title: Case T-14/00: Action brought on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestraten-Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.5.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/11
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicants claim that the Court should:
                       of 22 February 2000                                (1) Declare the action to be admissible;
in Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose v Commission of the                         (2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                   European Communities (1)                                   of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision
                                                                              in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Guide to promotion                        applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)
— Protection of legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers                    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for
             — Examination of comparative merits)                             service stations along the border with Germany) are to be
                                                                              treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the
                          (2000/C 135/20)                                     meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the
                                                                              applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
                                                                              that any amounts which may or must be paid to the
                    (Language of the case: French)                            applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
                                                                              correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
In Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose, an official of the Commission                  purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
of the European Communities, residing at Goutroux (Belgium),
represented by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address             (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Kremer,
6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-                Pleas in law and main arguments
Clotuche) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision not to promote the applicant to grade C 1 in the
course of the 1998 promotions procedure — the Court                       The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-               in Case T-318/99.
Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
a judgment on 22 February 2000, in which it:
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant
     to grade C 1 in the course of the 1998 promotions procedure;
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                          Action brought on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestraten-
                                                                          Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-14/00)
Action brought on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Baltussen
and Others against the Commission of the European                                                 (2000/C 135/22)
                            Communities
                           (Case T-13/00)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 135/21)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestra-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          ten-Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others, established in Ulestraten
                                                                          (Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
European Communities on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Bal-
tussen and Others, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an               The applicants claim that the Court should:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
31 Grand-Rue.                                                             (1) Declare the action to be admissible;
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/12              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
(2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)                  service stations along the border with Germany) are to be
    of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision                 treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the
    in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the                 meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the
    applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)                 applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for                     that any amounts which may or must be paid to the
    service stations along the border with Germany) are to be                 applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
    treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the                     correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
    meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the                  purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
    applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
    that any amounts which may or must be paid to the                     (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
    applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
    correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
    purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                          The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those
                                                                          in Case T-318/99.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those              (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
in Case T-318/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Jean Demaeght,
                                                                          Théo Lippert, Ulrike Sinter, John Hambly and Kirsten
                                                                          Lammar against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 19 January 2000 by Auto- en Carosse-
riebedrijf Ambting B.V. and Others against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                                                    (Case T-19/00)
                         (Case T-15/00)                                                           (2000/C 135/24)
                        (2000/C 135/23)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Jean De-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          maeght, residing in Luxembourg, Théo Lippert, residing in
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          Luxembourg, Ulrike Sinter, residing in Luxembourg, John
European Communities on 19 January 2000 by Auto- en
                                                                          Hambly, residing at Bembridge (United Kingdom) and Kirsten
Carosseriebedrijf Ambting B.V. and Others, established in
                                                                          Lammar, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël
Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the
                                                                          Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                          offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
(1) Declare the action to be admissible;
                                                                          — annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 18 November
(2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539           final] (1)        1998 not to take any steps to comply with the judgment
    of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision                 of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 1998 in
    in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the                 Case T-154/96;
    applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)
    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2004 in Case T-165/03 Eduard Vonier v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — National seminar — Composition of the selection board — Oral test — Private life — Knowledge of languages)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/23

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 November 2004
   in Case T-165/03 Eduard Vonier v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - National seminar - Composition of the selection board - Oral test - Private life - Knowledge of languages)
   (2005/C 19/50)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-165/03, Eduard Vonier, residing in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by W. Schmolke, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application, first, for annulment of the decision of 30 July 2002, by which the selection board in competition COM/A/6/01 decided not to include the applicant on the reserve list of administrators in the field of foreign relations and, secondly, for damages in compensation for the loss and damage allegedly incurred – the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, F. Dehousse and O. Czúcz, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 November 2004, in which it:

               (1)

               Dismisses the action;

               (2)

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-149/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2017 — Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG v Michael Strotzer
   (Case C-149/17)
   (2017/C 213/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bastei Lübbe GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Michael Strotzer

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 8(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that ‘effective and dissuasive sanctions for infringements of the right to make works available to the public’ are still provided for even when the owner of an Internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing is excluded from liability to pay damages if the owner of that Internet connection can name at least one family member who, besides him or her, might have had access to that Internet connection, without providing further details, established through appropriate investigations, as to when and how the Internet was used by that family member?

               1.

               Should Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/48/EC (2) be interpreted as meaning that ‘effective measures for the enforcement of intellectual property rights’ are still provided for even when the owner of an Internet connection used for copyright infringements through file-sharing is excluded from liability to pay damages if the owner of that Internet connection can name at least one family member who, besides him or her, might have had access to that Internet connection, without providing further details, established through appropriate investigations, as to when and how the Internet was used by that family member?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

      (2)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights; OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45.


title: Case C-445/12 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas (Appeal — Community trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BASKAYA’ — Opposition — Bilateral convention — Territory of a non-Member State — ‘Genuine use’ )

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/19

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Rivella International AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas
   (Case C-445/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘BASKAYA’ - Opposition - Bilateral convention - Territory of a non-Member State - ‘Genuine use’)
   2014/C 52/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Rivella International AG (represented by: C. Spintig, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 12 July 2012 in Case T-170/11 Rivella International v OHIM — Baskaya di Baskaya Alim (BASKAYA) by which the General Court (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 January 2011 (Case R 534/2010-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Baskaya di Baskaya Alim e C. Sas — Likelihood of confusion between a figurative sign containing the word element ‘BASKAYA’ and an earlier international figurative mark containing the word element ‘Passaia’ — Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Error of assessment in examining the opposition.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Rivella International AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.12


title: Case T-104/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji (Appeal — Cross appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposals concerning additional pensionable years — Measure not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectation — Equal treatment)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Commission v Verile and Gjergji
   (Case T-104/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposals concerning additional pensionable years - Measure not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectation - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 398/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, G. Gattinara and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Marco Verile (Cadrezzate, Italy) and Anduela Gjergji (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and M. de Abreu Caldas, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 11 December 2013, Verile and Gjergji v Commission (F-130/11, ECR, EU:F:2013:195), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 11 December 2013 in Verile and Gjergji v Commission (F-130/11);

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr. Marco Verile and Ms Anduela Gjergji before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-130/11;

               3.

               Orders Mr. Verile, Ms. Gjergji and the European Commission each to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-299/06: Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-299/06) (1)

   (2007/C 82/60)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Action brought on 14 October 1997 by EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimentação e Cereais, SA, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-270/97)

text:
C 370/ 10              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6 . 12 . 97
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              if a determination has been made that the complaint is
                                                                         supported by a number of Community producers
                                                                         properly constituting the 'Community industry'. The
— declare the Commission decision to initiate the Third                  term ' Community industry' is defined in the Basic
    Investigation of certain cotton fabrics originating in               Regulation by reference to EU producers of the like
    China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey                  product. As the Commission has previously taken the
    illegal and void,                                                    position that unbleached cotton fabrics are like
                                                                         products to bleached, printed and dyed fabrics, the
                                                                         Commission's initiation of the current investigation
— take such other steps as justice may require, and                      having regard only to the position of EU producers of
                                                                         unbleached cotton fabrics suggests that it improperly
                                                                         assessed the support for or opposition to the
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant                 Eurocoton complaint under the Basic Regulation.
    in the present proceedings .
                                                                     — infringed Article 190 of the EC Treaty, by totally
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      failing to explain in the Notice or in any other context
                                                                         the relevant factual circumstances upon which its
                                                                         decision to initiate the proceeding was based, in
The applicant, the European Community's largest                          particular concerning the decision of the Council in
importer, stockist and distributor of unbleached cotton                  May 1997 to terminate the second cotton fabric
fabrics, challenges the Commission decision to initiate
                                                                         investigation concerning the same countries and the
anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports into the
                                                                         same products without imposition of any protective
Community of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in
                                                                         measures. By failing to give this explanation while, at
the People's Republic of China , Egypt, India , Indonesia ,              the same time, requiring in the Notice that interested
Pakistan and Turkey. The applicant claims that this
                                                                         parties make themselves known without delay and
decision was first and foremost a political decision taken
                                                                         provide the Commission with relevant information
under pressure, particularly from France .
                                                                         within quite short time-limits, the Commission has
                                                                         precluded such parties from fully and effectively
The applicant submits that the Commission has:                           commenting and providing relevant evidence on the
                                                                         actual situation .
— misused its powers by exerting its responsibilities
    under the EC Treaty with regard to application of
     Community measures to protect trade with the
     intention primarily of supporting purely political
     interests   in   one  of the   Member     States  and   of
    circumventing a definitive decision taken by the                 Action brought on 14 October 1997 by EPAC, Empresa
     Council only days earlier that imposition of protective         para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais, SA, against the
     anti-dumping measures on the same products imported                      Commission of the European Communities
     from the same five countries was not justified under                                   ( Case T-270/97 )
     the terms of the Basic Regulation; the same
     Commission act is also contrary to the general                                           ( 97/C 370/22 )
     principle of Community law non bis in idem and to
     the requirements of proper administration;                                    (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— abused its discretion under the provisions of the
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
     Community's Basic Regulation relating to the                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
     initiation of anti-dumping investigations, in particular        Instance of the European Communities on 14 October
     Article 5 ( 3 ), by not taking into account the fact that        1997 by EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimentagao
     the complaint of Eurocoton ( Committee of the Cotton            Cereais, SA, whose registered office is at Avenida Almi
     and Allied Textile industries of the EC ) which
                                                                     rante Gago Coutinho, No 26, Lisbon, represented by Joao
     specifically raised the issue of Community interest and         Mota de Campos, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for
     treated this issue in detail did not introduce any new
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Joaquim Calvo
     evidence such as could give rise to a reasonable belief         Basaran , 34 Boulevard Ernest Feltgen, 1515 Luxembourg .
     that a new investigation would lead to a different
     conclusion by the Council, and particularly with
     respect to the critically important Community interest          The applicant claims that the Court should :
     criterion ;
                                                                     — uphold the application and accordingly declare null
 — infringed essential procedural requirements, in                        and void Decision C(97 ) 2130 final of 9 July 1997,
     particular those laid down in Article 5 (4 ) of the Basic
     Regulation which provides that an anti-dumping
     investigation can be initiated by the Commission only            — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 12 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 370/ 11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                                                                        Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and Fran<;oise Parmentier, of
                                                                        the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
EPAC, Empresa para a Agro-Alimenta^ao e Cereais, SA, a
                                                                        Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari,
limited liability company governed by Portuguese law,                   30 Rue de Cessange.
whose capital is exclusively public, challenges the decision
whereby the Commission describes as aid the measures
taken in its favour, considers such aid incompatible with               The applicants claim that the Court should :
Article 92 of the EC Treaty and directs the Portuguese
State to abolish, within two weeks from notifications, the
aforementioned aid and to recover, within two months                    — annul the decisions expressly rejecting their requests
from notifications, the said aid .                                           for reimbursement of the sums wrongly deducted in
                                                                             respect of household grants,
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                        — order the defendant to reimburse to them all sums
those relied on in T-204/97 EPAC v. Commission ('). The
applicant alleges infringement of Articles 190 and 92 of                     wrongly deducted and to pay interest thereon at the
the EC Treaty as well as the existence, in the present case ,                rate of 8 % per annum from the date when each
of arbitrary discrimination between public and private                       deduction was made until the date of reimbursement,
undertakings, that it is legally impossible for the
Portuguese State to adopt the measures imposed by the                   — order the defendant to pay the costs.
contested decision and breach of the principles of
proportionality and of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(') Not yet published in the Official Journal .
                                                                        The applicants, officials of the Commission whose spouses
                                                                        receive a household grant, state that up until July 1996
                                                                        the defendant deducted, pursuant to Article 67 ( 2 ) of the
                                                                        Staff Regulations for officials, the household grant
                                                                        received by their spouses from the family allowances to
                                                                        which they were entitled . In July 19 96 , in consequence of
Action brought on 13 October 1997 by Patrick Fischbach                  the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance on
and others against the Commission of the European                       11 June 1996 in Case T-147/95 Pavan v. Parliament, the
                           Communities                                  Commission published a staff notice inviting the persons
                                                                        concerned to apply to the administration for re-assessment
                        ( Case T-271/97)                                of their situation . Upon the applicants so doing, the
                          ( 97/C 370/23 )                               administration decided that, with effect from 1 July 1996,
                                                                        it would no longer deduct that grant from the household
                (Language of the case: French)                          allowance paid to the applicants. The applicants there
                                                                        upon requested retroactive reimbursement of all of the
                                                                        sums deducted together with default interest . Those
An action against the Commission of the European                        requests were rejected by the defendant.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 13 October
1997 by Patrick Fischbach , residing at Uebersyren                      The pleas in law and main arguments advanced by the
( Luxembourg ), Alain Gengler, residing at Bettembourg                  applicants against those rejection decisions are the same as
( Luxembourg), Joseph Koener, residing at Olm                           those in Case T-181 /97 (').
( Luxembourg ), Gaby Pavant-Welter, residing at Dalheim
( Luxembourg), Marie-Anne Prommenschenkel-Po.orters,                    (') Case T-181 /97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice, OJ
residing in Luxembourg, and Josepha Wonner, residing in                     C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 35 .


19.6.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 174/3
Fourth, Article 31(3) of the abovementioned law provides that             Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
inter alia the obligations relating to advertising and sponsorship
do not apply to services broadcast solely in a foreign language           The Commission’s objections related inter alia to the fact that
without French sub-titles. Thus, those services, although within          although Article 6(3)(e) of Regulation (EEC) No 1558/91 (2)
French jurisdiction, are not subject to the obligations deriving          provides that the minimum price to be paid to the producer
from the directive. France, however, is required under Article            for raw materials is not to include costs connected with
2(1) of the directive to exercise control over such services.             transport, the Commission services found that the producers
                                                                          were required to pay a part of that expenditure (35%).
Fifth, no implementing measure has been adopted to make                   According to the Commission, that was contrary to the
the provisions of the directive applicable to services using              provisions of the regulations in that such conduct amounted
frequencies not managed by the Conseil Supérieur de l’Audiovi-            to non-observance of the minimum price to be paid to the
suel, even if their broadcasts are intended for the public in             producer for the raw material delivered.
France.
                                                                          The national legislation on payments for tomatoes and trans-
                                                                          port costs was contained, as far as the 1996/97 marketing year
(1) OJ L 298 of 17.10.1989, p. 23.                                        was concerned, in an interprofessional agreement approved
                                                                          and confirmed in accordance with Italian Law No 88/1998,
                                                                          with which the Commission must have been entirely familiar.
                                                                          The Italian authorities made it clear that in the abovementioned
                                                                          agreement, considering that almost all the tomato containers
                                                                          were owned by the processing undertakings, the farmers had
                                                                          accepted a maximum of 35% of the documented cost of the
Action brought on 21 April 1999 by the Italian Republic                   overall transport, including carriage of the raw material from
    against Commission of the European Communities                        the place of harvest to the processing undertaking (at the
                                                                          latter’s expense) in order to cover both reimbursement of the
                         (Case C-146/99)                                  cost of the crates and bins which were liable to be broken and,
                                                                          therefore, would need to be replaced, and that of distributing
                                                                          those containers to the places of harvest. The Italian authorities
                         (1999/C 174/05)
                                                                          also state that the payments of the minimum price for the
                                                                          product were all made entirely in accordance with Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 legislation and that, when the EAGGF had so requested, the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 21 April 1999             relevant files had been made available to it.
by the Italian Republic, represented by Danilo Del Gaizo,
Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.                       (1) Decision 1999/186/ec — OJ 1999 L 61 of 10.3.99, p. 34.
                                                                          (2) OJ 1991 L 144 of 8.6.91, p. 31.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Commission Decision C(99) 208 Final of 3 February
     1999 (1) which excludes from Community financing cer-
     tain expenditure incurred by the Member States in respect
     of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                       Removal from the register of Case C-334/98 (1)
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) to the extent
     to which, in determining the total italian expenditure                                       (1999/C 174/06)
     chargeable to the Fund, it made financial adjustments to
     the detriment of Italy, declaring not to be chargeable to
                                                                          By order of 12 March 1999 the President of the Court of
     the Fund the sum of ITL 7 421 939 820 for aid for
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     the processing of tomatoes — incomplete payment of
                                                                          from the register of Case C-334/98: Commission of the
     transport costs to tomato producers (item 4.6.8 of the
                                                                          European Communities v Italy.
     summary report for 1995) —, and
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.


16.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 151/7
    What must be the rate that it is legally appropriate to       requirements laid down in the Annex and Article 5) and
    adopt, in the absence of any applicable domestic law          on 31 December 1994 (as regards the remainder of the
    and of any choice thus made by the Member State               provisions).
    within the bracket allowed by the directive?
                                                                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
                                                                  (2) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998, p. 12.
    In other words, what must be the scope of the
    directive in such circumstances and must it be
    considered that the applicable rate is: 1 %? 0 %? and
    why not 0,25 % or 0,50 %?
(1) OJ L 103, 18.4.1973, p. 15.
(2) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
(3) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.                                         Removal from the register of Case C-287/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 151/12)
                                                                  By order of 17 September 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-287/97: (Reference
                                                                  for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Action brought on 16 March 1998 by the Commission of              Bassano del Grappa): Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
 the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain            Sociale S. Rocco Scarl.
                       (Case C-73/98)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                        (98/C 151/11)
An action against Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Juan Guerra FernaÂndez and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-160/97 (1)
GeÂrard Berscheid, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                                 (98/C 151/13)
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                  By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
The applicant claims that the Court should:                       of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-160/97: Commission
                                                                  of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force,
    or to notify, the laws, regulations or administrative         (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
    85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and
    controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (1) as amended
    by Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December
    1993, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
    obligations under the EC Treaty, and
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-173/97 (1)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                                                   (98/C 151/14)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:               By order of 4 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                                                                  removal from the register of Case C-173/97: Commission
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to              of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
those in Case C-66/98 (2); the period for implemen-
tation expired on 31 December 1993 (as regards the                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.


title: Case T-816/16 RENV: Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Alsteens v Commission

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/49

         Order of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — Alsteens v Commission
   (Case T-816/16 RENV) (1)

   (2017/C 249/67)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under Case No F-87/12).


title: Case T-130/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Application for interim measures — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation — Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements — Application for a stay of execution of a measure — Lack of any urgency)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/35

         Order of the President of the General Court of 21 July 2017 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission
   (Case T-130/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - Application by the Bundesnetzagentur for review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the EU requirements for its operation - Commission decision amending the exemption from the EU requirements - Application for a stay of execution of a measure - Lack of any urgency))
   (2017/C 293/42)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Request on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2016) 6950 final of 28 October 2016 on review of the exemption of the OPAL pipeline from the requirements on third party access and tariff regulation granted under Directive 2003/55/EC.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-53/07: Order of the President of the Court of 19 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 19 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-53/07) (1)

   (2007/C 315/57)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-70/05: Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/23

         Action brought on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-70/05)
   (2005/C 82/46)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

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

      (1)  OJ L 303 of 2 December 2000, p. 16.


title: Case C-213/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 May 2011 — Fortuna Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku (Republic of Poland), lodged on 9 May 2011 — Fortuna Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni
   (Case C-213/11)
   2011/C 219/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gdańsku

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fortuna Sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Gdyni

      Question referred

   Must Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (1) and of rules on Information Society services be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘technical regulation’, the draft of which must be communicated to the European Commission pursuant to Article 8(1) of that directive, includes a legislative measure which prohibits the alteration of authorisations for activity involving gaming on low-value-prize machines in respect of a change in the place at which that gaming is organised?

      (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37), as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998 amending Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 217, p. 18).


title: Case T-329/04: Action brought on 2 August 2004 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/50

         Action brought on 2 August 2004 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-329/04)
   (2004/C 262/94)
   Language of the case: Danish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 August 2004 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd, West Drayton (Great Britain), represented by Simon Evers Hjelmborg, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Commission Decision of 19 May 2004 in State aid Case C 2/2003 (ex NN 22/2002) concerning Denmark's measures in favour of TV2/Danmark in so far as the decision declares the aid to be compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision, the Commission approved the aid granted to TV2/DANMARK A/S from 1995 to 2002 in the form of licence-fee resources and certain other measures as compatible with the common market, except for an amount of DKK 628.2 million which, in the Commission's view, constitutes unlawful State aid which the Kingdom of Denmark is obliged to recover from TV2/DANMARK A/S. The applicant has applied for annulment of that part of the decision by which the Commission declares part of the aid to be compatible with the common market.
   The applicant submits that the Commission's assessment is incorrect in the re-examination of the question of whether TV2/DANMARK A/S's public service obligations are defined in sufficient detail, since it has found that all of TV2/DANMARK A/S's programme range forms part of its public service obligations. It is precisely this aspect which makes it difficult to re-examine whether the Danish State has complied and continues to comply with the Community competition rules, in particular Article 87(1) EC, together with Article 86(2) EC.
   The applicant adds that the Commission's method for assessing whether the aid found to exist within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC pursuant to Article 86(1) EC is compatible with the common market is incorrect because the method does not take account of the presence of indirect (horizontal) State aid (cross-subsidisation), contrary to Article 87(1) EC:

               —

               because the anti-competitive conduct by TV2/DANMARK A/S in the market for sales of television advertising cannot be necessary for the performance of TV2/DANMARK A/S's public service obligations pursuant to Article 86(2) EC, with the result that Article 87(1) EC applies absolutely in relation to TV2/DANMARK A/S's conduct in commercial markets;

               —

               because the Commission assessed only whether possible excess compensation from the State (the direct vertical and prohibited State aid) had been provided to assist the commercial activities, and not whether the compensation from the State (the direct vertical and permitted State aid) had been provided in order to obtain an economic advantage in the commercial activities which distorted competition;

               —

               because the 'stand alone' test applied by the Commission is not applicable to the present case, because it is based on a comparison between TV2/DANMARK A/S's competitors' costs (instead of TV2/DANMARK A/S's own costs) and TV2/DANMARK A/S's income from commercial activities, thereby ignoring possible differences in levels of efficiency, with the result that the test does not show fully whether TV2/DANMARK A/S's commercial activities through cross-subsidation have generated an economic advantage which distorts competition;

               —

               because the price test applied by the Commission is not applicable to the present case, either.


title: Case F-60/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Abeloos v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Abeloos v Commission
   (Case F-60/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/74)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 421, 24/11/2014, p. 60.


title: Case C-426/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2010 by Bell & Ross BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2010 in Case T-51/10 Bell & Ross BV v OHIM

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/28

         Appeal brought on 26 August 2010 by Bell & Ross BV against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2010 in Case T-51/10 Bell & Ross BV v OHIM

   (Case C-426/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 346/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bell & Ross BV (represented by: S. Guerlain, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs), Klockgrossisten i Norden AB

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested order;

               —

               declare that the action brought by the applicant for annulment of a decision of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHMI) (T-51/10) is admissible and, consequently, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the substance of that action for annulment;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant relies on six grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, Bell & Ross claims that the General Court infringed Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure in that the General Court held that the action was manifestly inadmissible without first having heard the Advocate General.
   By its second ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure, in that the General Court ruled that the original texts of the application received by the Registry on 1 February 2010 were not original, and that solely the text received on 5 February 2010, and therefore out of time, could be regarded as an original text, but did not however explain how the originals can be distinguished from the copies. Article 43 does not specify what rules apply to the lawyer’s signature which must be appended to the original of a pleading.
   By its third ground of appeal, Bell & Ross complains that the General Court did not allow it to put in order, in accordance with Article 57(b) of the Practice Directions to parties and Article 7.1 of the Instructions to the registrar of the General Court, the formal irregularity attributed to it. In accordance with those provisions, it is the duty of the Registrar to allow the applicant a period of time to make good the discovered irregularity.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, Bell & Ross relies on excusable error, since the confusion regarding the identification of the original text was caused by exceptional circumstances which were not under the applicant’s control. The facts that the large number of copies required the assistance of an external service provider, that the excellent quality of the paper copies made it impossible to recognise the original and that the signature was appended all of the texts sent to the registry within the time prescribed, constitute circumstances which allow a finding of excusable error to be made in this case.
   By its fifth ground of appeal, the applicant relies on the fact that the circumstances were exceptional, abnormal and not under the trader’s control, evidence of unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure.
   Finally, by its sixth and last ground of appeal, Bell & Ross claims that the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations since, first, seven texts bearing a signature and one fax copy were received at the registry of the General Court and, second, the abovementioned provisions provide for the possibility of regularisation of the application.


title: Case F-38/07: Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Francesco Caleprico v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/45

         Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Francesco Caleprico v Commission
   (Case F-38/07)
   (2007/C 140/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Francesco Caleprico (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: V. Guagliulmi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare Articles 12 and 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations inapplicable, as provided for in Article 241 EC, in that they are unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision by which the appointing authority implicitly rejected the complaint submitted by the applicant against the decision of 12 June 2006;

               —

               annul in part the decision of the Commission of 12 June 2006, in so far as the appointing authority established the applicant in grade AD6/2 rather than AD8/3;

               —

               order the Commission to replace the contested part of the decision of 12 June 2006 with a part establishing the applicant in grade AD8/3 with retroactive effect (from 1 July 2006);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant all the amounts which he has not received on account of the unlawfulness of the contested decisions, plus interest due and becoming due;

               —

               order the Commission to compensate all and any other damage suffered by the applicant as the Court of First Instance may deem fit in the present case;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, placed on the reserve list of competition EUR/A/155/2000 (1) for the establishment of a list of suitable candidates for grades A7/A6, was employed after Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (2) came into force, and established in grade AD6/2.
   In support of his application, the applicant pleads two grounds.
   In connection with the first plea, he submits that the decision of 12 June 2006 is vitiated by a conflict between, on the one hand, the reference in the preamble to Article 31 of the Staff Regulations, according to which candidates are to be appointed to the grade of the function group set out in the notice of the competition, and, on the other hand, the operative part of that decision which establishes him in grade AD6/2.
   In connection with the second plea, he claims that, in any event, the decision at issue is unlawful because it is founded on an implicit legal basis (Articles 12 and 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations) which is unlawful under the following heads:

               —

               breach of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations;

               —

               breach of the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment;

               —

               breach of the principle of reasonableness, considering that the application of the new body of rules depends on a circumstance which is absolutely fortuitous, such as that of being recruited before or after a particular date, without any other reason justifying such a rule;

               —

               breach of the principle of sound administration;

               —

               in the alternative, infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which Community measures are based laid down in Article 251 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 147 A of 25.5.2000, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 1995 in Case C-151/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Article 48 of the EC Treaty - Equal treatment - Taxation of income of temporary residents - Repayment of excess tax)

text:
30 . 12 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 351 / 1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   1 . declares that, by maintaining in force provisions under
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                                    which excess amounts of tax deducted from the wages
                                                                           or salaries ofnationals ofa Member State who resided in
                     of 26 October 1995                                    Luxembourg or occupied a salaried position there for
      in Case C-151 /94 : Commission of the European                       only part ofthe tax year are to remain the property ofthe
     Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )                        Treasury and are not repayable, the Grand Duchy of
(Article 48 ofthe EC Treaty — Equal treatment — Taxation                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
of income of temporary residents — Repayment of excess                     Article 48 (2) of the Treaty and Article 7 (2) of Council
                               tax)                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                           freedom of movement for workers within the
                         ( 95/C 351 /01 )                                  Community;
                (Language of the case: French)                         2 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
                                                                           costs .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (') OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-151 /94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Helene Michard and Enrico
Traversa ) v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent: Nicolas
Schmit ) — application for a declaration that, by maintaining
in force provisions under which excess amounts of tax
deducted from the wages or salaries of nationals of a
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                       Circondariale di Roma by order of that court of 3 October
Member State who resided in Luxembourg and/or occupied
                                                                       1995 in the case of Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza
a salaried position there for only part of the tax year shall
                                                                                Sociale ( INPS )
remain the property of the Treasury and cannot be repaid
nor adjusted , the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to                                    ( Case C-322/95 )
fulfil its obligations under Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty                                  ( 95/C 351 /02 )
and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community , and in particular Article 7 ( 2 ) thereof ( OJ,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Sixth      European Communities by order of the Pretura
Chamber ), composed of: C.N. Kakouris, President of the                Circondariale di Roma ( Rome District Magistrates' Court )
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F.A.                  of 3 October 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry
Schockweiler and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave             Emanuele Iurlaro against Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) on the
a judgment on 26 October 1995 in which it:                             interpretation of Article 15 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC )


title: Case T-434/03: Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004               EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 59/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Article 82 EC in refusing to conclude a cross-border roaming
                                                                              (GSM) agreement with the applicant. The applicant later
                                                                              converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86
Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case                 (EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12
T-17/95 (1), the Commission adopted an amendment of the                       EC, against Spain alleging that Telefonica was acting under
rules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in grade             instructions from the Spanish Government which claims
and classification in scale on recruitment, which entitled                    sovereignty over Gibraltar.
officials to seek a review of their classification on entering the
service. By the contested decision, the Commission confirmed
the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 on the date of his
recruitment and, accordingly, rejected a request for reclassifi-              In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of
cation submitted by the applicant.                                            alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision.
                                                                              According to the applicant, the Commission erred in consider-
                                                                              ing that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoys
In support of his action, the applicant relies on a failure to                special rights within the meaning of article 86 EC. The
state reasons in the contested decision, a manifest error of                  applicant further alleges that Telefonica is in a dominant
assessment and alleged discrimination between the applicant,                  position and that there is an appreciable effect on trade and
whose request for reclassification was rejected, and other                    on competition of the refusal to conclude an agreement with
officials who, with less professional experience than the                     the applicant. In the context of the same plea the applicant
applicant, were none the less reclassified in the higher grade of             argues that the Commission’s assessment that consumers in
the career bracket.                                                           Gibraltar have access to mobile telecommunications services
                                                                              in Spain is manifestly unsound and that there is no suitable
                                                                              alternative to the Commission’s intervention.
(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
    ties of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.
                                                                              The applicant further puts forward a number of procedural
                                                                              and administrative grounds for annulment referring, in this
                                                                              context, to inadequate reasoning and a violation of the
                                                                              applicant’s legitimate expectations which allegedly arose as a
                                                                              result of a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of the
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom                              Commission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting the
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                           two countries, among other things, to find a solution to the
                              munities                                        complaint about roaming. The applicant further submits, in
                                                                              the context of the same plea, that the Commission has failed
                         (Case T-433/03)                                      to act impartially and that it has breached the principle
                                                                              requiring it to act within a reasonable period.
                          (2004/C 59/46)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom                        Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas, Barrister and                Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.                                                                                munities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-434/03)
—      Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 October 2003
       rejecting the complaint brought by Gibtelecom under
                                                                                (2004/C 59/47)
       Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC;
—      order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.                                            (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
filed by the applicant on 14 May 1996 alleging that the                       European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had                       Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas Barrister and
committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to                 Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/30               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      the applicant any additional seniority and therefore
                                                                                reclassified her in Grade C 4, first step, instead of
—     Declare that the Commission was under a duty to define                     Grade C 4, third step;
      its position in respect of that part of Gibtelecom’s
      complaint concerning an infringement of Article 86 (1)
      EC in conjunction with Article 12 and/or Article 49 EC;
                                                                          —      In so far as necessary, annul the express decision of the
—     Declare that the Commission, by not defining its position                  appointing authority of 11 September 2003, notified
      within two months of Gibtelecom’s letter of formal notice                  to the applicant on 16 September 2003, dismissing
      of 18 August 2003, in respect of that part of its complaint                complaint No R/222/03;
      concerning an infringement of Article 86 (1) EC in
      conjunction with Article 12 and/or Article 49 EC, failed
      to act;
                                                                          —      Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
—     Call upon the Commission to act by adopting a decision                     ings.
      on that part of Gibtelecom’s complaint concerning an
      infringement of Article 86 (1) EC in conjunction with
      Article 12 and/or Article 49 EC;
—     Order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs;
—     Alternatively, annul the Commission’s decision of
      17 October 2003 (Reference No D005602) rejecting that
      part of Gibtelecom’s complaint concerning an infringe-              Pleas in law and main arguments
      ment of Article 86 (1) EC in conjunction with Article 12
      and/or Article 49 EC;
—     Order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                          T-17/95 (1), the Commission adopted an amendment of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           rules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in grade
                                                                          and classification in scale on recruitment, which entitled
The pleas and arguments invoked by the applicant are similar              officials to seek a review of their classification on entering the
to those invoked by the same applicant in case T-433/03.                  service. By the contested decision, the Commission granted
                                                                          such a request submitted by the applicant and reclassified her
                                                                          in Grade C 4, Step 1. The applicant is contesting that decision,
                                                                          in so far as it does not award her any additional seniority.
Action brought on 26 December 2003 by Anne-Marie
     Mathieu against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                     In support of her action, the applicant relies on a breach of the
                                                                          Commission’s decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September
                                                                          1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and
                        (Case T-437/03)
                                                                          classification in step on recruitment. She also claims that the
                                                                          Commission has infringed Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations
                         (2004/C 59/48)                                   and the principle of equal treatment by refusing to award her
                                                                          any additional seniority although it awarded the maximum
                   (Language of the case: French)                         additional seniority to other officials whose professional
                                                                          experience is much shorter than hers. Last, the applicant relies
                                                                          on a failure to state reasons in the contested decision.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 December 2003 by Anne-Marie
Mathieu, residing in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-             (1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.
bourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
      20 December 2003 in so far as it did not award


Avis juridique important

|

E1996P0002

Request for an advisory opinion by Inderøy herredsrett by decision of that court of 11 March 1996 in the case of Jørn Ulstein and Per Otto Røiseng v. Asbjørn Møller (Case E-2/96)

Official Journal C 169 , 13/06/1996 P. 0015 - 0015

Request for an advisory opinion by Inderøy herredsrett by decision of that court of 11 March 1996 in the case of Jørn Ulstein and Per Otto Røiseng v. Asbjørn Møller (Case E-2/96) (96/C 169/10)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decision of 11 March 1996 of Inderøy herredsrett (Inderøy County Court), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 March 1996, for an advisory opinion in the case of Jørn Ulstein and Per Otto Røiseng v. Asbjørn Møller, on the following questions:1. Is Council Directive 77/187/EEC to be interpreted in such a way that the expression 'transfer of an undertaking, business or part of a business` only covers situations where there is some form of contract between the transferor and the transferee?2. Is the abovementioned Council Directive to be interpreted in such a way that the expression quoted under point 1 above implies that the transferee must take over property or moveables from the transferor?3. Will it make any difference and, if so, how, for the interpretation of the abovementioned Council Directive if some, but not all employees of the transferor are employed by the transferee?4. Will it make any difference and, if so, how, for the interpretation of the abovementioned Council Directive if an assignment is awarded according to the rules governing tender and the provision of the service is limited in time?


title: Case T-474/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — GGP Italy v Commission (Interim measures — Directive 2006/42/EC — Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers against risks arising from the use of machinery — Measure taken by the Latvian authorities prohibiting a type of lawnmower — Commission Decision declaring the measure justified — Application to suspend operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/61

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — GGP Italy v Commission
   (Case T-474/15 R)
   ((Interim measures - Directive 2006/42/EC - Protection of the health and safety of consumers and workers against risks arising from the use of machinery - Measure taken by the Latvian authorities prohibiting a type of lawnmower - Commission Decision declaring the measure justified - Application to suspend operation - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 038/83)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Global Garden Products Italy SpA (GGP Italy) (Castelfranco Veneto, Italy) (represented by: A. Villani, L. D’Amario and M. Caccialanza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and L. Cappelletti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the operation of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/902 of 10 June 2015 on a measure taken by Latvia in accordance with Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council to prohibit the placing on the market of a lawnmower manufactured by GGP Italy SpA (OJ 2015 L 147, p. 22).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-428/09: Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Berenschot Groep v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/50

         Order of the General Court of 24 March 2010 — Berenschot Groep v Commission
   (Case T-428/09) (1)

   2010/C 134/83

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case T-361/13: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Menelaus v OHIM — Garcia Mahiques (VIGOR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VIGOR — Earlier Community figurative mark and earlier international figurative mark VIGAR — Admissibility of evidence of use submitted on a CD-ROM — Taking into account of additional evidence which was not submitted within the time-limit set — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Menelaus v OHIM — Garcia Mahiques (VIGOR)
   (Case T-361/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VIGOR - Earlier Community figurative mark and earlier international figurative mark VIGAR - Admissibility of evidence of use submitted on a CD-ROM - Taking into account of additional evidence which was not submitted within the time-limit set - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Articles 15 and 57(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character))
   (2016/C 007/26)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Menelaus BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: Vicente Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre, Spain) and Felipe Garcia Mahiques (Jesus Pobre) (represented by: E. Pérez Crespo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 April 2013 (Case R 88/2012-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between, on the one hand, Vicente Garcia Mahiques and Felipe Garcia Mahiques and, on the other hand, Menelaus BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Menelaus BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and by Messrs Vicente Garcia Mahiques and Felipe Garcia Mahiques.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2002 in Case T-70/01: Pier V. Aimone v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Refusal to reintegrate — Automatic dismissal — Articles 40(4)(d) and 49, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)

text:
C 233/22                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       28.9.2002
                                                            COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2002
                             of 9 July 2002
                                                                              in Case T-233/01: Daniel Caillebout v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-70/01: Pier V. Aimone v Court of Justice of the                     (Officials — Promotion — Absence of definitive staff report
                    European Communities ( 1)                                            — Consideration of the comparative merits)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/41)
(Officials — Leave on personal grounds — Refusal to
reintegrate — Automatic dismissal — Articles 40(4)(d)                                             (Language of the case: French)
      and 49, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                              In Case T-233/01: Daniel Caillebout, an official of the Com-
                                                                              mission of the European Communities, residing in Mondorf-
                            (2002/C 233/40)                                   les-Bains (Luxembourg), represented by J.-N. Louis and
                                                                              V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                          C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the
                                                                              decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000 not to
                                                                              promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2000 promotions
                                                                              procedure — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
                                                                              composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
                                                                              Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
                                                                              judgment on 9 July 2002, in which it:
In Case T-70/01: Pier V. Aimone, a former official at the Court
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Fribourg                  1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 14 August 2000 not
(Switzerland), represented by R. Ventura, lawyer, against Court                      to promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2000 promotions
of Justice of the European Communities (Agents: M. Schauss                           procedure;
et A. Dal Ferro) — application for, first, annulment of the
decision of the Court of Justice of 22 May 2000 automatically                 2.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
removing the official from his post with effect from 1 June
2000 and, secondly, compensation to make good the non-
material and psycho-physiological damage allegedly suffered                   (1 ) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber) composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 July 2002, in
which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 14 June 2002
1.     dismisses the application for annulment;
                                                                              in Case T-173/01: Asahi Vet SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.     dismisses the claim for compensation;
                                                                              (Authorisation of an additive in animal feedingstuffs — No
3.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                                         need to rule)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/42)
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                                      (Language of the Case: German)
                                                                              In Case T-173/01: Asahi Vet SA, established in Barcelona
                                                                              (Spain), represented by C. Bittner, Lawyer, against Commission


title: Action brought on 2 October 1998 by Yvan Torre and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-159/98)

text:
5.12.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 378/21
Lastly, the appointing authority committed a manifest               before the end of the test, the invigilators distributed
error of assessment by failing to recognise the                     among the candidates concerned a photocopy of the page
appropriateness, having regard to the delicate nature of            missing from the questionnaire and informed them that
the applicant's situation, of promoting her at the earliest         they would be given additional time to answer. That
possible juncture in the interests of the service.                  information, however, was contradicted because, at the
                                                                    end of the test, as the instructions to candidates provided,
                                                                    the person responsible for conducting the test requested
                                                                    the candidates concerned to stop writing, and their scripts
                                                                    were collected.
Action brought on 2 October 1998 by Yvan Torre                      According to the applicants, these irregularities in the
and Others against the Commission of the European                   manner in which test (a) was conducted distort the results
                          Communities                               of the test and render the selection board's decision
                        (Case T-159/98)                             invalid. They further claim that there was a breach of the
                                                                    instructions to candidates, as well as infringement of the
                         (98/C 378/38)                              principles of equal treatment and sound administration.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    Finally, the applicants submit that, contrary to the
                                                                    obligation to state reasons, the contested decisions do not
An action against the Commission of the European                    contain any reasoning other than the marks obtained by
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   the applicants in tests (a) to (d), along with a reference to
Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1998              Point VII.A.1 of the notice of competition, which specified
by Yvan Torre, Donatella Ineichen and Alessandro                    that candidates had to obtain the minimum mark required
Cavallaro, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-               for test (a) in order for tests (e) and (f) to be corrected.
Albert Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
30 Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Action brought on 2 October 1998 by NV Firma LeÂon
Ð annul the decisions of the selection board for                    Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit Company against the
    Competition       EUR/A/123      awarding      them    an                Commission of the European Communities
    insufficient mark for test (a) of the competition in                                   (Case T-160/98)
    question and, consequently, refusing to admit them to
    tests (e) and (f), decisions which were notified to them                                 (98/C 378/39)
    by letters of 2 July 1998 from Mrs Anne D'Haen-
    Bertier, on behalf of the chairman of the selection                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
    board;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the decisions of the selection board for
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Competition EUR/A/123 affected by the illegality of
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 2 October 1998
    the decisions challenged;
                                                                    by NV Firma LeÂon Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit
                                                                    Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium),
Ð in the alternative to the latter point, suspend the               represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den Hende and J.
    procedure for filling the posts concerned by                    Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address for service in
    Competition EUR/A/123 until such time as it has been            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11
    possible to re-organise test (a) and for it to be held          Rue Goethe.
    under proper conditions for all Italian-language
    candidates admitted to the competition, and for the
    Commission to draw all proper consequences from the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    results of that test.
                                                                    Ð annul the decision taken by the Commission between
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     12 March and 5 August 1998, by which it decided to
                                                                        reduce the quantities of imported bananas declared by
                                                                        the applicant for the 1996 reference year for the
The applicants, whose native language is Italian, applied               purposes of determining the quantity of bananas
to sit Competition EUR/A/123 and chose the area of                      which the applicants are authorised to import from
financial management. During the test, one of the                       third countries under the tariff quota set by the EC for
candidates, who was sitting it in Italian, indicated to the             1998;
invigilation staff of the Recruitment' unit that a page was
missing from the questionnaire for test (a), namely that
relating to questions 24 to 28 inclusive. Two minutes               Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.