )                            the office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre,
                                                                        Kirchberg.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should :
European Communities on 14 March 1995 by the Kingdom
of Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of                     — order the defendant to pay the capital sum due or
Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign                  becoming due to the Commission pursuant to Article 73
Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries , acting                    of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  Communities in consequence of the occupational
Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .                                      disease     of    Mr      L. ,  a   former official of  the
                                                                            Commission ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay default interest pursuant to
                                                                            Article 1 ( 2 ) of the Agreement from 6 May 1994, the date
— annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3303/94 of                          upon which formal notice was given to the insurers by
     21 December 1994 introducing transitional measures                     the Commission,
     for imports of bananas into Austria, Finland and Sweden
     in the first quarter of 1995 (*) and order the Commission          — order the defendant to pay the costs, pursuant to
     to pay the costs .                                                     Article 69 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
                                                                            Justice.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Discrimination : Article 4 of Regulation ( EC )                       The action has been brought before the Court on the basis of
     No 3303/94 is clearly at variance with Article 19 of               an arbitration clause contained in a contract of insurance
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 ; each of the                 the purpose of which is to cover the financial consequences
     countries in question receives an individual quota                 of the obligations assumed by the Communities under the
     without the allocation laid down in Article 19 of
                                                                        Staff Regulations in respect of accidents and occupational
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 . The introduction of such            diseases suffered by members of their staff. The parties are in
     a specific scheme gives rise to discrimination between the         dispute regarding the question whether the contract of
     various market participants depending on whether they              insurance allows the insurers to contest the correctness of
     are established in one of the original Member States of            the opinion given by the medical committee.
     the European Union or in one of the Member States
     which acceded on 1 January 1995 .


title: Case C-262/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Telecommunications sector — Universal service and users' rights — Definition of obligations which are to be provisionally maintained — First paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) — Tariffs for the supply of voice telephony services — Requirement for administrative authorisation)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Deutsche Telekom AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-262/06) (1)

   (Telecommunications sector - Universal service and users' rights - Definition of ‘obligations’ which are to be provisionally maintained - First paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive) - Tariffs for the supply of voice telephony services - Requirement for administrative authorisation)
   (2008/C 22/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Meaning of ‘obligations’ to be provisionally maintained by the Member States — Pre-existing requirement for authorisation of charges for the supply of voice telephony services to end-users by an undertaking with a dominant position
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first paragraph of Article 27 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 16(1)(a) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a statutory requirement for the approval of tariffs for the supply of retail voice telephony services provided by undertakings with a dominant position in that market, such as that provided for in Paragraph 25 of the Law on Telecommunications (Telekommunikationsgesetz) of 25 July 1996, enacted by national law and preceding the regulatory framework resulting from those directives, together with administrative measures confirming that requirement, must be temporarily maintained.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-478/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons — Equal treatment — Income tax — Exemption of income derived from part-time employment as a teacher with a legal person governed by public law established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies — Legislation of a Member State excluding from that exemption income derived from such employment with a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/22

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg — Germany) — Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen v Finanzamt Ettlingen
   (Case C-478/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons - Equal treatment - Income tax - Exemption of income derived from part-time employment as a teacher with a legal person governed by public law established in a Member State of the European Union or in a State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies - Legislation of a Member State excluding from that exemption income derived from such employment with a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland))
   (2016/C 419/29)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Radgen, Lilian Radgen

      Defendant: Finanzamt Ettlingen

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, concerning the equal treatment of employees must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which a resident national with unlimited liability to income tax who has exercised the right to freedom of movement in order to work as an employee on a part-time basis in the teaching profession for a legal person governed by public law established in Switzerland is denied a tax exemption in respect of the income from that employment whereas such an exemption would be granted if that person had been so employed by a legal person governed by public law established in that Member State, in another Member State of the European Union or in another State to which the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 applies.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2002 in Case T-74/01: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Article 19 of the Staff Regulations — Request for leave to produce documents in proceedings before a national court)

text:
24.8.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 202/25
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 13 June 2002
                                                                                of 13 June 2002
in Case T-74/01: Albano Ferrer de Moncada v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case T-106/01: Noé Youssourum v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
(Officials — Article 19 of the Staff Regulations — Request
for leave to produce documents in proceedings before a
                           national court)                                 (Officials — Pensions — Transfer of the actuarial equivalent
                                                                           of retirement pension rights acquired in the course of
                                                                           occupational activities prior to entry into the service of the
                          (2002/C 202/37)                                                             Communities)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-74/01: Albano Ferrer de Moncada, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Luxembourg, represented by L. Misson and L. Wysen, avocats,
with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and
D. Waelbroeck) — application, first, for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 19 January 2001 implicitly rejecting              In Case T-106/01: Noé Youssourum, an official of the Council
the complaint lodged by the applicant against the Com-                     of the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
mission’s decision of 28 August 2000 refusing him leave to                 J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, avocats, with an address for service in
produce certain documents in proceedings before a Luxem-                   Luxembourg, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
bourg criminal court and, second, for compensation — the                   F. Anton and A. Pilette) — application for annulment of the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jae-              Council’s decision of 8 June 2000 fixing the calculation of the
ger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Plingers,         number of years of pensionable service to be credited in
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  consequence of the transfer to the Community pension scheme
13 June 2002, in which it:                                                 of the applicant’s pension rights acquired by him under the
                                                                           Greek scheme — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
1.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 19 January 2001                  Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
      implicitly rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant           judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
      against the Commission’s decision of 28 August 2000 refusing
      him leave to produce the documents referred to in that complaint
      in proceedings before a Luxembourg criminal court;
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                           2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
      of the applicant.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
(1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.


title: Case C-107/02: Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 191/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.8.2002
1.    The action is dismissed.                                              The question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                            für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by decision of 5 November 2001 is
                                                                            inadmissible.
2.    The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 84, 6.4.2002.
(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                                                                            Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Case C-107/02)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/25)
                         of 21 March 2002
                                                                            An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
in Case C-447/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): DLD
                                                                            ties on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Trading Company Import-Export, spol. s.r.o. v Republic
                                                                            Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser
                            of Austria (1)
                                                                            to the Commission of the European Communities, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
                                                                            Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                         C 254, Kirchberg.
                          (2002/C 191/24)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
                                                                                forward to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) of 13 May 1996
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                the health of workers and the general public against the
                                                                                dangers arising from ionising radiation, in respect of the
                                                                                clean-up of waste, the construction and clean-up of
                                                                                uranium-ore extraction sites and the operation of radio-
                                                                                logical installations, the Federal Republic of Germany has
In Case C-447/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                        failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                            2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
that court between DLD Trading Company Import-Export,
spol. s.r.o. and Republic of Austria — first, as to whether
Austrian provisions infringe Community law in that they limit
travellers’ duty-free allowance to EUR 75 or EUR 100 when
coming from certain countries as well as certain quantitative               Pleas in law and main arguments
restrictions in regard to the relief from turnover tax and excise
duty on tobacco products and, secondly, as to the conditions
in which a Member State may be liable for damage suffered by                It follows from the binding nature of directives pursuant to
an individual as a result of infringements of Community law                 Article 161, third paragraph, EAEC and under Article 192,
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,                        first paragraph, EAEC that the Member States to whom the
President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, R. Schintgen (Rappor-                directive is addressed are required to transpose the provisions
teur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,               of the directive into national law in such a way that, from the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of that
21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                       directive, those provisions take full practical effect.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 191/15
Under Article 55 of the directive, the Member States were               Pleas in law and main arguments
required to comply with that directive by 13 May 2000.
Although, in the meantime, the Federal Republic of Germany
has substantially transposed the directive into national law
by means of the Strahlenschutzverordnung (Ordinance on
protection from radiation) of 20 July 2001, there are still no          Misuse of powers, discrimination, absence of effect on compe-
provisions regulating activities carried out in connection with         tition between undertakings and absence of effect on intra-
the clean-up of left-over waste from earlier activities and             Community trade: Neither the Government of the Rioja in its
works, the closure and clean-up of uranium-ore extraction               complaint nor the European Commission in its contested
facilities and plants, and the construction and operation of            decision have been concerned with distortion of competition
radiological installations facilities and stray radiation equip-        since their action against Ramondı́n was motivated by other
ment under the Röntgenverordnung (Ordinance on protection               interests and the judgment makes an error of assessment of
against damage from ionising radiation).                                the conditions governing State aid. The appellants flatly deny
                                                                        the specific and selective nature of the contested aid claimed
                                                                        by the Commission and found in the judgment at first instance
(1) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996, p. 1.                                          on the basis that the regional Law in question possesses those
                                                                        characteristics, since it harms those taxable persons to whom
                                                                        it does not apply where they are not located within the relevant
                                                                        territorial jurisdiction of the authority which enacted the
                                                                        legislation but are based within the wider national territory
                                                                        Member State. That argument cannot be accepted, since towns
                                                                        or regions with legislative powers may act only within their
                                                                        own territories and within the limit of their powers, just like
Appeal brought on 17 May 2002 against the judgment                      genuine full Member States, so that State aid proceedings are
delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,                         inappropriate, the matter being one of tax harmonisation,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of                 which clearly falls outside the Commission’s powers.
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and
T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio His-
tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others
       and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The Administración Foral (Regional Authority) had no dis-
                                                                        cretion either to include or exclude Ramondı́n from the
                        (Case C-186/02 P)                               legislation at issue, provided it fulfilled the relevant conditions.
                         (2002/C 191/26)
                                                                        In the alternative: if the Court should find that the measures at
                                                                        issue were selective, those measures are justified by the nature
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002                and structure of the scheme.
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-92/00 and T-103/00 between Territorio Histórico de Álava
— Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court of                Ramondı́n was discriminated against when proceedings were
Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2002 by                   brought against it specifically but not against the other
Ramondı́n SA and Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, represented by                 undertakings concerned by the same Alava regional legislation,
Javier Lazcano-Iturburu Ayestaran, abogado, Gran Vı́a 55,               or by similar legislation enacted by the other Basque auth-
Logroño (La Rioja), Spain.                                             orities, the Navarrese authorities by extension and by many
                                                                        other territorial authorities in various Community countries.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
                                                                        No competitor has complained about the grant of alleged State
2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of          aid, nor has it lodged a complaint with any institution or
      6 March 2002 and annul the decision of the European               body either formally or informally against the hypothetical
      Commission of 22 December 1999 in so far as it                    advantages granted, nor have any complaints by third parties
      declares incompatible with the common market the fiscal           been upheld.
      measures laid down in Normas Forales (regional Laws)
      No 22/94 and 24/96 applicable to the appellants, Ramon-
      dı́n SA y Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, and requires the Spanish
      State to recover them, and order the Commission to pay
      the costs of the proceedings.


title: Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-171/98)

text:
C 258/16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86. Consequently, that                   on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
agreement is an existing agreement which is subject to the           Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the Regulation.                    Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                     as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                     Kirchberg.
The only exceptions to the application of freedom to
provide services introduced on 1 January 1987 by
Article 1(1) of the Regulation are those laid down in
Article 2 in relation to unilateral restrictions, which was          The Commission of the European Communities claims
introduced by way of derogation from Article 1', and in             that the Court should:
Article 4(1)(b) relating to trades not governed by the Code
of Conduct for Liner Conferences, which grants a period
of grace expiring on 1 January 1993 at the latest.
                                                                     (1) declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force
                                                                         cargo-sharing arrangements, in the agreement
                                                                         concluded with the Republic of Togo, which was
As regards trades governed by the Code of Conduct for                    approved by Belgium by the Law of 9 October 1987
Liner Conferences, which are covered by Article 4(1)(a),                 and entered into force after 1 January 1987, the
no period of grace is granted for the requisite adjustment.              Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
However, since the Code of Conduct entered into force on                 under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/
6 October 1983 for Zaire but not until 30 March 1988                     86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
for Belgium, the provisions of Article 4(1)(a) could not                 freedom to provide services to maritime transport
have applied to that agreement before 30 March 1988 and                  between Member States and between Member States
the adjustment should therefore have been completed by                   and third countries (1);
that date as regards trades governed by the Code.
Consequently, whether trades are governed by
Article 4(1)(a) or by Article 4(1)(b), the time-limit for            (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
adjustment of the cargo-sharing provisions expired long
ago.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Kingdom of Belgium is therefore wrong in
maintaining that the time-limits for adjusting the cargo-
sharing arrangements in respect of trades governed by the            The agreement concluded with Togo on 19 October 1984,
United Nations Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences                 which was approved by Belgium on 9 October 1987 and
have not expired and that the date on which Belgium                  entered into force on 19 October 1987, is not an existing'
signed the Code of Conduct did not constitute the                    agreement within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation
deadline for adjusting the arrangement. The Commission               (EEC) No 4055/86. Contrary to the assertion of the
observes that, in any event, no adjustment has been made             Kingdom of Belgium, it is a future' agremeent prohibited
11 years after the entry into force of the Regulation and            by Article 5 of that Regulation.
5 years after expiry of the final deadline for adjustment
laid down by that Regulation.
                                                                     The agreement provides in Article 21 that it is to enter
                                                                     into force as soon as each of the contracting parties has
( ) Bilateral maritime agreement concluded between Belgium and
 1
    Zaire.                                                           notified the other, through diplomatic channels, of the
(2) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.                                    completion of the requisite constitutional procedures'. It
                                                                     therefore provides that the parties are to express their
                                                                     willingness to be bound by its terms only by means of a
                                                                     subsequent approval or ratification procedure. In those
                                                                     circumstances, the signature of the agreement in 1984
                                                                     constituted no more than an authentication of the texts
                                                                     (see Article 10(b) of the Vienna Convention) and did not
                                                                     in any way signify Belgium's willingness to be bound by
                                                                     the agreement. No such obligation was entered into by
Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                     Belgium in accordance with the agreement until
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                     19 October 1987, when approval of the agreement by
                        (Case C-171/98)                              means of the Belgian Law approving the agreement' of
                                                                     19 October 1984 was notified, that is to say, well after the
                          (98/C 258/28)                              regulation entered into force. Until that date, Belgium was
                                                                     free, particularly in the light of the new obligations
                                                                     imposed on it by Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86, to refrain
                                                                     from consenting to be bound, vis-aÁ-vis Togo, by
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                 obligations concerning cargo-sharing arrangements which
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              were not in accordance with the Regulation.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/17
The prohibition of cargo-sharing arrangements in any              The appellant claims that the Court should:
future agreements' (Article 5 of the Regulation) is
designed to obviate the significant legal effects of such
arrangements, which undermine the principle of freedom             (1) set aside the contested judgment (1);
to provide services to maritime transport applied by
Regulation No 4055/86. In order to guarantee the
effectiveness of the prohibition, the Member States are            (2) annul the contested decision, alternatively, refer the
obliged to refrain from including cargo-sharing                        case back to the Court of First Instance for further
arrangements in any new agreements negotiated with third               adjudication in the light of the judgment of the Court
countries.                                                             of Justice;
The agreement in question thus contains cargo-sharing              (3) order the Commission to pay the costs.
arrangements which, in the case of future agreements, may
be authorised only in those exceptional circumstances,
provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
86, where Community liner shipping companies would
not otherwise have an effective opportunity to ply for
trade to and from the country concerned, and which may             Ð Infringement of Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC,
be permitted in accordance with Article 6 of the                       EC, Euratom on public access to Commission
Regulation, which provides for a proposal to be submitted              documents (2): the Court of First Instance wrongly held
by the Commission to the Council. Those criteria and                   that the public interest exception in Decision 94/90
procedures are not satisfied in the present case.                      may be invoked to protect the procedural autonomy of
                                                                       national courts. The decision of the Commission on
                                                                       which the Court of First Instance ruled in its contested
The agreement in question reserves carriage between the                judgment did not concern the question whether or not
parties thereto for vessels which fly the flag of either of            a national court is obliged to grant access to
those parties or which are operated by national shipping              documents contained in its (national) case-file or Ð
companies'. It follows that vessels operated by nationals              more specifically Ð the extent to which the national
of other Member States are excluded from the trade. The                court should grant access to a letter sent to it by the
agreement has therefore been contrary to the regulation                Commission.
since it entered into force. Consequently, the regulation
has been infringed, albeit that Belgium purports to wish to
terminate the agreement as regards the future. In any                  The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to examine
event, no adjustment has been carried out to date.                     whether, in relation to each document access to which
                                                                       is sought, such access should, having regard to its
                                                                       content, be refused in the public interest. If the Court
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.                                      of First Instance makes access to documents
                                                                       conditional solely on the status of the addresse in the
                                                                       present case, a national court, it will be applying a
                                                                       criterion for which no support is to be found in
                                                                       Decision 94/90.
Appeal brought on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the                    The right to access to documents held by the
Netherlands against the judgment delivered on 19 March                 Commission constitutes a general principle of Decision
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European                    94/90. The exceptions to that principle must be
Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,                    narrowly interpreted and strictly applied. The
supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the                   contested judgment is contrary to that interpretation,
         Commission of the European Communities                        which has previously been accepted by the Court of
                                                                       First Instance (3), since all documents drawn up by the
                      (Case C-174/98 P)                                Commission for the purposes of particular proceedings
                        (98/C 258/29)                                  are excluded from the scope of the principle,
                                                                       irrespective of the contents of those documents. The
                                                                       contested judgment thus applies a broad interpretation
                                                                       to the exception, in a manner which is incompatible
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March                   with Decision 94/90. That broad interpretation is also
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European                    contrary to the objective of Decision 94/90, since it
Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,                    precludes attainment of the objective of transparency
supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the                   in the relationship between the Commission and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                     national courts.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
represented by Marc Fierstra and Corinna Wissels, of the               The interpretation applied in the contested judgment is
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, acting as Agents.              in breach of the uniform application of Community


title: Case T-258/08: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark Diacor — Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings — Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Rath v EUIPO — Portela & Ca. (Diacor)
   (Case T-258/08) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark Diacor - Earlier national figurative mark Diacol PORTUGAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Evidence in a language other than the language of the proceedings - Rule 22(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (now Rule 22(6) of Regulation No 2868/95, as amended) - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)))
   (2017/C 070/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented by: U. Vogt, C. Kleiner and S. Ziegler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Portela & Ca., SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 April 2008 (Case R 1630/2006-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Portela & Ca. and Mr Rath.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Matthias Rath to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 November 2002 in Case T-205/01: André Ronsse v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Remuneration — Household allowance — Recovery of sum overpaid)

text:
25.1.2003               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/33
O. Slusny, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                1.     Dismisses the application.
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
J. Currall) — application for the annulment of the implied                   2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
rejection of the complaint lodged by the applicant against the
decision of the office responsible for settling claims of
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
30 November 2000 refusing to reimburse expenses relating to
medicinal preparations prescribed by the doctor providing
treatment — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 7 November 2002, in which it:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                                of 12 November 2002
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                             in Case T-271/01: José Manuel López Cejudo v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                             (Officials — Remuneration — Dependent child and edu-
                                                                             cation allowances paid to the parent awarded custody of the
                                                                             child — Refusal to grant the other parent payment of the
                                                                             allowances for the purpose of calculating tax rebate and
                                                                                expatriation allowance — Default interest)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/63)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                       of 5 November 2002
                                                                             In Case T-271/01: José Manuel López Cejudo, an official
                                                                             working for the Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-205/01: André Ronsse v Commission of the                           residing in Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden and
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             L. Levi, avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                             against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
(Officials — Remuneration — Household allowance —                            J. Currall) — First an application for annulment of the decision
                    Recovery of sum overpaid)                                of the Commission refusing to grant to the applicant, in
                                                                             respect of the period running from October 2000 to July
                                                                             2001, the dependent child and education allowances for the
                           (2003/C 19/62)                                    purpose of calculating tax abatement and the expatriation
                                                                             allowance and, second, a claim for default interest on the
                                                                             amounts improperly recovered or not paid — the Court of
                    (Language of the case: French)                           First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
                                                                             Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Pling-
                                                                             ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                             12 November 2002, in which it:
In Case T-205/01: André Ronsse, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented               1.     annuls the decision of the Commission, as evidenced by
by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-                       the applicant’s salary slip for October 2000, refusing him
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                               entitlement to dependent child and education allowances to take
(Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and B. Wägenbaur)                       into account for purposes of tax abatement and expatriation
— application for, first, annulment of the decisions of the                         allowance since July 1999, as amended by the Commission’s
Commission contained in letters of 9 and 23 November 2000                           decision of 16 July 2001, insofar as the latter decision takes
and in so far as necessary in the letter of 15 January 2002 and                     account of the apportionment of the entitlement to the
the implied rejection of his complaint lodged on 8 February                         allowances in issue and of the benefits under them only in
2001, all relating to repayment of EUR 22 443,07 correspond-                        respect of the future.
ing to the household allowance paid to the applicant from
1 January 1994 to 1 November 2000 and, secondly, reim-                       2.     orders the Commission to pay to the applicant:
bursement of the amounts withheld from his pension since
December 2000, together with interest at the statutory rate —                       —     default interest, as from November 2000, on the capital
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                                  amount of EUR 1 193,85 and, for each month from
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;                              December 2000 and until September 2001,
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                             EUR 1 200 each month until those capital amounts are
judgment on 5 November 2002, in which it:                                                 repaid to him;


title: Case C-195/07: Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — OTP Bank rt and Merlin Gerin Zala kft v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Zala Megyei Bíróság — Republic of Hungary) — OTP Bank rt and Merlin Gerin Zala kft v Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   (Case C-195/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/68)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case F-56/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission of the European Communities (Staff case — Officials — Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — Primary cover for dependent children by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme — Lack of complaint — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/65

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 June 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-56/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Primary cover for dependent children by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Lack of complaint - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2009/C 282/123
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: De Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision to reject the applicant’s request that his children be entitled to primary insurance cover

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action brought by Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr de Britto Patricio-Dias is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209 of 15.08.08, p. 74.


title: Case T-485/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Bon Net v OHIM — Aldi (Bon Appétit!)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/53

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Bon Net v OHIM — Aldi (Bon Appétit!)
   (Case T-485/14)
   2014/C 261/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bon Net OOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim/Ruhr, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2014 given in Case R 1199/2013-2.

      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 in colours red, white and blue containing the verbal elements ‘Bon Appétit!’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 8 6 93  764

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National trade mark registrations

      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(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case F-124/15: Action brought on 22 September 2015 — ZZ v Council

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/42

         Action brought on 22 September 2015 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-124/15)
   (2015/C 414/52)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to take further action on the application made by the applicant for early retirement, in so far as it was taken after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, thus withdrawing the previous favourable decision, and application for compensation for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of 12 November 2014 and, in consequence,

               —

               Pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant, assessed, subject to possible increase or decrease during the proceedings, at EUR 85  353,96 (eighty-five thousand, three hundred and fifty-three euros and ninety-six cents), together with interest to run from the date on which the claim was made, 12 February 2015, calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, applicable for the period in question, increased by two points;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case T-633/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Reed Exhibitions v OHIM (INFOSECURITY) (Community trade mark — Application for Community word mark INFOSECURITY — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — Reed Exhibitions v OHIM (INFOSECURITY)
   (Case T-633/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark INFOSECURITY - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 389/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Reed Exhibitions Ltd (Richmond, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 1544/2012-5) concerning an application for registration of the word sign INFOSECURITY as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Reed Exhibitions Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.