title: Case C-409/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 22 July 2016 — Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Paideias kai Thriskevmaton v Maria-Eleni Kalliri

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 22 July 2016 — Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Paideias kai Thriskevmaton v Maria-Eleni Kalliri
   (Case C-409/16)
   (2016/C 392/08)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ypourgos Esoterikon, Ypourgos Paideias kai Thriskevmaton

      Respondent: Maria-Eleni Kalliri

      Question referred

   Is Article 1(1) of Presidential Decree 90/2003, which amended Article 2(1) of Presidential Decree 4/1995 and provides that civilian candidates for the Officers’ School and the School for Policemen of the Police Academy must, amongst other qualifications, ‘be of a height (in the case of men and women) of at least 1.70 m’, compatible with Directives 76/207/EEC, (1) 2002/73/EC (2) and 2006/54/EC, (3) which prohibit any indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, in the public sector (unless that ultimate different treatment is attributable to factors which are objectively justified and are unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, and does not go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to serve the objective pursued by the measure)?

      (1)  Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40).

      (2)  Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15).

      (3)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case F-141/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/76

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-141/12)
   2013/C 26/160
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant in the list of persons who have passed the tests at the end of the training programme which is part of the certification procedure and a claim for damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the contested measure;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 10 000 as compensation for the damage suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-38/05: Action brought on 22 January 2005 by Agroexpansión S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/43

         Action brought on 22 January 2005 by Agroexpansión S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-38/05)
   (2005/C 82/76)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 January 2005 by Agroexpansión S.A., Madrid (Spain), represented by Jaime Folguera Crespo and Patricia Vidal Martínez, of the Madrid Bar.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               partially annul Article 3 of the Decision of the Commission of 20 October 2004, reducing the amount of the fine imposed on Agroexpansión;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision at issue is the same as in Case T-24/05 Standard Commercial and Others v Commission
       (1).
   The grounds put forward by the applicant are similar to those relied on in that case (infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003).
   In particular, it is alleged that the Commission erred in taking into consideration the consolidated turnover of the group of undertakings headed by DIMON INC., in order to determine the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant. Furthermore, AGROEXPANSION only became part of that group in November 1997.
   Moreover, the Commission failed to take account of the attenuating circumstance that the applicant ceased to engage in those practices as soon as it became aware of the Commission's measures of inspection.

      (1)  Not yet published in the Official Journal.


title: Case T-229/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by AEPI A.E. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/29

         Action brought on 15 June 2005 by AEPI A.E. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-229/05)
   (2005/C 205/53)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 June 2005 by Elliniki Etairia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias, a company established in Maroussi, Attica, represented by T. Asprogerakas-Grivas, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested measure of the European Commission as unlawful and declare that the entire policy applied by the companies complained of, which manage related rights, infringes Community law;

               —

               uphold in its entirety the applicant's complaint under reference 2001/4372,56(2001)A/3603/2 rejected by the contested measure;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the fees of the applicant's lawyer.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, which is a company for the collective management of musical intellectual-property rights in Greece, lodged a complaint with the European Commission alleging infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the companies Erato, Apollon and Grammo, which are responsible for the management of related rights of, respectively, singers, musicians who play an instrument, and record companies and producers. In its complaint, the applicant maintained that those companies, which hold a monopoly in Greece over related rights in the foregoing sectors, acting in concert set very high charges in respect of related rights, with the result that many entertainment undertakings, not being able to pay them, stopped using music in their premises and writers of music, members of the applicant, were also deprived of their intellectual property rights.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission decision which rejected its complaint. It submits that the Commission mistakenly considered that there was no risk of misfunctioning of the common market because all the parties involved were established in Greece. According to the applicant, the mere fact that an infringement of the competition rules occurs exclusively within just one Member State is not sufficient for the infringement to be considered insubstantial. The applicant further submits that the Commission failed to examine all the grounds of the complaint lodged. Finally, the applicant pleads that the infringement relied upon may affect inter-State trade.


title: Case T-109/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURACE)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/15

         Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURACE)
   (Case T-109/11)
   2011/C 130/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Apollo Tyres AG (Baden, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd (Aurangabad, India)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2010 in case R 625/2010-1;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENDURACE’, for goods in class 12 and services in classes 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 6419824

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5819149 of the figurative mark ‘ENDURANCE’ and device in colours, for goods in class 12

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the Community trade mark application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the applicant’s appeal and partially allowed the opponents’ request submitted under Article 8(3) RPBoA (1), and as a result partially rejected the Community trade mark application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96, of 5 February 1996, laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2082/2004, of 6 December 2004


title: Case T-395/15: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — ECDC v CJ (Appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Fixed-term contract — Termination — Breakdown in the relationship of trust — Right to be heard)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2016 — ECDC v CJ
   (Case T-395/15) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Fixed-term contract - Termination - Breakdown in the relationship of trust - Right to be heard))
   (2016/C 419/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim and A. Daume, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, CJ v ECDC (F-159/12 and F-161/12, EU:F:2015:38), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-181/99: Action brought on 9 August 1999 by Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74 against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.10.1999
— failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the                  — annul and/or declare void the call for tenders, the invitation
    welfare and interests of officials;                                        and consequently the whole selection procedure, or, in any
                                                                               event, annul the procedure itself and/or declare it void,
— prejudice caused to the applicant as a result of his
    secondment to the Staff Representation unit, contrary to
    Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          in the alternative:
By adopting a reassignment decision having retroactive effect,
when there was no justification or need for such retroactivity            — establish and declare the Commission to be liable for the
and when that retroactivity did not correspond to the situation                losses and damage sufered by the applicant by reason of
in reality, and by attaching to that decision an artificial date on            and, in any event, as a result of its participation in the
which it was to come into effect, being 4 days prior to the                    procedure.
crucial date, the Commission indubitably caused the applicant
to suffer damage.
For the purposes of the 1998 promotion procedure, therefore,
the applicant was no longer attached to the Staff Represen-               Pleas in law and main arguments
tation unit, whereas, if the reassignment had officially taken
effect after 5 May 1997, he would have been certain, in the
context of the 1998 promotion procedure, of being promoted
by DG IX or, failing that, at least of being awarded priority             The applicant in this case is the research centre which devised
points which DG IV would have had to take into account                    the ‘PROSCAP’ project to support active citizenship in the
the following year. Consequently, the Commission failed to                Pisa area, submitted as number 15 under the European
comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare and                   Commission’s pilot action ‘Local capital for social purposes’.
interests of officials and perpetrated a manifest misuse of               By the contested decision the defendant rejected the project
powers.                                                                   claiming to have calculated that the operating costs of the
                                                                          ‘initial tender’ were more than 20 % of the total budget,
                                                                          contrary to the requirements of the rules applicable.
By failing to give reasons for the implicit decisions which it
adopted rejecting the applicant’s request and complaint, the
Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          In support of its claims the applicant submits that the operating
                                                                          costs of the project are not more than 18 % of the total amount
                                                                          of the budget requested. It is claimed in that connection that
                                                                          the Commission adopted the contested decision on the basis
                                                                          of irrelevant economic data deriving from the application file,
                                                                          thus breaching established rules for the tendering procedure.
                                                                          The defendant therefore excluded the applicant, erroneously
Action brought on 9 August 1999 by Centro di Ricerca e                    taking as the basis for its assessment of the final figure, not the
Documentazione Febbraio 74 against the Commission of                      project completed on 5 March 1999, but the application file
                  the European Communities                                submitted on 15 October 1999, which had the different
                                                                          purpose and object of providing the Commission with infor-
                        (Case T-181/99)                                   mation about the professional and financial suitability of the
                                                                          applicant body, the socio-economic background against which
                                                                          the project would be carried out and the possible quality
                        (1999/C 281/56)                                   of the mechanism proposed for the selection, control and
                                                                          management of individual appropriations.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 On this basis the applicant maintains that the contested
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                decision must be considered flawed and unlawful for breach
European Communities on 9 August 1999 by Centro di                        of procedural rules and of the duty of care in administrative
Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74, represented by Ugo                  proceedings, erroneous, illogical and not in conformity with
Mastelloni, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in               previous acts and decisions of the Commission itself.
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Yves Prussen, 2, Place
Winston Churchill.
                                                                          It also submits that the invitation to tender and to submit
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               proposals under the pilot action ‘Local capital for social
                                                                          purposes’ did not in any way stipulate that possible flaws in
— annul and/or declare void the decision of the European                  the application file could constitute reasons for excluding one
    Commission — DG V — Employment and European                           of the tenderers from the procedure.
    Social Fund — Political development and coordination
    under Article 6 of the ESF, notified by formal letter 8096
    of 21 June 1999 to exclude the applicant from the
    tendering procedure for the pilot action ‘Local capital for
    social purposes’, and all connected and consequential acts
    prejudicial to the interests of the applicant,


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 1999 in Case C-280/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): ROSE Elektrotechnik GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln (Combined nomenclature - Tariff headings - Junction box without cables or contacts)

text:
10.4.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/5
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, (Rapporteur)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,
D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet,                                       (First Chamber)
R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, G. Cosmas,
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                                          of 9 February 1999
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            in Case C-280/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
9 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                              the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): ROSE Elektrotechnik
                                                                          GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln (1)
1. A judicial award of compensation for breach of the                (Combined nomenclature Ð Tariff headings Ð Junction
    right not to be unfairly dismissed constitutes pay                              box without cables or contacts)
    within the meaning of Article 119 of the EC Treaty.
                                                                                (1999/C 100/07)
2. The conditions determining whether an employee is
    entitled, where he has been unfairly dismissed, to                              (Language of the case: German)
    obtain compensation fall within the scope of
    Article 119 of the Treaty. However, the conditions
    determining whether an employee is entitled, where he
    has been unfairly dismissed, to obtain reinstatement or
    re-engagement fall within the scope of Council                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                            published in the European Court Reports)
    implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
    men and women as regards access to employment,
    vocational training and promotion, and working
                                                                     In Case C-280/97: Reference to the Court under
    conditions.
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht
                                                                     Düsseldorf (Germany) in the proceedings pending before
                                                                     that court between ROSE Elektrotechnik GmbH & Co.
3. It is for the National Court, taking into account all
                                                                     KG and Oberfinanzdirektion Köln on the interpretation of
    the material legal and factual circumstances, to
                                                                     the combined nomenclature as contained in Annex I to
    determine the point in time at which the legality of a
                                                                     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September
    rule to the effect that protection against unfair
                                                                     1996 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
    dismissal applies only to employees who have been
                                                                     No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
    continuously employed for a minimum period of two
                                                                     on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 238, 19.9.1996,
    years is to be assessed.
                                                                     p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: D. A. O.
                                                                     Edward, acting for the President of the Chamber, L. Sevón
                                                                     (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,
4. In order to establish whether a measure adopted by a
                                                                     Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
    Member State has disparate effect as between men and
                                                                     judgment on 9 February 1999, in which it has ruled:
    women to such a degree as to amount to indirect
    discrimination for the purposes of Article 119 of the
    Treaty, the National Court must verify whether the
    statistics available indicate that a considerably smaller        The combined nomenclature, as contained in Annex I to
    percentage of women than men is able to fulfil the               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September
    requirement imposed by that measure. If that is the              1996 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
    case, there is indirect sex discrimination, unless that          No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and
    measure is justified by objective factors unrelated to           on the Common Customs Tariff, must be interpreted as
    any discrimination based on sex.                                 meaning that a product consisting of a rectangular
                                                                     container with a lid of coated die-cast aluminium
                                                                     (aluminium/silicon alloy with aluminium content
5. If a considerably smaller percentage of women than                predominant by weight), four steel connecting bolts and
    men is capable of fulfilling the requirement of two              four earthing bolts of copper-plated steel (packed loose in
    years' employment imposed by the rule described in               the product and yet to be inserted into threaded holes
    paragraph 3 of the operative part of this judgment, it           provided for that purpose), which is intended to receive
    is for the Member State, as the author of the allegedly          electrical terminals and holes enabling electrical circuits to
    discriminatory rule, to show that the said rule reflects         be connected, must be classified, in accordance with
    a legitimate aim of its social policy, that that aim is          Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for the interpretation of
    unrelated to any discrimination based on sex, and that           the combined nomenclature, under subheading 8536 90 85
    it could reasonably consider that the means chosen               as an incomplete junction box.
    were suitable for attaining that aim.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 295, 27.2.1997.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2000 in Case T-27/99: Humbert Drabbe v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Pensions — Acquired rights — Rights acquired before taking up post with the Commission — Transfer to the Community scheme — Submission of application — Time-limits)

text:
C 372/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.12.2000
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 October 2000
                        of 17 October 2000
                                                                            in Case T-123/99: JT’s Corporation Ltd v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
in Case T-27/99: Humbert Drabbe v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Transparency — Access to documents — Decision
                                                                            94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Scope of the exception based
                                                                            on protection of the public interest — Inspection and
(Officials — Pensions — Acquired rights — Rights acquired                   investigation tasks — Authorship rule — Statement of
before taking up post with the Commission — Transfer to                                                     reasons)
the Community scheme — Submission of application —
                            Time-limits)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/21)
                          (2000/C 372/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            In Case T-123/99: JT’s Corporation Ltd, established in Bromley
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                          (United Kingdom), represented by M. Cornwell-Kelly, Solicitor,
                                                                            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                            Wilson Associates, 3 Boulevard Royal, against Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker and X. Lewis)
In Case T-27/99: Humbert Drabbe, an official of the Com-                    — application for the annulment of the Commission’s decision
mission of the European Communities, residing in Overijse                   of 11 March 1999 refusing the applicant access to certain
(Belgium), represented by G. van der Wal, lawyer with the                   documents — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
right of audience before the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, and                 composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
L. Y. J. M. Parret, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31, Grand-rue,                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2000, in which
against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                     it:
F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and C. Van der Hauwaert) — appli-
cation for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of
19 October 1998, notified to Humbert Drabbe on 23 October                   1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 11 March 1999 in so far
1998, rejecting his complaint against the defendant’s decision                    as it refuses the applicant access to the mission reports of the
to transfer his pension rights acquired in the Netherlands to                     European Union from 1993 to 1996 concerning Bangladesh,
the Community pension scheme — the Court of First Instance                        including their annexes, and to the correspondence sent by the
(Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi                     Commission to the Government of Bangladesh concerning the
and M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, administrator, for the                          annulment of the certificates of origin under the generalised
Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 October 2000, the operative                      system of preferences;
part of which is as follows:
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;
1.    The application is dismissed.
                                                                            3.    Orders the applicant to bear one half of its own costs;
2.    Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, and to pay one
                                                                                half of the costs incurred by the applicant.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1998.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Grasse, by judgment of that court of 19 July 1996 in the case of the Public Prosecutor, and the federal consumers' union 'Que Choisir?' and the general consumer organization 'OR.GE.CO', civil plaintiffs, v. Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA (Case C-107/97)

text:
No C 142/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10 . 5 . 97
( a ) whether a legal provision which relieves a particular                         particular to Article 132 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty and
      public economic entity from the obligation of                                 Articles 102 and 103 of Council Decision 91 /482/
      complying with the generally applicable legislation                           EC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
      concerning fixed-term employment contracts falls                              overseas      countries      and   territories with     the
      within the scope of 'aid granted by a Member State or                         European Economic Community ( 2 ) valid in so far
      through State resources in any form whatsoever';                              they relate to the imports referred to in
                                                                                Question 1 ( a )?
( b ) whether, if question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative,
      an aid of that kind should be subject to the                                  If Questions 1(a ) and ( b ) are answered in the
      preliminary examination procedure under Article 93 ( 3 )                      affirmative :
      of the Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Must Article 23 of the aforementioned Directive be
(c ) whether, where that procedure has not been followed,                       interpreted as meaning that the national provisions
      the prohibition of an aid of that kind can be regarded                    adopted to implement that article may only be applied
      as directly applicable within the domestic law of the                    to the imports referred to in Question 1 ( a ):
      Italian State;
                                                                               — after the rules relating to intra-Community trade
( d ) whether, in the event of question (c ) being answered in                      in the goods concerned, to which, under Article 22
      the affirmative, such a prohibition may be relied on in                       of that Directive, the third-country rules must be
      a dispute between the public economic entity and an                           at least equivalent, have fully entered into force,
      individual who complains of failure to apply to him                           and
      the general legislation concerning fixed-term
      employment in order to secure conversion of his                          — after a legally valid decision has been taken with
      employment relationship into one of indeterminate                             regard to the inclusion of the country concerned
      duration and/or compensation for damage .                                     on the first list mentioned in Article 23 ( 3 ) and
                                                                                with regard to the list of approved establishments
                                                                                in that country ?
                                                                         3 . Is Commission Decision 94/70/EC ( 3 ) valid ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court                  (') OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992, p . 1 .
of 15 January 1997 in the case of 1 . Dutch Antillian                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                         ( 3 ) OJ No L 36 , 8 . 2 . 1994, p. 5 .
Dairy Industry Inc., 2. Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV;
Netherlands Antilles intervening, v. Rijksdienst voor de
                      Keuring van Vee en Vlees
                           ( Case C-106/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/25 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Reference has been made of the Court of Justice of the                   Grande Instance, Grasse, by judgment of that court of
European Communities College van Beroep voor het Be                     19 July 1996 in the case of the Public Prosecutor, and the
drijfsleven ( administrative court of last instance in matters           federal consumers' union 'Que Choisir ?' and the general
of trade and industry) by judgment of that court of                      consumer organization 'OR.GE.CO', civil plaintiffs, v.
 15 January 1997 in the case of 1 . Dutch Antillian Dairy                                 Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA
Industry Inc., 2 . Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV; Nether                                              ( Case C-107/97 )
lands Antilles intervening, v. Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:                                                           ( 97/C 142/26 )
 1 . ( a ) Must the provisions of Chapter III of Directive 92/           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            46/EEC ( 5 ), seen in particular in the light of             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
            Article 227, together with Articles 131 to 136, of           Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Grasse, of 19 July
            the EC Treaty be interpreted as setting the result           1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
            to be achieved — within the meaning of the third             14 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
            paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty — by               Public Prosecutor, and the federal consumers ' union ' Que
            national implementing provisions which are                   Choisir ?' and the general consumer organization
            applicable to imports into the EC of butter                  ' OR.GE.CO', civil plaintiffs, v. Max Rombi and
            originating in the overseas countries and territories        Arkopharma SA on the following questions:
            listed in Annex IV to the EC Treaty, including the
            Netherlands Antilles ?
                                                                         1 . Can a Member State correctly transpose a Community
            If Question 1 ( a ) is answered in the affirmative:                 directive where in the national transposing measure it
                                                                                maintains in force previous provisions adopted on the
      ( b ) Are the provisions of Chapter III of the                            basis of repealed national legislation transposing a
            aforementioned Directive, having regard in                          previous, repealed directive, indicating in the new
 ---pagebreak--- 10 . 5 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 142/ 13
     transposing measure merely that those provisions                  ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 25 November 1996,
     remain in force to the extent that they do not conflict           which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March
     with the new national legislation ?                               1997, for a preliminary ruling in the review proceedings
                                                                       brought by the applicant, EvoBus Austria GmbH, against
                                                                       the contracting entity, Niederosterreichische Verkehrsorga
2 . Do Articles 10 ( 2 ) and 15 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 89/
                                                                       nisations Gesellschaft mbH (NOVOG ), on the following
     398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the                 questions:
     laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs
     intended for particular nutritional uses ( OJ No L 186,
     30 . 6 . 1989, p. 27) authorize a State to continue to
     apply rules which predate the Directive and the                   1 . May an individual derive, from the abovemen
     measure transposing it ?                                                 tioned (') or other provisions of Directive 92/13/EEC,
                                                                              a specific right to have review proceedings conducted
                                                                              before authorities or courts or tribunals complying
3 . Does the classification, by Council Directive 89/398/                     with Article 2 ( 9 ) of Directive 92/13/EEC which is so
     EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws                       sufficiently precise and specific that, in the event of
     of the Member States, of foodstuffs intended for                         non-transposition by a Member State of the provisions
     particular nutritional uses into nine groups ( referred to               of the Directive in question, an individual may rely on
     in Annex I thereto ), which are to be the subject of                     that provision ?
     specific directives, and into foodstuffs not falling
     within those groups, for which there is no provision
     for such directives, allow a Member State to apply                2 . In conducting a review procedure, must a national
     rules founded on a classification based on a distinction                 court constituted on the lines of the Bundesvergabeamt
     between dietary products and dietetic products or on a                   disregard provisions of national law such as
     distinction between foodstuffs for infants and young                     paragraph 7 (2 ) in conjunction with paragraph 67 ( 1 )
     children and foodstuffs other than those intended for                    of the Bundesvergabegesetz (Federal Procurement
     infants and young children ?                                             Law ) which preclude it from conducting a review
                                                                              procedure even where such review procedure is
4 . Do Articles 10 ( 2 ) and 15 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 89/                intended by the national legislature solely to serve the
     398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the                        purpose of transposing Directive 89/665/EEC (2 )?
     laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs
     intended for particular nutritional uses, which do not
     affect the application of national measures in the event          3 . Must the adjudicating court disregard those or any
     that specific directives as provided for in Article 4 of                 comparable procedural provisions of national law in
     the Directive are not adopted, preclude individuals                      such circumstances, if they impede or prevent a review
     from relying on the provisions of the Directive in                       procedure from being effectively conducted ?
     order to challenge the detailed measures of
     transposition adopted by the Member States and to                 (') Article 1 ( 1 ) to ( 3 ) and Article 2 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 7) to ( 9 ) of
     have them declared inapplicable by the national courts                  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
     to the extent that they conflict with the provisions of                 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
     the Directive ?                                                         provisions relating to the application of Community rules on
                                                                             the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,
                                                                             energy, transport and telecommunications sectors ( OT No L 76 ,
5.   Does not the fact that foodstuffs are controlled within                 23 . 3 . 1992 , p. 14 ).
     the framework of Community Directives imply that                  ( 2 ) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
     States must, when carrying out such control, observe                    coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
     the general Community principles, in particular the                     provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
     protection of legitimate expectations ?                                 the award of public supply and public works contracts ( OJ No
                                                                             L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 ).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesvergabeamt, by order of that court of 25 November                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
1996 in the review proceedings brought by the applicant,               Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of 18 March
EvoBus Austria GmbH, against the contracting entity,                         1997 in the case of Henia Babahenini v. Belgian State
Niederosterreichische Verkehrsorganisations Gesellschaft
                                                                                Case C-l 13/97
                        mbH (NOVOG )
                        ( Case C-l 11 /97 )                                                           ( 97/C 142/28 )
                          ( 97/C 142/27
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                  Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 18 March 1997,


title: Case C-99/05: Action brought on 24 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/21

         Action brought on 24 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-99/05)
   (2005/C 93/40)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to bring into force as regards the province of Åland (Ahvenanmaa) the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 (1) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, or at least by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 2 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 303 of 2.12.2000, p. 16.


title: Action brought on 30 September 1998 by Bernard Bareyt and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-158/98)

text:
C 358/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.11.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Action brought on 30 September 1998 by Bernard Bareyt
                                                                   and Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
The applicant in the present case is a public limited                                     (Case T-158/98)
company incorporated in England and Wales, engaged in
the production in the coal industry in England. Its                                         (98/C 358/43)
principal shareholders are institutional investors, private
investors, directors and the applicant's employees. By the
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
contested decision, the Commission has purported, in
accordance with Article 66(2) of the ECSC Treaty, to
authorise, subject to conditions, the acquisition of
Saarbergwerke and Preussag by RAG. These three                     An action against the Commission of the European
companies are the only three remaining German hard coal            Communities was brought before the Court of First
producers. The merging entities have apparently agreed to          Instance of the European Communities on 30 September
divest part of the coal importing business to an                   1997 by Berhard Bareyt, Ivone Benfatto, Denis Bessette,
independent third party and structurally to separate the           Giuliano Dalle Carbonare, Enrico Di Pietro, Barry John
remainder of the coal trading business into domestic and           Green, Remmelt Haange, Michel Huguet, Marcus Iseli,
importing arms.                                                    Cornelis Jong, Neil Mitchell, Pier Luigi Mondino, Alfredo
                                                                   Portone, Carlo Sborchia, Alessandro Tesini and Mike
                                                                   Michael Wykes, all residing in Naka (Japan), represented
                                                                   by Nicholas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to            for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
respect the provisions of Article 66 and Article 4(c) of the       Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
ECSC Treaty and Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (1) (the
Code) in adopting the contested decision. The annulment
of this decision is also sought on the ground of                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
infringement of essential procedural requirements,
including lack of reasoning and misapplication of the
principle of good administration.                                  Ð annul the defendant's decision of 15 May 1998
                                                                       rejecting the applicants' complaint;
According to the applicant, the Commission has failed to
appreciate that the effect of the contested decision is to         Ð annul the applicants' remuneration statements for
enable the merger to proceed, even though German state                 November 1997 and the subsequent months, which
aid forms an intrinsic part of the merger, and such state              apply the weighting adopted by Council Regulation
aid has not been, and could not be, authorised pursuant to             (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 1785/97, including the
the Code. It is stressed in this regard that the contested             remuneration statements for the months during
decision does not even mention the state aid inherent in               which the administration proceeded to recover the
the merger structure, let alone analyse the effect of the aid          overpayment previously made;
on the market position of the parties. Thus the fact that
the purchase price to be paid by RAG for Saarbergwerke
in the context of the proposed merger is a mere DM 1 is            Ð in so far as may be necessary:
mentioned nowhere in the Decision.
                                                                       Ð declare Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No
                                                                           1785/97 adopted by the Council on the
The applicant states that the Commission has suggested in                  defendant's proposal to be inapplicable, in so far
the contested decision that it concerns only the application               as it fixes a specific weighting for Naka;
of Article 66 of the ECSC Treaty and not the application
of provisions on the control of state aids. However, the
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to repay to the applicants the
Commission was asked for an assurance by the applicant
                                                                           sums which it withheld from their salaries
that it would apply the state aid rules and would prevent
                                                                           retroactively from the month of May 1997;
the merger from proceeding without prior approval of the
state aid paid to the undertakings to be merged and of the
state aid inherent in and forming a prerequisite for the               Ð order the defendant to repay to the applicants the
merger. Since the Commission has refused to provide the                    curtailment of salary which it imposed on them
assurance requested, the applicant has no doubt, in the                    with effect from November 1997 on the basis of
present circumstances, that the merger authorised by the                   the new weighting;
contested decision can, and now will, proceed without the
Commission performing its obligations.
                                                                       Ð order the defendant to pay default interest on the
                                                                           sums which it is ordered to repay, from the date
(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.                                           when those sums were withheld;
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 358/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicants maintain that, by proposing to the Council
                                                                   the adoption of a weighting for Naka fixed at 121.25, the
                                                                   defendant has committed a manifest error of assessment.
The applicants all work as temporary members of staff at
                                                                   The defendant has provided them with no clarification
the Iter Eda Centre, Naka Joint Work Site, Naka (Japan).
                                                                   whatever concerning the method used, the weight attached
All except one of them have already brought an action
                                                                   to the various factors and the criteria applied in
(Case T-175/97 (1)) with regard to issues concerning the
                                                                   calculating the economic parities and the new weightings.
fixing of weightings.
                                                                   Consequently, the defendant has failed to fulfil its
                                                                   obligation to provide a statement of reasons in accordance
By their application in the present case, the applicants           with the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff
contest:                                                           Regulations.
Ð the weighting applicable to Naka fixed by Article 1 of
    Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 1785/97, namely              In fixing a weighting for Naka which is 18 % lower than
    121.52;                                                        that fixed for Tokyo, and in view of the fact that there is
                                                                   no substantial difference between the cost of living in
Ð the recovery of sums from their salaries due to the              Tokyo and in Naka, the defendant has breached the
    reduction in those salaries resulting from the                 principle of equality of treatment.
    application of the said weighting in accordance with
    the third paragraph of Article 2 of that regulation;
                                                                   Lastly, the applicants plead that there has been an
Ð their salary statements for the period from November             unlawful recovery of sums from their salaries. They claim
    1997, in so far as they apply the weighting and effect         that an unjustified reduction in their remuneration such as
    a retroactive recovery of remuneration by way of               that in issue constitutes an impermissible act prejudicing
    adjustment based on that weighting; and                        their most basic right, namely the right to remuneration
                                                                   which is stable and foreseeable.
Ð all connected and/or subsequent decisions relating to
    the adoption or application of weightings for Naka.            (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 16.


title: Case C-118/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Austria) — proceedings brought by Robert Koller ( ‘Court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC — Recognition of diplomas — Directive 89/48/EEC — Lawyer — Entry on the professional roll of a Member State other than that in which the diploma was recognised as equivalent)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Austria) — proceedings brought by Robert Koller
   (Case C-118/09) (1)

   (‘Court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC - Recognition of diplomas - Directive 89/48/EEC - Lawyer - Entry on the professional roll of a Member State other than that in which the diploma was recognised as equivalent)
   2011/C 63/05
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission

      Party to the main proceedings

   Robert Koller

      Re:

   Preliminary ruling — Oberste Berufungs- und Disziplinarkommission — Interpretation of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Applicability of the directive in the case of an Austrian national who, on the basis of the confirmation of his Austrian degree as equivalent and of additional study at a Spanish university for less than three years, was registered with a chamber of lawyers in Spain and, after exercising his profession in Spain for three weeks, applies to be admitted to the aptitude test in order to qualify as a lawyer in Austria on the basis of the authorisation to exercise his profession in Spain

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               With a view to gaining access, subject to passing an aptitude test, to the regulated profession of lawyer in a Member State, the provisions of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, as amended by Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 may be relied upon by a person who holds a degree issued in that Member State on completion of a cycle of post-secondary studies lasting more than three years, and who also holds an equivalent degree issued in another Member State after additional training of less than three years and enabling him, in that latter State, to have access to the regulated profession of lawyer, which he was actually practising in the latter State on the date on which he applied for admission to the aptitude test;

               2.

               Directive 89/48, as amended by Directive 2001/19, must be interpreted as precluding the competent authorities of the host Member State from denying to a person in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings authorisation to take the aptitude test for the profession of lawyer without proof of completion of the period of practical experience required by the legislation of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal to execute — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen — Germany) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)
      (Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Grounds for refusal to execute - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State))
      (2016/C 211/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), Robert Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU)

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence with respect to detention conditions in the issuing Member State that demonstrates that there are deficiencies, which may be systemic or generalised, or which may affect certain groups of people, or which may affect certain places of detention, the executing judicial authority must determine, specifically and precisely, whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned by a European arrest warrant, issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence, will be exposed, because of the conditions for his detention in the issuing Member State, to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter, in the event of his surrender to that Member State. To that end, the executing judicial authority must request that supplementary information be provided by the issuing judicial authority, which, after seeking, if necessary, the assistance of the central authority or one of the central authorities of the issuing Member State, under Article 7 of the Framework Decision, must send that information within the time limit specified in the request. The executing judicial authority must postpone its decision on the surrender of the individual concerned until it obtains the supplementary information that allows it to discount the existence of such a risk. If the existence of that risk cannot be discounted within a reasonable time, the executing judicial authority must decide whether the surrender procedure should be brought to an end.

         (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

         OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 26 June 1998 in Case T-262/97 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 258/36             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                             1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 26 June 1998                            2. There is no need to adjudicate on the application to
in Case T-262/97 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                 intervene.
                 the European Communities
    (Application for interim measures Ð Inadmissibility)          3. The applicant is ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
                        (98/C 258/64)                             (1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997.
               (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-262/97 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing in
London, represented by Raymond St John Murphy,
                                                                  Action brought on 9 June 1998 by Interporc Im- und
Solicitor, against Commission of the European
                                                                  Export GmbH against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Richard Lyal) Ð application for
                                                                                Communities
interim measures in connection with a decision of the
Commission refusing to adopt interim measures sought by                                  (Case T-92/98)
the applicant Ð the President of the Court of First                                       (98/C 258/66)
Instance made an order on 26 June 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
2. The applicant shall pay the costs of the interlocutory         Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 1998 by
     proceedings.                                                 Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, Hamburg (Germany),
                                                                  represented by Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt, of
                                                                  Messrs Schön Nolte Finkelnburg & Clemm, 33 Rue PeÁre
                                                                  de Deken, Brussels.
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 25 May 1998                             Ð annul the contested decision;
in   Case T-267/97: Broome & Wellington Ltd                v
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                 Ð alternatively, annul the contested decision in so far as
                                                                      the applicant has not already received, in the context
(Action for annulment Ð Notice of initiation of an anti-              of the proceedings in Case T-50/96, the documents to
           dumping proceeding Ð Inadmissibility)                      which it has requested access;
                        (98/C 258/65)
                                                                  Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
                                                                      proceedings in any event.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In Case T-267/97: Broome & Wellington Ltd, having its
registered office in Manchester (United Kingdom),
represented by Fiona M. Carlin, Barrister, of the Northern        The applicant refers, with regard to the previous history of
Ireland Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         this matter, to Case T-124/96 Interporc Im- und Export
the offices of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias             GmbH v Commission (1). By judgment delivered in that
Hardt, against Commission of the European Communities             case on 6 February 1998 (2), the Court inter alia annulled
(Agents: Viktor Kreuschitz and Nicholas Khan) Ð                   the Commission's decision of 29 May 1996 refusing the
application for the annulment of a notice of initiation of        applicant access to certain documents held by that
an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of                  institution.
unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's
Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and          By its claim in the present action, the applicant contests
Turkey, published on 11 July 1997 (OJ C 210 of                    the fresh refusal to grant access to documents held by the
20.7.1996, p. 12) Ð the Court of First Instance (Third            Commission.
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, C. P. BrieÈt, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on               In the contested decision, the Secretary-General of the
25 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:           Commission classifies the documents requested as falling


title: Case C-234/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Ostas celtnieks’ SIA v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Economic and financial standing — Technical and/or professional ability — Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Tender specifications laying down the obligation for a tenderer to conclude a cooperation agreement or to set up a partnership with the entities on whose capacities it relies)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesa — Latvia) — ‘Ostas celtnieks’ SIA v Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs
   (Case C-234/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Economic and financial standing - Technical and/or professional ability - Articles 47(2) and 48(3) - Tender specifications laying down the obligation for a tenderer to conclude a cooperation agreement or to set up a partnership with the entities on whose capacities it relies))
   (2016/C 098/06)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Ostas celtnieks’ SIA

      Defendant: Talsu novada pašvaldība, Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a contracting authority, in the tender specifications relating to the award of a public contract, from imposing on a tenderer which relies on the capacities of other entities the obligation, before the contract is awarded, to conclude a cooperation agreement with those entities or to form a partnership with them.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Case T-82/02: Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.7.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/33
2.    That suspension is subject to the following conditions: first, the     The applicant claims that the conduct of the Parliament is not
      applicant shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First            covered by the legislation promulgated and that it has been
      Instance and at the Commission, by 5 August 2002, an                   prompted by considerations which are not germane to the
      interim report on its financial situation to 1 July 2002; second,      matter. The Parliament found in 1998 that the applicant had a
      the applicant shall repay to the BvS a first instalment of the         residence in Germany, and the applicant sent, together with
      contested aid in the sum of 256 000 euros by 31 December               the annual declaration, a confirmation of registration issued
      2002 and shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First             by the local authority for his place of residence. He claims to
      Instance and at the Commission, within one week of making              have proved to the administration that he has only one
      the payment, written proof of the said part repayment of the           German residence and a corresponding centre of vital interests,
      contested aid; third, the applicant shall lodge at the Registry of     and that there is thus no valid reason entitling the adminis-
      the Court of First Instance and at the Commission, by                  tration to demand further proof. The administrative practice
      31 January 2003, a report on its financial situation to                of the Parliament is neither lawful nor reasonable; moreover,
      31 December 2002.                                                      it does not accord with the duties of mutual cooperation.
3.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                             Action brought on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn, Inc.
                                                                             against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf
Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament
    and the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-107/02)
                           (Case T-82/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/60)
                          (2002/C 169/59)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn,
An action against the European Parliament and the Com-                       Inc., represented by Mr Geert Glas of Allen & Overy, Brussels
mission of the European Communities was brought before the                   (Belgium).
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg,
of Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. Heyland, lawyer,               A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   was Atofina Chemicals, Inc.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     by way of modification to the European Parliament’s                    —     annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17
      decision of 28 May 2001, order the appointing authority                      January 2002 in case R 1003/2000-1 to the extent that
      to apply to the applicant’s emoluments as a former                           it annuls the Decision nr 2004/2000 of the Opposition
      servant of the Communities, with effect from December                        Division of 7 September 2000; remit the case to the
      2000, the weighting for the Federal Republic of Germany,                     Opposition Division for further prosecution; order each
      to pay over the amounts not paid since then and to make                      party to bear their own costs incurred in connection with
      corresponding payments in future for as long as the                          the appeal;
      applicant maintains his residence in Germany.
                                                                             —     order the Office to pay all costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the                 Applicant for the Com-        BetzDearborn, Inc.
European Parliament who has been retired since 1998, is                      munity trade mark:
contesting the Parliament’s decision not to apply any weighting
to the applicant’s retirement pension since 1 December 2001                  The Community trade           The word mark ‘BIOMATE’ for
in the absence of proof that he actually resides in Germany.                 mark concerned:               certain goods in class 1


title: Joined Cases C-532/15 and C-538/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot — Spain) — Eurosaneamientos SL, Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de Reciclado López Soriano, UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras SA v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, SA (C-532/15), Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser SA (C-538/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Services provided by Procuradores de los Tribunales — Tariff — Jurisdictions — Derogation impossible)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot — Spain) — Eurosaneamientos SL, Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de Reciclado López Soriano, UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras SA v ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, SA (C-532/15), Francesc de Bolós Pi v Urbaser SA (C-538/15)
   (Joined Cases C-532/15 and C-538/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Services provided by Procuradores de los Tribunales - Tariff - Jurisdictions - Derogation impossible))
   (2017/C 038/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring courts

   Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eurosaneamientos SL, Entidad Urbanística Conservación Parque Tecnológico de Reciclado López Soriano, UTE PTR Acciona Infraestructuras SA (C-532/15), Francesc de Bolós Pi (C-538/15)

      Defendants: ArcelorMittal Zaragoza, SA (C-532/15), Urbaser SA (C-538/15)

      Intervener: Consejo General de Procuradores de España (C-532/15)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 101 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the fees of procuradores subject to a tariff which may be increased or decreased only by 12 %, in respect of which the national courts merely check its strict application without being in a position, in exceptional circumstances, to derogate from the limits set by that tariff.

               2.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the second and third questions in Case C-532/15 and the third to fifth questions in Case C-538/15 referred by the Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza (Provincial Court, Zaragoza, Spain) and the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Olot (Court of First Instance, Olot, Spain) respectively.

      (1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.


title: Case T-267/02: Action brought on 4 September 2002 by REWE-ZENTRAL AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
23.11.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 289/25
Action brought on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi                         Furthermore, Article 2 of the Regulation infringes fundamental
against the Council of the European Union and the                        principles of Community law, in particular the principles of
         Commission of the European Communities                          subsidiarity and proportionality and the respect for human
                                                                         rights.
                        (Case T-253/02)
                                                                         Member States are best placed to establish what measures are
                                                                         proportionate, and the total denial of all income and of all un-
                        (2002/C 289/48)                                  earned assistance to an individual is disproportionate. Article 2
                                                                         infringes human rights as it deprives an individual of access to
                                                                         his property and to the means of existence without providing
                  (Language of the case: English)                        any judicial remedy for that denial.
                                                                         Finally, the applicant submits that an essential procedural
                                                                         requirement has been infringed in the making of Article 2,
An action against the Council of the European Union and the              namely the requirement that the Council and the Commission
Commission of the European Communities was brought                       state adequate reasons why the measures considered necessary
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities           cannot be determined by individual Member States.
on 22 August 2002 by Chafiq Ayadi Dublin (Ireland), rep-
resented by A. Lyon, Solicitor and S. Cox, Barrister.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002
      of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive
      measures directed against certain persons and entities
      associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
      and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC)             Action brought on 4 September 2002 by REWE-ZEN-
      No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods                TRAL AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
      and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban                   Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      and extending the freeze of funds and other financial
      resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan ( 1) and
      so much of Article 4 as relates to Article 2;                                                (Case T-267/02)
—     order the Council to pay the costs.                                                          (2002/C 289/49)
                                                                         (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is named in Annex I to the contested Regulation            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
as a person to whom Article 2 applies. Under this provision,             Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
the applicant’s bank accounts have been frozen.                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         4 September 2002 by REWE-ZENTRAL AG, Köln (Germany),
                                                                         represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder,
The applicant submits that the provisions enabling the Security          Chr. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K Brandt, A. Franke, U. Ste-
Council of the United Nations to call upon its Members to                phani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle, lawyers,
apply certain measures do not impose upon Members of the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg. Fritidsresor AB,
United Nations a duty to apply those measures. Members are               Stockholm (Sweden) was an additional party to the proceed-
free to choose how to respond to the Security Council’s call.            ings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant further alleges that the Council was not com-
petent to make Article 2 of the Regulation in that Articles 60
and 301 EC did not confer on the Council the power to do so.             —     annul decision R 0888/2001 of the First Board of Appeal
The Council and the Commission misused their powers in that                    of OHIM of 1 July 2002;
Article 2 of the Regulation does not in fact pursue the
objectives of Articles 60 and 301 EC.                                    —     order the Office to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23.11.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 5 September 2002 by National
                                                                          Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employ-
                                                                          ment Actions Limited (NRITEA) against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (Case T-268/02)
Community trade mark           The word/figurative mark ‘atlasre-                                 (2002/C 289/50)
applied for:                   isen’ for goods in Classes 16,
                               36, 39, 41 and 42 (application
                               No 376210)                                                   (Language of the case: English)
Proprietor of the oppos-       Fritidsresor AB
ing trade mark or sign:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 5 September 2002 by National
Opposing trade mark or         The national Swedish word/figu-            Resource for Innovative Training Research and Employment
sign:                          rative mark ‘Atlas resor’ for ser-         Actions Limited (NRITEA), Newcastle Upon Tyne (United
                               vices in Class 39 (travel arrange-         Kingdom), represented by Ms Alison Tate, Solicitor.
                               ments and travel agencies)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Decision of Opposition         Dismissal of application for Com-
Division:                      munity trade mark for the services
                               ‘arranging transport services by           —     annul the decision of the Commission dated 23 May
                               water, land and air; arranging and               2002 and the plaintiff be given a detailed analysis of each
                               conducting travel by water, land                 and every dossier on which there is alleged to be a
                               and air; arranging and providing                 problem and be allowed sufficient time to respond;
                               travel for tourists; providing tick-
                               ets; providing food and drink and          —     in the alternative, annul the Decision of 23 May 2002
                               temporary accommodation in                       and a declaration be made that Article 23 of Regulation
                               hotels and restaurants’ and admis-               (EEC) 4253/88 should apply in this instance rather than
                               sion of the registration for the                 Article 24.
                               remaining goods and services
Decision of Board of           Dismissal of applicant’s appeal
Appeal:                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law:                  —     Insufficient proof of genuine        The applicant is a voluntary organisation and a company
                                     use of the trade mark by the         limited by guarantee that assists and monitors the provision of
                                     opponent;                            training and development of underprivileged and deprived
                                                                          individuals in the United Kingdom. In this respect, the
                               —     Failure to comply with               applicant worked together with The MARI Group Limited, a
                                     Article 8(1) of Regulation           commercial company, specialised in training.
                                     No 40/94 (1). The applicant
                                     claims there is no likelihood
                                     of confusion between the             Both companies were subject to several detailed audits.
                                     trade marks.
                                                                          Following these audits and as a result of various irregularities
                                                                          found in the execution of the projects, the Commission decided
                                                                          to reduce the total assistance from the European Social Fund.
                                                                          This Decision is contested by the applicant in the present case.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Commission has infringed an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement in that it failed to provide the
                                                                          applicant with the opportunity to defend itself. According to
                                                                          the applicant, the Commission never provided directly to the
                                                                          applicant sufficient details of the allegations raised.


title: Case C-513/10 P: Appeal brought on 14 October 2010 by Dimitris Platis against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-311/10 Dimitris Platis v Council and Greece

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/10

         Appeal brought on 14 October 2010 by Dimitris Platis against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2010 in Case T-311/10 Dimitris Platis v Council and Greece
   (Case C-513/10 P)
   2011/C 80/18
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Dimitris Platis (represented by P. Theodoropoulos, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, Hellenic Republic
   By order of 17 December 2010 the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismisses the appeal in part as clearly unfounded and in part as clearly inadmissible.


title: Case T-491/11 P: Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Duration of the procedure for recognising partial permanent invalidity — Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant — Reimbursement of avoidable costs — Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law — Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/47

         Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-491/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Duration of the procedure for recognising partial permanent invalidity - Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant - Reimbursement of avoidable costs - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)
   2013/C 26/92
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

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

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 in Case F-14/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-16/04: Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Arcelor v Parliament and Council (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Action for annulment — Lack of direct and individual concern — Action for damages — Admissibility — Sufficiently serious breach of a higher-ranking rule of law conferring rights on individuals — Right to property — Freedom to pursue a trade or profession — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Freedom of establishment — Legal certainty)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 March 2010 — Arcelor v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-16/04) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Action for annulment - Lack of direct and individual concern - Action for damages - Admissibility - Sufficiently serious breach of a higher-ranking rule of law conferring rights on individuals - Right to property - Freedom to pursue a trade or profession - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Freedom of establishment - Legal certainty)
   2010/C 100/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arcelor SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: W. Deselaers, B. Meyring and B. Schmitt-Rady and subsequently by W. Deselaers and B. Meyring, lawyers,)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: K. Bradley and M. Moore and subsequently by L. Visaggio and I. Anagnostopoulou, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Hoff-Nielsen and M. Bishop, subsequently by E. Karlsson and A. Westerhof Löfflerova and subsequently by A. Westerhof Löfflerova and K. Michoel, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, Agent)

      Re:

   Partial annulment of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), and compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant in consequence of the adoption of that directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Arcelor SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.