title: Plenary session

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/4

      Plenary session
      (2010/C 288/05)
      On 20 September 2010, in accordance with Article 32(1), second indent, of the Rules of Procedure, the General Court decided that if, following the designation of an Advocate-General under Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the General Court sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance, applied during the period of three years for which the Presidents of the Chambers of five Judges are elected, according to which the President of the General Court designates the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of the case, is in the reverse order to that of the precedence of the Judges according to their seniority in office in accordance with Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure, unless the Judge so designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that latter case, the Judge immediately senior to him will be designated.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 February 1996 in Case T-589/93: Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Officials - Servants of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions - Recruitment procedure - Rejection of an internal candidate - Actions for annulment of measures - Action for damages)

text:
No C 95/ 14             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30 . 3 . 96
      institutions are able to transfer their rights to the                by order of that court of 1 February 1996 , received at the
       Community pensions scheme, the Kingdom of Spain has                 Court Registry on 22 February 1996, for a preliminary
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 ( 2 ) of           ruling in the case of Hermes International societe en
   v Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the               commandite par actions, Paris v. FHT Marketing Choice BV
      European Communities f 1 ) and Article 5 of the EC                   on the following question :
      Treaty; and
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                          is an interim measure, such as, for example, is provided for
                                                                           in Article 289 et seq. of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Rechtsvordering (Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure )
                                                                           whereby an immediate, enforceable measure may be sought,
Despite the fact that the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges its                covered by the expression 'provisional measures' within the
obligation to comply with the provisions and Royal Decrees                 meaning of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related
have been drafted, no national implementing measures in                    Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS ) (*)?
the field have yet been adopted .
                                                                           (') OJ No L 336 , 1994 , p . 213 .
(') Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 259/68 of the Council of
     29 February 1968 ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 30 ),
     as amended by Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 571 /92
     ( OJ No L 62 , 1962 , p. 1 ).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-402/95
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/27 )
Reference        for      preliminary         ruling     from      the
Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by order of that
court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Hermes                             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
International societe en commandite par actions, Paris v.
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                   FHT Marketing Choice BV                                 22 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
                           ( Case C-53/96 )                                Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                             ( 96/C 95/26 )                                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by order of the                                By order of 20 February 1996 the Court has ordered that
Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam,                    the case be removed from the register.
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                       of 15 February 1996                                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                           21 , Rue de Nassau, v. European Foundation for the
in Case T-5 89/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European                        Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ( Agents :
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                       John McColgan and subsequently Terry Sheehan, in the
                             Conditions ( 1 )                              written procedure, and Clive Purkiss, in the oral procedure,
(Officials — Servants of the European Foundation for the                   assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions —                             the annulment of the notice of vacancy concerning
Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an internal                           a post as administrator of the Foundation's publications
candidate — Actions for annulment of measures — Action                     programme, the notice of restricted competition relating to
                             for damages)                                  the filling of that post, the recruitment committee's
                             ( 96/C 95/28 )                                memorandum of 5 November 1993 and the decision of the
                                                                           Director of the Foundation of 22 November 1993 rejecting
                                                                           the applicant's application for that post, and , second, an
                                                                           order requiring the Foundation to pay damages in the sum
                 (Language of the case: French)                            of Bfrs 75 000 the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
                                                                           composed of: C. P. Briet, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
                                                                           A. Potocki , Judges; B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 15 February 1996, in which it:
In Case T-589/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan, a servant of the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, represented by Luc Misson and                          1 . dismisses the action;
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96          | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 15
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including              Hoskins, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
      those incurred in the procedure for interim measures.            address for service at Brick Court Chambers, 8 Avenue de la
                                                                       Joyeuse Entree, Brussels, against Council of the European
(M OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                        Union ( Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ) and
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Frank
                                                                       Benyon and Lucio Gussetti ) — application for suspension of
                                                                       the operation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91 of
                                                                       4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the
                                                                       Community and the introduction into the Community of
                                                                       pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               originating in countries which catch them by means of
                      of 15 February 1996                              leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet
                                                                       international humane trapping standards ( OJ No L 308 ,
in Case T-125/95 : Hassan Belhanbel v. Commission of the
                                                                       p. 1 ) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          order on 12 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as
(Official — Competition — Decision of the selection board              follows :
that a candidate has failed the oral test — Scope of the
                  obligation to state reasons)
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                             ( 96/C 95/29 )
                                                                       2.   costs are reserved.
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-125/95 , Hassan Belhanbel, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing at Namur ( Belgium ), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               Action brought on 21 December 1995 by 'T' against the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                 European Parliament
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                                           Case T-233/95 )
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the                                     ( 96/C 95/31 )
decision of the selection board in competition COM/B/765
awarding the applicant, in the oral test, a lower mark than
the minimum required and refusing to enter his name on the                             (Language of the case: Greek)
reserve list — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of: C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and              An action against the European Parliament was brought
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment           before the Court of First Instance on 21 December 1995 by
on 15 February 1996, in which it:                                      'T', represented by Harisios Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . dismisses the action;                                              Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
( ! ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                    — annul the staff report on the applicant for the period
                                                                           1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 , in particular heading
                                                                           10 . 1 ,
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
                                                                           Parliament of 19 September 1995 confirming the above
                                                                           staff report,
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                      of 12 February 1996
in Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Union and Commission of the European
                             Communities
                                                                       The applicant, an official of the Parliament in Grade A 5
                             ( 96/C 95/30 )                            serving in the Legal Service, states that, for the purpose of
                                                                       promoting another candidate, the detailed part of his staff
                                                                       report for the period 1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 was
               (Language of the case: English)                         decided in advance and did not correspond to reality . In
                                                                       support of that claim he relies on the lack of consistency
In Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd, established in                  between the detailed report and the general assessment
London, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark                    contained in the report. In his view the huge improvement


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 2004 in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Posting — Secondment in the interest of the service — Change with retrospective effect of the place of employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it — Recovery of undue payment — Installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance — Transfer of part of emoluments from the place of posting)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 15 July 2004
   in Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03: Georgios Gouvras v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Posting - Secondment in the interest of the service - Change with retrospective effect of the place of employment and of the financial entitlements relating to it - Recovery of undue payment - Installation allowance and daily subsistence allowance - Transfer of part of emoluments from the place of posting)
   (2004/C 239/37)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03: Georgios Gouvras, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing at Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and A. Coolen, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Curral and L. Lozano Palacios, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application:
   in Case T-180/02, for annulment of the Commission's decision to fix, with retrospective effect from 1 November 2000 during the period of his secondment in the interest of the service, the applicant's place of employment as Athens, to withdraw his right to the expatriation allowance and his right to reimbursement of annual travel expenses and to apply the weighting coefficient for Greece to his pay, as well as the decision to recover the undue payment, and,
   in Case T-113/03, for annulment of the Commission's decision refusing the applicant the installation allowance and the daily subsistence allowance for the period of his secondment to Athens in the interest of the service and the payment of the installation allowance on his resettlement in Luxembourg, as well as the decision limiting to 35 % the part of his pay to be transferred to his place of employment in Luxembourg during the period of his secondment — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decision of 30 April 2002 insofar as it refused the applicant the installation allowance on his secondment to Athens;

               2.

               Dismisses the other claims for annulment in Cases T-180/02 and T-113/03;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay a third of the applicant's costs in the two cases;

               4.

               Orders the applicant to bear two thirds of his costs in those cases.

      (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Case C-509/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Grant of a recreational boating licence — Condition of residency in the issuing country — Restriction for non-residents — Maintaining maritime safety — Public policy)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte, Portugal) — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda
   (Case C-509/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Grant of a recreational boating licence - Condition of residency in the issuing country - Restriction for non-residents - Maintaining maritime safety - Public policy)
   2014/C 93/20
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos

      Defendant: Navileme — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte — Portugal — Interpretation of Articles 18, 20, 45, 52 and 62 TFEU — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Free movement of persons and freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Provision imposing a condition of residency within the national territory for the grant of a recreational boating licence.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 52 and Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a condition of residence within the national territory for European Union citizens seeking to obtain a recreational boating licence in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of 2 October 2015 in Case E-7/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe — Limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air — Air quality plan)

text:
               15.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 467/22

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 2 October 2015
   in Case E-7/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe — Limit values for certain pollutants in ambient air — Air quality plan)
   (2016/C 467/09)
   In Case E-7/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 14c of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe) by surpassing the limit values of sulphur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air in certain zones in Norway variously for the years 2008 to 2012 and by failing to comply with the air quality plan obligation set out therein, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 2 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by:

                           (i)

                           surpassing the limit values for sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter (PM10) in ambient air during the years 2009 to 2012 variously in the zones NO3, NO4 and NO6 referred to in Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 1999/30/EC, now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC;

                           (ii)

                           surpassing the limit values for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in ambient air during the years 2010 to 2012 variously in the zones NO1, NO3 and NO5 referred to in Article 4 of Directive 1999/30/EC, now Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC; and

                           (iii)

                           failing to comply with the air quality plan obligation as set out in Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62/EC, now Article 23 of Directive 2008/50/EC variously as regards zones NO1, NO2, NO3, NO4 and NO5;
                           the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 14c of Annex XX of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe).

               2.

               Orders Norway to bear the costs of these proceedings.


title: Case C-299/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/18/EC — Procedures for the award of public contracts — National legislation providing for a single procedure for the award of the contract defining needs and of the ensuing marché d’exécution — Compatibility with that directive)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-299/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/18/EC - Procedures for the award of public contracts - National legislation providing for a single procedure for the award of the contract defining needs and of the ensuing marché d’exécution - Compatibility with that directive)
   2010/C 24/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Kukovec, G. Rozet and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J.C. Gracia and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Articles 2, 28 and 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Use of the negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice in situations not provided for in Directive 2004/18 — Distinction between marchés de définition (public contracts for designing the parameters, including the purpose, of a public works, supply or service contract), subject to the rules of the Directive, and public works, supply or service contracts, not subject to those rules — Breach of the principles of transparency and equal treatment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and keeping in force Articles 73 and 74-IV of the Public Procurement Code, adopted by Decree No 2006-975 of 1 August 2006, inasmuch as those provisions lay down a procedure for the award of marchés de definition (public contracts for designing the parameters, including the purpose, of a public works, supply or service contract) under which it is possible for the contracting authority to award a marché d’exécution (a public works, supply or service contract) to one of the holders of the initial marchés de définition by opening it to competition limited to those holders, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 28 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-271/07: Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/13

         Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-271/07)
   (2007/C 211/24)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by partially or incorrectly transposing Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission complains that the defendant has transposed partially or incorrectly, or failed to transpose, a number of essential provisions of Directive 96/61. The action, which concerns the measures adopted (or not adopted) by the Region of Wallonia and the Region of Bruxelles-Capitale, relates, in particular, to the lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of those measures and that of the Directive and to the over-wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to the operating permits and the situations in which the conditions of the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated.

      (1)  OJ L 257, p. 26.


title: Case F-29/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/53

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Hill and Others v Commission
   (Case F-29/12) (1)

   (2016/C 191/78)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5/5/2012, p. 31.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2003 in Case T-66/99: Minoan Lines SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investigations carried out at company premises other than those of the company to which the investigation decision is addressed — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of State authorities — Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty — Whether infringing conduct may be imputed — Fines — Application of the guidelines on calculating fines)

text:
20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 71/21
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 11 December 2003                                                       of 11 December 2003
in Case T-65/99: Strintzis Lines Shipping SA v Com-                       in Case T-66/99: Minoan Lines SA v Commission of the
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                            European Communities (1)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investi-                     (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investi-
gations carried out at company premises other than those of               gations carried out at company premises other than those of
the company to which the investigation decision is addressed              the company to which the investigation decision is addressed
Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —                   — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of                State regulation on maritime transport and the practice of
State authorities — Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty             State authorities — Applicability of Article 85 of the Treaty
— Whether infringing conduct may be imputed — Fines —                     — Whether infringing conduct may be imputed — Fines —
      Application of the guidelines on calculating fines)                       Application of the guidelines on calculating fines)
                          (2004/C 71/36)                                                            (2004/C 71/37)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
In Case T-65/99, Strintzis Lines Shipping SA, established in
Piraeus (Greece), represented by K. Adamantopoulos, V. Akriti-            In Case T-66/99, Minoan Lines SA, established in Heraklion
dis and A. Papakrivopoulos, lawyers, with an address for                  (Greece), represented by I. Soufleros, lawyer, with an address
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                       for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, D. Triantafyllou and G. Athan-              Communities (Agents: R. Lyal, D. Triantafyllou and A. Oikono-
assiou): Application for annulment of Commission Decision                 mou): Application for annulment of Commission Decision
1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding                   1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek                  pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek
Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance              Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-           (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for          Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in               the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in
which it:                                                                 which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          1.    Dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those         2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those
      incurred by the Commission.                                               incurred by the Commission.
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.


title: Case C-281/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA v European Commission, Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) (Appeal — Trans-European Transport Network — Financial aid — Closure — Decision declaring certain costs to be ineligible and establishing the final account — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Action for annulment — Challengeable act — Locus standi — Person other than the beneficiary of the aid)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA v European Commission, Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)
   (Case C-281/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Trans-European Transport Network - Financial aid - Closure - Decision declaring certain costs to be ineligible and establishing the final account - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Action for annulment - Challengeable act - Locus standi - Person other than the beneficiary of the aid))
   (2016/C 098/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA (represented by: G. Greco, M. Muscardini and G. Carullo, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents, and by D. Gullo, avvocato), Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) (represented by: I. Ramallo, D. Silhol and Z. Szilvássy, acting as Agents, and by A. Lanzi and M. Bozzo, avvocati)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Società per l’aeroporto civile di Bergamo-Orio al Serio (SACBO) SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — European Commission v Government of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Kingdom of Spain (C-106/09), Kingdom of Spain v European Commission, Government of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Appeal — State aid — Material selectivity — Tax regime — Gibraltar — Offshore companies)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/2

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 November 2011 — European Commission v Government of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Kingdom of Spain (C-106/09), Kingdom of Spain v European Commission, Government of Gibraltar, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P) (1)

      (Appeal - State aid - Material selectivity - Tax regime - Gibraltar - Offshore companies)
      (2012/C 25/02)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         C-106/09 P

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, V. Di Bucci and N. Khan, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Government of Gibraltar (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, M. Llamas, Barrister, and A. Petersen, advokat), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao, Agent, D. Anderson QC and M. Gray, Barrister), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, and B. Doherty, Barrister)

         C-107/09 P

         Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, V. Di Bucci and N. Khan, Agents), Government of Gibraltar (represented by: J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, M. Llamas, Barrister, and A. Petersen, advokat), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: I. Rao, Agent, D. Anderson QC and M. Gray, Barrister)

         Re:

      Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 18 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04 Government of Gibraltar v Commission by which the Court annulled Commission Decision 2005/261/EC of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement as regards the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (State aid C 66/2002 (ex N 534/2002) — United Kingdom)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 December 2008 in Joined Cases T-211/04 and T-215/04 Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom v Commission;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action brought by the Government of Gibraltar and the action brought by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland;

                  3.

                  Orders the Government of Gibraltar and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear, in addition to their own costs, the costs incurred by the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain on appeal and by the European Commission at first instance;

                  4.

                  Orders the Kingdom of Spain and Ireland as interveners before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and before the Court of Justice of the European Union, respectively, to bear their own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-141/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Amisi Kumba v Council (Application for interim measures — Restrictive measures — Democratic Republic of the Congo — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Amisi Kumba v Council
   (Case T-141/17 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2017/C 178/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gabriel Amisi Kumba (Kasa-Vubu, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-178/00: Action brought on 4 July 2000 by Jan Pflugradt against the European Central Bank

text:
9.9.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 259/29
Action brought on 28 June 2000 by KWS Saat AG against                   Action brought on 4 July 2000 by Jan Pflugradt against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                        the European Central Bank
                  (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-178/00)
                        (Case T-173/00)
                        (2000/C 259/52)                                                          (2000/C 259/53)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 An action against the European Central Bank was brought
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
28 June 2000 by KWS Saat AG, of Einbeck (Federal Republic               on 4 July 2000 by Jan Pflugradt, residing in Frankfurt am Main
of Germany), represented by Gert Würtenberger, Rechtsanwalt,            (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger,
of Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff, Munich (Federal Republic of                   Regina Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt
Germany).                                                               am Main (Federal Republic of Germany).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     refer the matter back for further consideration to the
      Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the            (1) order the European Central Bank to revoke the applicant’s
      Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);                              staff Report for 1999 and to remove it from his personal
                                                                              file without replacing it with any other document;
      alternatively,
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of               (2) order the European Central Bank to have a new staff
                                                                              report drawn up for the applicant for 1999 by other,
      19 April 2000 in the appeal proceedings registered under
      No R 282/1999-2 concerning application No 000 773                       unbiased persons;
      630 for registration as a Community trade mark of the
      colour mark ‘Orange’, declare the mark to be registerable,        (3) order the European Central Bank, pursuant to contract,
      and direct the Office to register the mark in the register              to provide the applicant with work corresponding to
      of Community trade marks.                                               the activities forming the subject-matter of his job
                                                                              description;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (4) to (7) order the European Central Bank to assign to the
                                                                                applicant a series of specific responsibilities;
The trade mark con-           Colour mark ‘Orange’ (HKS7) —
cerned:                       application No 773 630
                                                                        (8) declare that the European Central Bank is obliged to
Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 7,                provide the applicant with work corresponding to the
cerned:                       11, 31 and 42 (inter alia, prep-                activities set out in his job description and, in so doing,
                              aration equipment for seeds, agri-              to have regard to the contractually defined activities
                              cultural and forestry products)                 forming the subject-matter of points (4) to (7) of his
                                                                              application;
Decision         contested    Refusal of registration by the
before the Board of           examiner                                  (9) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:             — incorrect reasons for the
                                  decision of the Board of              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                  Appeal
                              — legally erroneous finding by            The applicant is an employee of the ECB. He contests the
                                  the Board of Appeal that the          validity in law of a staff report prepared by one of his superiors
                                  mark has no distinctive               for the year 1999 and claims that a fresh staff report should
                                  character                             be drawn up for that period. He maintains that his staff report
                              — legally incorrect acceptance by         contains incorrect statements which prejudice his personal
                                  the Board of Appeal of the            rights and impede his advancement in his career. In addition,
                                  need for the term to be kept          the defendant has infringed the applicant’s contractual right to
                                  freely available for use by the       be provided with employment.
                                  world at large.


title: Case C-215/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 9 May 2011 — Iwona Szyrocka v SIGER Technologie GmbH

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 9 May 2011 — Iwona Szyrocka v SIGER Technologie GmbH
   (Case C-215/11)
   2011/C 219/08
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy we Wrocławiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Iwona Szyrocka

      Defendant: SIGER Technologie GmbH

      Question referred

               1.

               Is Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (1) to be interpreted as:

                           (a)

                           governing exhaustively all the requirements which must be met by an application for a European order for payment, or

                           (b)

                           determining only the minimum requirements for such an application and requiring that the provisions of national law be applied to the formal requirements for an application in the case of matters not governed by that provision?

               2.

               If Question 1(b) is answered in the affirmative, where the application does not meet the formal requirements laid down in the law of the Member State (for example, the copy of the application intended for the opposing party has not been attached or the value of the subject-matter of the dispute is not specified), must a request for the claimant to complete the application be made pursuant to provisions of national law, in accordance with Article 26 of Regulation No 1896/2006, or pursuant to Article 9 thereof?

               3.

               Is Article 4 of Regulation No 1896/2006 to be interpreted as meaning that the features of a pecuniary claim that are referred to in that provision, that is to say the fact that it is of a specific amount and has fallen due at the time when the application for a European order for payment is submitted, relate only to the principal claim or also to the claim for default interest?

               4.

               On a correct interpretation of Article 7(2)(c) of Regulation No 1896/2006, where the law of a Member State does not provide for the automatic addition of interest is it possible, in a European order for payment procedure, to demand in addition to the principal:

                           (a)

                           all interest, including that known as ‘open interest’ (calculated from the day on which it falls due expressed as a specific date to a day of payment not specified by date, for example, ‘from 20 March 2011 to the day of payment’);

                           (b)

                           only interest calculated from the day on which it falls due expressed as a specific date to the day on which the application is submitted or the order for payment is issued;

                           (c)

                           only interest calculated from the day on which it falls due expressed as a specific date to the day on which the application is submitted?

               5.

               If Question 4(a) is answered in the affirmative, how must the court’s decision on interest be formulated in the order for payment form, in accordance with Regulation No 1896/2006?

               6.

               If Question 4(b) is answered in the affirmative, who must indicate the amount of interest: the party concerned or the court of its own motion?

               7.

               If Question 4(c) is answered in the affirmative, does the party concerned have an obligation to indicate the amount of calculated interest in the application?

               8.

               If the claimant does not calculate the interest claimed up until the day on which the application is submitted, must the court calculate that amount of its own motion, or must it then request the party concerned to complete the application pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 1896/2006?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.


title: Case T-629/15: Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/47

         Action brought on 12 November 2015 — Hako v OHIM (SCRUBMASTER)
   (Case T-629/15)
   (2016/C 016/56)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hako GmbH (Bad Oldesloe, Germany) (represented by: A. Marx, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCRUBMASTER’ — Application No 12 492 617

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2015 in Case R 2197/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs in respect of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-173/17: Action brought on 16 March 2017 — TestBioTech v Commission

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/31

         Action brought on 16 March 2017 — TestBioTech v Commission
   (Case T-173/17)
   (2017/C 161/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, and J. Stevenson, barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 9 January 2017 rejecting the applicant’s request for internal review of Commission Implementing Decisions (EU) 2016/1215, (1) (EU) 2016/1216, (2) and (EU) 2016/1217 (3) of 22 July 2016, granting market authorisations under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (4) (the ‘GM Regulation’) in respect of the genetically modified soybeans FG 72, MON 87708 x MON 89788 and MON 87705 x MON 89788, respectively;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies essentially on a single plea in law arguing that the Commission failed to observe the obligations imposed on it by the GM Regulation, in particular Articles 14 and 16 thereof, by failing to conduct the appropriate full safety assessments before granting market authorisation or to ensure effective post-authorisation monitoring.
   The Commission was mistaken in relying on the relevant EU law concerning the control of pesticides as it fails specifically to regulate genetically modified organisms.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1215 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean FG72 (MST-FGØ72-2) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 16).

      (2)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1216 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87708 × MON 89788 (MON-877Ø8-9 × MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 22).

      (3)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1217 of 22 July 2016 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87705 × MON 89788 (MON-877Ø5-6 × MON-89788-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2016 L 199, p. 28).

      (4)  Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).


title: Case C-27/04: Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.2.2004                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 35/5
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission considers that the fact that the contract at
issue in this case falls within the scope of Council Directive              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
92/50/EEC (1) as amended by European Parliament and Council                 the Court should:
Directive 97/52/EC (2) does not preclude the application of
the principle enunciated in Telaustria (3) deriving from the                1.    declare that, by adopting Article 7(2) and the fifth
fundamental freedoms laid down in the Treaty and the                              subparagraph of Article 19 of the Law of 12 February
application of general principles which are given specific                        1999 setting up parental leave and leave for family
expression in those fundamental freedoms. The obligation on                       reasons, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
Member States to comply with general principles is confirmed,                     fulfil its obligations under Clause 2(1) of Part II of the
within the Directive itself by Article 3(2) (see above), a                        Annex to Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on
general obligation on contracting authorities to avoid all                        the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by
discrimination between service providers. That obligation is                      UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (1), as regards:
incumbent on the Irish authorities in respect of Annex 1B
services just as much as in respect of Annex 1A services.                         —     the substitution of maternity leave for parental leave,
                                                                                and
It is submitted that the Commission’s analysis is the only one
which can be regarded as consistent with the internal market                      —     the date from which individual rights to parental
logic of the Treaty. The Court’s case-law clearly holds that the                        leave are granted;
Treaty provisions on the freedoms of establishment and service              2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
provision impose obligations on Member States in respect of
the award of public contracts outside the scope of the
directives. This applies to types of contracts (such as service
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
concessions) that are not specifically covered and also to
contracts of types which are covered but where the value falls
below the thresholds set in the various directives.                         1. Maternity leave has a completely different purpose from
                                                                            that of parental leave. Moreover, Clause 2(1) of the framework
That being so, the Commission submits that it would run                     agreement expressly provides that parental leave is an individ-
directly counter to the logic of the internal market if, whereas            ual right to leave of at least three months’ duration. The
Community law requires an appropriate level of advertising in               obligatory termination of parental leave when maternity leave
such situations even if the contract falls outside the scope of             begins is therefore not compatible with that provision of the
the directives because of its structure or value, it were                   Annex to Directive 96/34. The woman whose maternity leave
nevertheless open to Member States not to advertise in any                  begins during her parental leave must, in the light of the
way contracts (whose value is above the financial thresholds)               individual right to parental leave of at least three months
solely on the grounds that the services to which they relate fall           conferred on her by Clause 2(1) of the framework agreement,
within the scope of Annex 1B of the Directive.                              be able to defer the portion of her parental leave which she
                                                                            has not been able to take because of her maternity leave.
                                                                            2. By limiting its application to children born or adopted
(1) Directive of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of               after 31 December 1998, the Luxembourg authorities have
    procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209,         added a condition which is not authorised by the Directive.
    24.07.1992, p. 1).
(2) Directive of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/
    EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of             (1) OJ L 145 of 19.06.1996, p. 4.
    procedures for the award of public service contracts, public supply
    contracts and public works contracts respectively (OJ L 328,
    28.11.1997, p. 1).
(3) Case C-324/98, Telaustria Verlags GmbH v Telekom Austria AG,
    ECR[2000], p.I-10745.
                                                                            Action brought on 28 January 2004 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
Action brought on 12 December 2003 by the Commission                                                  (Case C-27/04)
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                         of Luxembourg                                                                (2004/C 35/09)
                         (Case C-519/03)
                          (2004/C 35/08)                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties on 28 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                         Communities, represented by M. Petite, A. van Solinge and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
ties on 12 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                  Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 35/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                        under Article 104(9) EC may not be adopted unless
the Court should:                                                             a finding has first been made in a decision under
                                                                              Article 104(8) EC. In proceeding to such a vote, the
1.    declare that:                                                           Council did not comply with the conditions for the
                                                                              application of Article 104(9) EC. Even if that were
      —     the decisions not to adopt the formal instruments                 possible, the Council would have been required to provide
            contained in the Commission’s recommendations                     an adequate statement of reasons explaining its decision
            pursuant to Article 104(8) and (9) EC;                            not to adopt the recommendation when it in fact agreed
                                                                              with the Commission’s economic analysis. The Council
      —     the ‘Council conclusions on assessing the actions
                                                                              accordingly did not comply with the obligation to state
            taken by France in response to recommendations of
                                                                              reasons laid down in Article 253 EC.
            the Council according to Article 104(7) of the
            Treaty establishing the European Community and              —     holding the excessive deficit procedure in abeyance.
            considering further measures for deficit reduction in
            order to remedy the situation of excessive deficit’;              It follows from the Council’s conclusions that it agrees
                                                                              with the analysis of the Commission, an analysis which
            and                                                               necessarily results in the conclusion that the conditions
                                                                              for holding the procedures in abeyance were not met.
      —     the ‘Council conclusions on assessing the actions                 The Council’s decision to hold the procedures in abeyance
            taken by Germany in response to recommendations                   therefore does not comply with the substantive con-
            of the Council according to Article 104(7) of the                 ditions in Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 (1) or
            Treaty establishing the European Community and                    the obligation to state reasons laid down in
            considering further measures for deficit reduction in             Article 253 EC. Nor was the decision to hold the
            order to remedy the situation of excessive deficit’               procedures in abeyance taken in compliance with the
      adopted by the Council on 25 November 2003 are                          voting rules laid down in Article 104(13) EC since it was
      unlawful and should be annulled;                                        taken by the Member States which have adopted the
                                                                              Euro, and not on the vote of the 14 Member States other
2.    order the Council to pay the costs.                                     than the State concerned. If the voting rules had been
                                                                              observed, it is possible that the conclusions would not
                                                                              have been adopted for want of a qualified majority.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         —     recourse to an instrument not envisaged by the Treaty.
                                                                              When the Commission submitted recommendations for
The system established by the Treaty, in particular the                       decisions under Article 104(8) and (9) EC to the Council,
procedure under Article 104 EC, provides that, if the Com-                    the latter adopted ‘conclusions’, a measure not envisaged
mission considers that there is an excessive deficit in a Member              by the Treaty, in particular Article 104. The institutions
State, the Council is obliged to decide whether that is the case              are required to keep to the instruments and procedures
and, if so, to specify binding measures to remedy it as soon as               prescribed by the Treaty. It was therefore not open to the
possible. However, although the Council agrees with the                       Council to adopt measures other than those provided for
economic analysis upon which the Commission founded its                       in Article 104 EC, namely decisions which are binding
recommendations, it departed from the precise and binding                     measures, in particular as its ‘conclusions’ contain
framework provided for by Article 104 EC and instead adopted                  elements characteristic of decisions such as the holding
an instrument which is not envisaged by the Treaty and is                     of the procedures in abeyance and recommendations to
contrary to the system established by it.                                     the Member States. The Council cannot purely and simply
                                                                              exempt itself from the obligation to adopt decisions in
The action decided upon by the Council on 25 November                         conformity with the rules of the Treaty and of secondary
2003 involves measures which produce legal effects and are                    legislation, particularly when it agrees with the reasoning
contrary to the Treaty:                                                       on which the recommendations for decisions submitted
                                                                              to it by the Commission are founded.
—     the decisions not to adopt the formal instruments con-
      tained in the Commission’s recommendations pursuant               —     modification of recommendations decided upon by the
      to Article 104(8) and (9) EC.                                           Council under Article 104(7) EC.
      The Council did not observe the precise and binding                     It was not open to the Council to adopt recommendations
      procedure which it must follow when called upon to                      contrary to those provided for by its own decisions,
      apply Article 104(8) and (9) EC. It did not make the                    adopted under Article 104(7) EC, without following the
      finding required of it when it makes recommendations to                 Treaty procedures.
      a Member State which has an excessive deficit and those
      recommendations do not prompt effective action. It                (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 of 7 July 1997 on speeding
      nevertheless voted on recommendations of the Com-                     up and clarifying the implementation of the excessive deficit
      mission under Article 104(9) EC. However, a decision                  procedure (OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 6).


title: Case T-406/09: Action brought on 5 October 2009 — Donau Chemie v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/32

         Action brought on 5 October 2009 — Donau Chemie v Commission
   (Case T-406/09)
   2009/C 312/53
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Donau Chemie AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Polster, W. Brugger and M. Brodey, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 2 of the contested Commission Decision C (2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 in Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce noticeably and appropriately the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by the Commission in the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests Commission Decision C (2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 in case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industry. The contested decision imposed a fine on the applicant and on other undertakings for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant participated in a single and continuous infringement in the calcium carbide and magnesium sector in the EEA, except in Spain, Portugal, Ireland and the United Kingdom, which consisted in market sharing, agreements on quotas, customer allocations, price fixing and exchange of sensitive information relating to prices, customers and sales volumes.
   In support of its action, the applicant alleges infringement of the EC Treaty and of the rules concerning its application and submits, in particular, the following pleas in law:

               —

               Unlawful assessment of the basic amount of the fine as well as the additional amount to be determined pursuant to Paragraph 25 of the Guidelines on setting fines; (1)

               —

               unlawful failure to take into consideration mitigating circumstances in determining the fine;

               —

               unlawful application of the Commission notice on immunity from fines, (2) since the level of reduction of the fine from which the applicant benefited on the ground of evidence provided by it was too low;

               —

               infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in respect of determining the fine;

               —

               unlawful failure to consider a reduction of the fine to take account, in accordance with Paragraph 35 of the Guidelines on setting fines, of the undertaking’s inability to pay and/or, in accordance with Paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on setting fines, the particularities of the given case;

               —

               infringement of Article 253 EC on the grounds of failure to state the reasons for the contested decision.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2).

      (2)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3).


title: Case T-51/14: Action brought on 22 January 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/27

         Action brought on 22 January 2014 — Czech Republic v Commission
   (Case T-51/14)
   2014/C 93/47
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil, J. Vikáková, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the implementing decision of the European Commission C(2013) 7615 of 13 November 2013 on the rejection of an application for entry in the register of traditional specialities guaranteed provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (Pomazánkové máslo (TSG)) and

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging the infringement of Articles 50 and 52 of Regulation No 1151/2012 in conjunction with Article 18 thereof. The applicant submits that the Commission did not scrutinise whether the conditions were met for the entry of the name ‘Pomazánkové máslo’ as a traditional speciality guaranteed and rejected the application in question for a reason other than the fact that it did not meet those conditions.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).


title: Case C-143/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 144/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
      whether it may be made by an official in such other third                 —     fails to provide that the conservation measures
      country?                                                                        referred to in Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 apply
                                                                                to the sites referred to in Article 5(1) of that directive,
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5, 6 and
(1) Council Directive 2000/29/EC of 8 May 2000 on protective                    7 of Directive 92/43/EEC;
    measures against the introduction into the Community of organ-
    isms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread
    within the Community OJ L 169, 10.7.2000, p. 1.
                                                                          —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Article 6(3) of the directive provides that any plan or project
                                                                          which, either individually or in combination with other plans
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by the Commission of                      or projects, has a significant effect on a site of Community
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   importance falls within the directive’s scope. The word ‘any’
                                                                          used by the Community legislator leaves no doubt that it refers
                                                                          to all projects, even if not covered by the directives on the
                                                                          assessment of environmental impact and even if not directly
                          (Case C-143/02)
                                                                          connected with or necessary to the management of the site.
                          (2002/C 144/41)
                                                                          However, Article 5(3) of Presidential Decree 357/97 limits the
                                                                          decree’s scope to a restricted list of projects expressly men-
                                                                          tioned therein so that a whole series of projects of various
                                                                          kinds are excluded even though they are likely to have a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the             significant effect on sites of Community importance.
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,
acting as Agents.                                                         Under Article 6 of the Italian decree, which transposes Article 7
                                                                          of the directive, only the obligations arising under Article 4(2)
                                                                          and (3) and Article 5 and not those arising under Article 4(1)
                                                                          of the decree — which transposes Article 6(2) of the directive
                                                                          — apply to special protection areas.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by adopting legislating implementing Direc-           It follows that the Italian legislation at issue imposes no
      tive 92/43/EEC (1) which:                                           obligation on the competent Italian authorities to take steps,
                                                                          in relation to special protection areas, to avoid the deterioration
                                                                          of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as the
      —     fails to include within the scope of the laws on the          disturbance of the species for which the areas have been
            assessment of effects on the environment projects             designated.
            other than those listed in the Italian legislation
            implementing directives on environmental impact
            that are nevertheless likely to have a significant
            effect on sites of Community importance,                      Lastly, Decree 357/97 wholly fails to transpose the provisions
                                                                          of Article 5(4) of the directive.
      —     fails to impose upon the competent Italian auth-
            orities any obligation to take appropriate steps in
            respect of special protection areas to avoid the              The implication of this is that, should the Commission, on
            deterioration of natural habitats and of the habitats         finding an omission from the national list of a Member State,
            of species or disturbance of the species for which            initiate a bilateral consultation procedure with that Member
            the areas were designated, in so far as such disturb-         State and, failing to resolve the dispute within a period of six
            ance could be significant in relation to the objectives       months, forward to the Council a proposal relating to the
            of the directive,                                             selection of the site in question as a site of Community
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 144/25
importance, there would be no obligation in Italy to apply the        3.    Does the answer to Question 2 turn on whether the
conservation measures laid down in Article 6(2) of the directive            difference in the rules in the Member State of manufacture
to that site during the consultation period and pending a                   and the Member State of importation results from the
Council decision.                                                           fact that different use has been made of the possibility to
                                                                            lay down rules under Article 12(2)(b) of Directive No 70/
                                                                            524/EEC?
(1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                      (1) OJ L 270 of 14.12.1970, p. 1.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                      (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that
                                                                      court dated 27 March 2002, in the case of Mrs M.K.
                                                                      Alabaster against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                                       for Social Security
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in
the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Denkavit
Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter des Bun-                                        (Case C-147/02)
      desinteresses at the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
                                                                                (2002/C 144/43)
                        (Case C-145/02)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2002/C 144/42)                               (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 27 March 2002,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 22 April 2002,
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs M.K. Alabaster
                                                                      against 1) Woolwich PLC, 2) Secretary of State for Social
                                                                      Security, on the following questions:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                In a situation where:
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 31 January 2002,              a)    the earnings-related element of a woman’s Statutory
received at the Court Registry on 18 April 2002, for a                      Maternity Pay (‘SMP’) is calculated by reference to her
preliminary ruling in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen                  normal weekly earnings for a eight week period ending
against Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH, Interested party: Vertreter             on 15th week before the expected week of confinement
des Bundesinteresses (Representative of the Federal Interest) at            (‘the relevant period’), and
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht on the following questions:
                                                                      b)    the employer grants a pay rise, which is not back-dated
                                                                            to the relevant period, at any time after the end of
1.   Are national provisions of the law on feedingstuffs, which             the relevant period used for calculating that woman’s
     prohibit imports of a feedingstuff manufactured lawfully               earnings-related element of SMP and before the end of
     in another Member State on the ground that the level of                her maternity leave:
     vitamin D 3 does not comply with the law of the State of
     importation, to be assessed directly in the light of
     Articles 28 and 30 EC?
                                                                      Question 1
2.   Is Article 19 of Directive 70/524/EEC (1) concerning
     additives to be interpreted as permitting the prohibition        Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty and the judgment in Gillespie
     on imports of a supplementary feedingstuff manufactured          [1996] ECR I-475 to be interpreted as meaning that the
     lawfully in another Member State on the ground that it           woman is entitled to have that pay rise taken into consideration
     exceeds the level of vitamin D 3 permitted in the Member         in calculating or re-calculating the earnings-related element of
     State of importation?                                            her SMP?


title: Case F-36/06: Action brought on  5 April 2006  — Martin Magone v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/52

         Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Martin Magone v Commission
   (Case F-36/06)
   (2006/C 131/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Alejandro Martin Magone (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, avocat)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 7 June 2005 of the Director General of ECHO in his capacity as Appeal Assessor which was flawed in so far as it definitively confirms and approves the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period from 1 January 2004 to 15 September 2004;

               —

               Annul the disputed CDR;

               —

               Annul the decision of 22 December 2005 of the Appointing Authority, received on 5 January 2006, rejecting the complaint brought under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials on 6 September 2005 and seeking annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               Declare that the applicant is the victim of harassment at work;

               —

               Award damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss, loss of career prospects, equitable damages in the sum of EUR 29 000 or in an amount to be assessed by the Court;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant alleges an infringement of Article 12a, the second paragraph of Article 25, Article 26 and Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the rules for implementing Article 43, as adopted by the Commission on 3 March 2004, an infringement of the Commission decision of 28 April 2004 guaranteeing rates of pay, of the Administrative Guide and of the Guidelines in that regard, misuse of powers and infringement of the general principles of law, including respect for the rights of the defence, the principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard to the welfare of individuals, the principle of equality and infringement of the principles which impose a duty on the Appointing Authority to adopt decisions only on the basis of legally admissible grounds, that is which are relevant and not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment of fact or law.
   The applicant next submits that by failing to adopt the assessment in question for 2004 in the circumstances of the present case, the Appointing Authority clearly failed correctly to apply and interpret the provisions of the Staff Regulations and the principles referred to above. Its decision is therefore based on an inaccurate statement of reasons both in fact and law. The applicant is therefore the victim of administrative discrimination and has been placed in a situation which infringes his legitimate expectations and interests and amounts to harassment at work.


               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-498/04 (1)

   (2005/C 217/74)

      (Language of the case: Greek)

   By order of 13 June 2005 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-498/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 5.02.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 October 2004 in Case C-87/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Roberto Nicoli v Eridania SpA (Sugar — Price system — Regionalisation — Deficit areas — Classification of Italy — Marketing year 1998/99 — Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EC) No 1361/98 — Validity of Regulation No 1361/98)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 12 October 2004
   in Case C-87/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Genova): Roberto Nicoli v Eridania SpA (1)

   (Sugar - Price system - Regionalisation - Deficit areas - Classification of Italy - Marketing year 1998/99 - Regulations (EEC) No 1785/81 and (EC) No 1361/98 - Validity of Regulation No 1361/98)
   (2005/C 31/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-87/00: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di pace di Genova (Italy), made by decision of 28 February 2000, received at the Court on 7 March 2000, in the proceedings between Roberto Nicoli and Eridania SpA – the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed nothing to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 of 26 June 1998 fixing, for the 1998/99 marketing year, the derived intervention prices for white sugar, the intervention price for raw sugar, the minimum prices for A and B beet, and the amount of compensation for storage costs.

      (1)   OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case T-363/15: Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Työhönvalmennus Valma/OHIM (box shape)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/16

         Action brought on 6 July 2015 — Työhönvalmennus Valma/OHIM (box shape)
   (Case T-363/15)
   (2015/C 337/18)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: Työhönvalmennus Valma Oy (Lahti, Finland) (represented by: S. Salonen and K. Parviainen, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: (Representation of a tridimensional mark (Shape of box) — Application for registration No 12137337

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2015 in Case R 1690/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it upholds the conclusion of the examiner that the mark applied for is devoid of distinctive character with respect to the goods concerned;

               —

               grant registration of the mark or alternatively refer the trade mark application back to OHIM for further consideration;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 207/2009/Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) applied in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b).