title: Case T-13/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Post Bank Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Legal basis — Infringement of international law — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Non-discrimination)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Post Bank Iran v Council
   (Case T-13/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Legal basis - Infringement of international law - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Non-discrimination)
   2013/C 304/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Bank Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: D. Luff, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and A. Vitro, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by F. Erlbacher and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, for annulment (i) of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), and of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), in so far as they concern the applicant; (ii) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter received on 29 October 2010; (iii) of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), in so far as they may affect the applicant’s situation; (iv) of the decision in respect of the applicant ‘contained in’ a letter dated 5 December 2011; (v) of Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as it concerns the applicant; and (vi) of any future regulation or decision of the Council or of the Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action; and, secondly, for a declaration that the following are inapplicable to the applicant: Article 20(1)(b) of Decision 2010/413; Article 16(2) of Regulation No 961/2010; Article 1(7) of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22); Article 23(2) of Regulation No 267/2012; Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58); Article 1(11) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34); and Article 1(2) of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares the action inadmissible, in so far as it seeks the annulment of any future regulation or decision of the Council of the European Union or of the European Commission which would supplement or amend any of the measures contested in the present action;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim for annulment of the decisions in respect of Post Bank Iran ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council received on 29 October 2010 and the letter from the Council dated 5 December 2011, or on the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council, supported by the Commission, solely in respect of the claim for annulment of the decision regarding Post Bank Iran ‘contained in’ the letter from the Council received on 29 October 2010;

               3.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern Post Bank Iran, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010; Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007; Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413; Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010; and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

               4.

               Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Post Bank Iran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as Annex IX concerns Post Bank Iran;

               5.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Post Bank Iran;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case C-483/04: Action brought on 22 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/15

         Action brought on 22 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-483/04)
   (2005/C 19/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 November 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Enrico Traversa acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/6/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States of the Community or, in any case, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition into national law of the directive expired on 19 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 67 of 9.3.2002, p. 31.


title: Case C-461/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — EU action in the field of water policy — Directive 2000/60/EC — Article 4(1) — Environmental objectives relating to surface waters — Deterioration of the status of a body of surface water — Project for the development of a navigable waterway — Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water — Decisive criteria for determining whether there is a deterioration of the status of a body of water)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V. v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-461/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - EU action in the field of water policy - Directive 2000/60/EC - Article 4(1) - Environmental objectives relating to surface waters - Deterioration of the status of a body of surface water - Project for the development of a navigable waterway - Obligation of the Member States not to authorise a project that may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water - Decisive criteria for determining whether there is a deterioration of the status of a body of water))
   (2015/C 294/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland e.V.

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Joined party: Freie Hansestadt Bremen

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(1)(a)(i) to (iii) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are required — unless a derogation is granted — to refuse authorisation for an individual project where it may cause a deterioration of the status of a body of surface water or where it jeopardises the attainment of good surface water status or of good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status by the date laid down by the directive.

               2.

               The concept of ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water in Article 4(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2000/60 must be interpreted as meaning that there is deterioration as soon as the status of at least one of the quality elements, within the meaning of Annex V to the directive, falls by one class, even if that fall does not result in a fall in classification of the body of surface water as a whole. However, if the quality element concerned, within the meaning of that annex, is already in the lowest class, any deterioration of that element constitutes a ‘deterioration of the status’ of a body of surface water, within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a)(i).

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-265/11: Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014  — Elmaghraby v Council

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/38

         Order of the General Court of 31 March 2014 — Elmaghraby v Council
   (Case T-265/11) (1)

   2014/C 184/60
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23. 7. 2011.


title: Case C-214/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA (Preliminary ruling — Public works contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 55 — Contract notice — Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices — Determination criteria — Article 7(c) — Value of the contract — Threshold not reached — Certain cross-border interest — Lack of information — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/10

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar v Sá Machado & Filhos SA
   (Case C-214/15) (1)

   ((Preliminary ruling - Public works contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 55 - Contract notice - Tender not accompanied by justification for abnormally low prices - Determination criteria - Article 7(c) - Value of the contract - Threshold not reached - Certain cross-border interest - Lack of information - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 343/14)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Município de Vila Pouca de Aguiar

      Defendant: Sá Machado & Filhos SA

      In the presence of: Norcep Construções e Empreendimentos Lda

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal), by decision of 9 April 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case C-476/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 October 2012 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 October 2012 — Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund v Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers
   (Case C-476/12)
   2013/C 32/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund

      Defendants: Verband Österreichischer Banken und Bankiers

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the principle of pro rata temporis under Clause 4.2 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work (1), to be applied to a child allowance provided for in a collective agreement — such allowance being a social benefit provided by the employer in order to meet part of the parents’ expenses for the maintenance of the child in respect of whom the allowance is obtained — on the basis of the (appropriate) nature of that benefit?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is Clause 4.1 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC to be interpreted as meaning that unequal treatment of part-time workers, by means of a proportionate reduction in their entitlement to child allowance according to working time, is — having regard to the social partners’ wide discretion in the determination of a particular social and economic policy objective and of the measures capable of achieving it — objectively justified on the basis that a prohibition of a proportionate grant:

                           (a)

                           makes part-time work in the form of parental part-time working (Elternteilzeit) and/or minor activity during a period of parental leave (Elternkarenzurlaub) more difficult or impossible; and/or

                           (b)

                           leads to distortion of competition on account of the greater financial burden placed on employers who employ a larger number of part-time workers, and to a lesser willingness on the part of employers to take on part-time workers; and/or

                           (c)

                           leads to more favourable treatment of part-time workers who have additional part-time work and multiple entitlement to a benefit — such as child allowance — under a collective agreement; and/or

                           (d)

                           leads to more favourable treatment of part-time workers, because they have more free time than full-time workers and thus have better childcare options available to them?

               3.

               If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the negative: is Article 28 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as meaning that where, in a system of employment law in which substantial elements of minimum employment standards are established in accordance with the agreed social policy assessments of specially selected and qualified parties to a collective agreement, a point of detail in a collective agreement (albeit a point that breaches the European Union law principle of non-discrimination) — in this case, the proportionate grant of child allowance in the case of part-time working — is invalid (according to national practice), the penalty of invalidity extends to all the provisions of the collective agreement relating to that area (in this case, child allowance)?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9, as amended by Directive 98/23/EC (OJ 1998 L 131, p. 10)


title: Case C-284/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH, 3G Mobile Telecommunications GmbH, Mobilkom austria Aktiengesellschaft, formerly mobilkom austria AG & Co. KG, Master-talk Austria Telekom Service GmbH & Co. KG, ONE GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, Tele.ring Telekom Service GmbH, successor to TRA 3G Mobilfunk GmbH v Republik Österreich (Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable transactions — Definition of economic activity — Article 4(2) — Allocation of rights making it possible to use a defined part of the radio-frequency spectrum reserved for telecommunications services)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH, 3G Mobile Telecommunications GmbH, Mobilkom austria Aktiengesellschaft, formerly mobilkom austria AG & Co. KG, Master-talk Austria Telekom Service GmbH & Co. KG, ONE GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, Tele.ring Telekom Service GmbH, successor to TRA 3G Mobilfunk GmbH v Republik Österreich
   (Case C-284/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Taxable transactions - Definition of ‘economic activity’ - Article 4(2) - Allocation of rights making it possible to use a defined part of the radio-frequency spectrum reserved for telecommunications services)
   (2007/C 199/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: T-Mobile Austria GmbH, 3G Mobile Telecommunications GmbH, mobilkom austria Aktiengesellschaft, formerly mobilkom austria AG & Co. KG, master-talk Austria Telekom Service GmbH & Co. KG, ONE GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, tele.ring Telekom Service GmbH, successor to TRA 3G Mobilfunk GmbH

      Defendant: Republik Österreich
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien — Interpretation of Article 4(5) of and item 1 of Annex D to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1) — Activities or transactions carried out by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority — Allocation, by auction, of frequencies to mobile telephony operators
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 4(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as meaning that the allocation, by auction by the national regulatory authority responsible for spectrum assignment, of rights such as rights to use frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum with the aim of providing the public with mobile telecommunications services does not constitute an economic activity within the meaning of that provision and, consequently, does not fall within the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-366/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 5 July 2016 — H. F. v Belgische Staat

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen (Belgium) lodged on 5 July 2016 — H. F. v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-366/16)
   (2016/C 343/44)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad voor Vreemdelingenbetwistingen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H. F.

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Should Union law, in particular Article 27(2) of the Citizenship Directive (1), whether or not in conjunction with Article 7 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that a residence application, lodged by a third-country family member in the context of family reunification with a Union citizen, who in turn has used his right of free movement and residence, can be refused in a Member State because of a threat resulting from the mere presence in society of that family member, who in another Member State was excluded from refugee status pursuant to Article 1F of the Refugee Convention and Article 12(2) of the Qualification Directive (2) because of his involvement in events within a certain socio-historical context in his country of origin, where the genuineness and the reality of the threat posed by the conduct of that family member in the Member State of residence is based solely on a reference to the exclusion decision in the absence of an assessment of the risk of recidivism in the Member State of residence?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).

      (2)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Action brought on 4 March 1995 by the French Republic aginst the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-57/95)

text:
No C 101 /4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 4 . 95
( Fourth Chamber ) of 14 February 1995 , which was received             Action brought on 4 March 1995 by the French Republic
at the Court Registry on 1 March 1995 , for a preliminary                  aginst the Commission of the European Communities
ruling in the case of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales                                   (Case C-57/95 )
pour Travailleurs Indépendants against Hans Kemmler on
the following question:                                                                          ( 95/C 101/10 )
is the effect of Articles 48 , 51 , 52 and 59 of the Treaty of          An action against the Commission of the European
Rome that before 1 July 1982 a Member State ( in this case              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Belgium) could not require nationals of another Member                  European Communities on 4 March 1995 by the French
State (in this case the former Federal Republic of Germany)             Republic, represented by Edwige Belliard and Claude
who were pursuing the same independent occupation both                  Chavance, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
in its territory and in the former Federal Republic of                  Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9 Boulevard Prince
                                                                        Henri .
Germany, where they were resident and subject to the social
security scheme, to pay contributions to the Belgian social
security scheme for independent occupations, having regard              The applicant claims that the Court should :
to the fact that such contributions could not entitle them to
any additional social security cover ?                                  — declare null and void the Commission communication
                                                                            94/C 360/08 on the freedom of management and
                                                                            investment of funds held by institutions for retirement
                                                                            provisions O ,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
Action brought on 2 March 1995 by the Commission of the                     proceedings .
     European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                           ( Case C-55/95 )                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 95/C 101/09 )
                                                                        Admissibility of the application
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before               The French Government requests the Court of Justice to
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     examine the contested communication in the light of
2 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                          its settled case-law, according to which, an action for
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal                 annulment lies against all measures, whatever their nature
Adviser, and Blanca Rodriguez Galindo, of the Legal                     and form, adopted by the institutions and intended to
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               produce legal effects .
office of Giorgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Article 190 of the EC Treaty and of the principle of legal
                                                                        certainty
1 . declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the
      necessary measures for compliance with Article 3 et seq.          The French Government considers that, by adopting the
      of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990              communication in question, the Commission has exceeded
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States             its powers .
      relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of
      the use of motor vehicles (*) has not fulfilled its               The contested act, in so far as it imposes new obligations on
      obligations under that directive;                                 the Member States, should have been founded on a specific
                                                                        legal basis . The ambiguity concerning the actual scope of the
2, order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        obligations it lays down is contrary to the principle of legal
                                                                        certainty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Content of the aet
The binding nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 189 and first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC               The French Government notes that the contested act would
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the necessary                    have the effect of imposing on the Member States, in an
measures to adapt its domestic law to directives within the             unequivocally mandatory manner, objectives and new legal
period indicated for implementation and to communicate                  obligations as regards supervision of pension funds. Such
such measures forthwith to the Commission. That period,                 obligations would logically constrain certain Member States
laid down by Article 6 of the Directive, expired on                     to amend their internal legislation in force, which would be
31 December 1992 without Spain having adopted the                       an unexpected outcome of an act which, in principle, lacks
necessary provisions .                                                  any legal status.
f 1 ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990 , p . 33 .                            (») OJ No C 360, 17. 12 . 1994, p . 7.


title: Case C-559/11: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV (Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/23

         Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV
   (Case C-559/11) (1)

   (Articles 92(1) and 103(1), and first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting the opening of an establishment seven days a week)
   2013/C 9/38
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV

      Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Articles 34 TFEU, 35 TFEU, 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU and of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) — Concept of business-to-consumer commercial practices — Opening of an establishment seven days a week and advertising of that practice.

      Operative part of the order

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not pursue objectives related to consumer protection.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-176/06: Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/30

         Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission
   (Case T-176/06)
   (2006/C 190/55)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata S.p.A. (Potenza, Italy) (represented by: Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the applicant

               —

               that the Court of First Instance should annul Decision C(2006) of the European Commission of 20 April 2006

               —

               that the Court should order the Commission to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The decision challenged in this action has brought about a considerable financial correction in the assistance of EUR 5 600 000 granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the overall subsidy BIC Basilicata in order to put into action measures to encourage small and medium-sized undertakings operating in the Regione Basilicata, in the sphere of the Community framework of support for the Objective 1 regions in Italy. In particular, measure 2 of the overall subsidy provided for the setting up of a venture capital fund for the distribution of financial assistance in the shape of holdings of share capital, shareholders' loans and convertible debenture stock in favour of undertakings situated in Basilicata or intending to set up in that region.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               that the contested decision is completely wanting any legal and factual grounds, in so far as the defendant considers, in point of fact, that there has in the circumstances been no actual fall in the assistance provided by the Fund, in that less than 3 % of the ERDF's funds has been used to take up shares in undertakings (requirement of usefulness). On this head, the applicant maintains that that condition was not provided for either by the rules applicable to the circumstances of the case, contained in the decision awarding the aid, or by the general rules on structural funds. As a result, the Commission could not lawfully conclude that there existed irregularities within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88, relying on the requirement of usefulness

               —

               contravention of Decision 97/322/EC, for want of taking into consideration and misinterpretation of paragraph C of data-sheet 19. Here, the applicant considers that the defendant has failed to take into account, in the contested decision, on the one hand, the distinction between ‘commitment’ and ‘expenditure’ and, on the other, the provisions in the data-sheet relating to the duration of the Fund, and also the provisions laid down in the draft overall subsidy which formed an integral part of that decision approving the aid, and determined the actual duration of that particular assistance at ten years

               —

               failure to comply with the procedures laid down by the Agreement, Article 25 of Regulation No 4253/88 or Article 26 of Regulation No 2082/93 in the finding of irregularities.

         The applicant, at the end of its application, also alleges breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty, of proportionality and of the requirement to state reasons.


title: Case C-428/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directives 95/59/EC and 2011/64/EU — Structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco — Establishment of an excise duty — Principle establishing one rate of excise duty for all cigarettes — Possibility for the Member States of establishing a minimum amount of excise duty — Cigarettes in the lowest price category — National legislation — Specific category of cigarettes — Excise duty set at 115 %)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) v Yesmoke Tobacco SpA
   (Case C-428/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directives 95/59/EC and 2011/64/EU - Structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco - Establishment of an excise duty - Principle establishing one rate of excise duty for all cigarettes - Possibility for the Member States of establishing a minimum amount of excise duty - Cigarettes in the lowest price category - National legislation - Specific category of cigarettes - Excise duty set at 115 %))
   (2014/C 439/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS)

      Respondent: Yesmoke Tobacco SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 7(2) and 8(6) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, rather than establishing an identical minimum excise duty that is applicable to all cigarettes, establishes a minimum excise duty that is applicable only to cigarettes with a retail selling price lower than that of cigarettes in the most popular price category.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case F-66/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — AQ v European Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal report — Appraisal period 2009 — Appraiser’s grade lower than that of the holder of the post — Appraisal of performance in part of the reference period — Failure to fix objectives for the holder of the post)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/41

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 May 2011 — AQ v European Commission
   (Case F-66/10) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal report - Appraisal period 2009 - Appraiser’s grade lower than that of the holder of the post - Appraisal of performance in part of the reference period - Failure to fix objectives for the holder of the post)
   2011/C 232/72
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AQ (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the appraisal report covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008, in that it classified the applicant in performance level III and awarded him two promotion points.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the report appraising AQ in the appraisal and promotion period 2009 and also the decision awarding AQ two promotion points for the same period;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay AQ the sum of EUR 2 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the claims in the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 74.


title: Case C-563/13: Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UPC DTH Sàrl v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/46

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — UPC DTH Sàrl v Nemzeti Média- és Hírközlési Hatóság
   (Case C-563/13) (1)

   2014/C 315/79
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-206/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 4(1)(a) — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Article 7(2) — German Länder benefits for the blind, the deaf and the disabled — Residence qualification)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-206/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 4(1)(a) - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 - Article 7(2) - German Länder benefits for the blind, the deaf and the disabled - Residence qualification)
   2011/C 186/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and C. Blaschke, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Noort, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) and of Article 4(1)(a), in conjunction with Title III, Chapter 1, of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416) — National legislation making the grant of benefits by the Länder to the disabled and the blind conditional upon the recipient being resident in the Land in question — Benefits referred to in Annex II, Section III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Concept of ‘special non-contributory benefit’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by making the grant of benefits for the blind, the deaf and the disabled under Länder legislation conditional, in respect of persons for whom the Federal Republic of Germany is the competent Member State, upon a condition of residence or habitual residence in the Land concerned, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, in conjunction with Title III, Chapter 1 of that regulation, and under Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


23.11.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 289/19
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are                   Removal from the register of Case C-335/01 ( 1)
to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the                                        (2002/C 289/35)
Community.
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        By order of 23 September 2002 the President of the Court of
measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-335/01: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v French Republic.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
ation of the directive into Greek law.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
( 1) OJ L 127 of 9.5.2001, p. 42.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-43/02 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-141/01 P        (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/36)
                         (2002/C 289/33)
                                                                        By order of 29 August 2002 the President of the Court of
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
of the European Communities ordered the removal from                    from the register of Case C-43/02 (Referral for a preliminary
the register of Case C-141/01 P: Confederazione Generale                ruling by the Landgericht Stuttgart): Landesbausparkasse
dell’Industria Italiana (Confindustria) and Others v Com-
                                                                        Baden-Württemberg v Elisabeth Huttenlocher.
mission of the European Communities.
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                             (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-295/01 ( 1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-59/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 289/34)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/37)
By order of 24 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        By order of 12 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
register of Case C-295/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by         of the European Communities ordered the removal from
the Giudice di pace di Casale Monferrato): Fontaneto Industria          the register of Case C-59/02: Commission of the European
Alimentare Srl v ASL No 21 — Dipartimento di Prevenzione                Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Servizio Igiene Alimenti e Nutrizione.
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                            (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.


title: Case T-17/08 P: Appeal brought on 14 January 2008 by Marta Andreasen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, Andreasen v Commission

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/60

         Appeal brought on 14 January 2008 by Marta Andreasen against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, Andreasen v Commission
   (Case T-17/08 P)
   (2008/C 64/97)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Marta Andreasen (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by B. Marthoz, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, rule on the dispute and grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance, including the claim for damages;

               —

               order the defendant in the appeal to pay the costs;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all the costs and expenses;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2007 in Case F-40/05, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal and reserve the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In her appeal, the appellant claims that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action, first, for the annulment of the decision of 30 October 2004 by which the Commission removed her from her post as a disciplinary measure without any reduction of her pension rights and, second, the claim for damages should be set aside.
   In support of her appeal, the appellant puts forward five pleas.
   First of all, she claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 10 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations, in that it did not carry out a review of the legality and of the proportionality of the decision contested at first instance in relation to the application of that provision in the light of the circumstances of the present case and the appellant's particular situation owing to the nature of the tasks which she performed.
   The second plea is based on the alleged infringement of the principles of the legality of Community acts, of the temporal application of Community acts and of legal certainty in that the Civil Service Tribunal did not state grounds for its judgment on the issues relating to the application, in the present case, of the rules contained in the old and new Staff Regulations.
   Further, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal misinterpreted the facts submitted for its assessment.
   She also pleads an error of assessment and an infringement by the Civil Service Tribunal of Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the Staff Regulations in that it did not provide adequate grounds in law for its judgment to the extent that it approved the application of those provisions as effected by the decision contested at first instance.
   Lastly, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal also infringed the principles recognised in Articles 6(1) and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-896/16: Action brought on 20 December 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/39

         Action brought on 20 December 2016 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)
   (Case T-896/16)
   (2017/C 053/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Senator GmbH & Co. KGaA (Groß-Bieberau, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘TRINOMIC’ — Application No 12 697 074

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 October 2016 in Case R 70/2016-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the principle that the administration is bound by its own decisions.


title: Case C-188/06 P: Appeal brought on  12 April 2006  by Schneider Electric SA against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) made on  31 January 2006  in Case T-48/03, Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/13

         Appeal brought on 12 April 2006 by Schneider Electric SA against the order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) made on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03, Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-188/06 P)
   (2006/C 165/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Schneider Electric SA (represented by A. Winckler, I. Girgenson and M. Pittie, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside, in accordance with Article 225(1) EC and Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, the order made by the Court of First Instance on 31 January 2006 in Case T-48/03 Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the substance of the case;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the order misinterprets the relevant facts and is vitiated by errors of law.
   Firstly, contrary to what the Court of First instance maintains, the transfer of Legrand to the Wendel/KKR consortium did not occur ‘spontaneously’ and did not ‘become irrevocable’ before the decision of 4 December 2002 (1) was taken. In any event, the fact that the operation was abandoned did not deprive Schneider of its interest in bringing proceedings against the decision.
   Secondly, the decision of 4 December 2002 constitutes in reality a prohibition decision, particularly in light of the instructions given by the Court of First Instance to the Commission. Indeed, in its judgment of 22 October 2002 in Schneider v Commission, the Court of First Instance clearly stated that the Commission was to resume the control procedure from the statement of objections stage.
   Thirdly, on the assumption that the decision of 4 December 2002 does indeed constitute a decision to open Phase II, it is still amenable to an action for annulment. Indeed, in so far as it produces adverse effects, a decision taken on the basis of Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation No 4064/89 (2) may be the subject of an action for annulment. In the very specific circumstances of the present case, the decision of 4 December 2002 was in any event liable to give rise to an action. Any other interpretation would lead to a veritable denial of justice.
   Finally, the decision to close proceedings may also be the subject of an action for annulment, on the same basis as any decision whereby the Commission significantly alters the legal situation of the affected party.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 4 December 2002 on opening the close examination phase in respect of the merger operation between Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M. 2283-Schneider/Legrand II)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1)


title: Case C-448/13 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014  — Delphi Technologies, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) — Word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD — Advertising slogan — Refusal of registration — No distinctive character)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Delphi Technologies, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-448/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) - Word mark INNOVATION FOR THE REAL WORLD - Advertising slogan - Refusal of registration - No distinctive character))
   2014/C 261/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Delphi Technologies, Inc. (represented by: C. Albrecht and J. Heumann, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Delphi Technologies, Inc. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-565/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige — Sweden) — criminal proceedings against Ove Ahlström, Lennart Kjellberg, Fiskeri Ganthi AB, Fiskeri Nordic AB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — External relations — Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco — Exclusion of any possibility for Community vessels to carry out fishing activities in Moroccan fishing zones on the basis of a licence issued by the Moroccan authorities without the intervention of the competent European Union authorities)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige — Sweden) — criminal proceedings against Ove Ahlström, Lennart Kjellberg, Fiskeri Ganthi AB, Fiskeri Nordic AB
   (Case C-565/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - External relations - Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco - Exclusion of any possibility for Community vessels to carry out fishing activities in Moroccan fishing zones on the basis of a licence issued by the Moroccan authorities without the intervention of the competent European Union authorities))
   (2014/C 439/18)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Hovrätten för Västra Sverige

      Parties in the criminal proceedings in the main proceedings

   Ove Ahlström, Lennart Kjellberg, Fiskeri Ganthi AB, Fiskeri Nordic AB

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EC) No 764/2006 of 22 May 2006, in particular Article 6 of that agreement, must be interpreted as excluding any possibility for Community vessels to carry out fishing activities in Moroccan fishing zones on the basis of a licence issued by the Moroccan authorities without the intervention of the competent European Union authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case C-220/00: Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

text:
12.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                                (Case C-220/00)
paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
and to communicate those measures immediately to the                                              (2000/C 233/33)
Commission. That period expired on 13 October 1998 wi-
thout the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
into national law.                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Miguel
(1) OJ L 328, 28.11.1997, p. 1.                                          Franga, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                         Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Vicenza, First Chamber, by order of that court of 25 May                 —     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
2000, in the case of CISAL di Battistello Venanzio &                           within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                           C. Sas v INAIL                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 98/55/EC (1) of 17 July 1998 amending
                          (Case C-218/00)                                      Directive 93/75/EEC (2) concerning minimum require-
                                                                               ments for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports
                                                                               and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, within the
                          (2000/C 233/32)
                                                                               period prescribed by Article 2(1) of that directive, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                           paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as
Vicenza (District Court, Vicenza), First Chamber, of 25 May                    Article 2(1) of the directive; and
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of CISAL di
Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v INAIL on the following                   —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
questions:                                                                     the Commission immediately of such measures, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               those provisions;
‘Does a public not-for-profit insurance body, such as the
INAIL, to which is entrusted, on the basis of sound economic
and business practice, the operation as a monopoly of a                  —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
scheme of insurance against risks deriving from accidents at
work and occupational diseases based on a system of compul-
sory registration, which pays out benefits on a partially
automatic basis (which provides insurance cover for employ-              Pleas in law and main arguments
ees, but not for self-employed persons — as from 1998) even
in the event of non-payment of premiums by the employer,
and calculates the premiums on the basis of the risk categories          The mandatory nature of the provisions of the first paragraph
to which the insured work is assigned, constitute an underta-            of Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC
king within the meaning of Article 81 et seq. of the Treaty?             Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the fact      to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                         law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
that the abovementioned public entity calls for the payment of           That period, which is laid down in Article 2 of the directive,
premiums even where the person concerned, a self-employed                expired on 31 December 1998 without Portugal having
person (craftsman), is already insured with a private company            brought into force the necessary provisions.
against the same risks in respect of which he would be covered
through affiliation to the abovementioned body constitute an
                                                                         (1) OJ C 1998 L 215, p. 65.
infringement of Articles 86 and 82 EC?’                                  (2) OJ 1993 L 247, p. 19.


title: Case T-116/04: Action brought on 24 March 2004 by Wieland-Werke Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/45

         Action brought on 24 March 2004 by Wieland-Werke Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-116/04)
   (2004/C 118/99)
   Language of the Case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 March 2004 by Wieland-Werke Aktiengesellschaft, Ulm (Germany), represented by R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision in Case COMP/E-1/38.240 – Industrial Pipes;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed in the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By the contested decision the Commission found that the applicant and five other undertakings had, by their participation in a series of agreements and concerted practices in the form of price-fixing and market sharing in the industrial pipe sector, infringed Article 81(1) EC and, as from 1 January 1994, Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. The Commission fined the relevant undertakings.
   The applicant argues that the Commission did not take into account proportionally the size of the undertakings concerned in fixing the fine. The fine imposed on the applicant was disproportionately high relative to its total turnover. That constitutes an infringement of the principle of proportionality and contravenes the Commission's own guidelines. Furthermore, that method places small and medium-sized undertakings at a disadvantage and therefore infringes the general principle of equality and the principle of imposing penalties on a case-by-case basis.
   The applicant further argues that in setting the fine sufficient account was not taken of the economic significance of the infringement as the Commission did not correctly calculate market volumes. Furthermore, the increase of 10 % per year set by the Commission based on the duration of the infringement was not properly reasoned.
   The applicant also argues that the Commission's method for setting fines does not satisfy the requirement of certainty necessary for the rule of law. In particular, the calculation of the basic amount, which is made entirely without reference to the individual economic circumstances of the undertaking concerned, and the economic significance of the infringement does not allow for any practical unlimited discretion on the part of the Commission. Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 is not compatible with the requirement of certainty and thus superior Community law. Finally, the Commission, in applying the leniency notice of 1996, disadvantaged the applicant without any discernible reason relative to other undertakings.


title: Case T-554/15: Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/62

         Action brought on 25 September 2015 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-554/15)
   (2015/C 398/76)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in part Commission Decision C(2015) 4805 of 15 July 2015 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses in Hungary insofar as that decision orders the suspension of the application of the progressive tax rate and the tax reduction in the case of investment provided for by Law XCIV of 2014 on the health contribution of tobacco industry businesses (a dohányipari vállalkozások 2015. évi egészségügyi hozzájárulásáról szóló 2014. évi XCIV. törvény) adopted by the Hungarian Parliament, and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               Misuse of discretion, manifest error of assessment and breach of the principle of proportionality

                           —

                           First, the applicant argues that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment and thereby overstepped the bounds of its discretion and breached the principle of proportionality.

               2.

               Breach of the prohibition on discrimination and of the requirement of equal treatment

                           —

                           Secondly, the applicant argues that the Commission’s conduct as regards the suspension can be said to be inconsistent and as a result gives rise to a breach of the prohibition on discrimination and the requirement of equal treatment.

               3.

               Breach of the obligation to state reasons and of the principle of sound administration and rights of the defence

                           —

                           Thirdly, the applicant takes the view, inter alia, that, in ordering the suspension, the Commission failed to observe the requirement to state reasons.

               4.

               [Breach of] the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to effective legal remedies

                           —

                           The applicant takes the view that the suspension ordered by the Commission results in the breach of guaranteed basic rights such as the requirement of sincere cooperation and the right to an effective legal remedy.

               5.

               The provisions of the decision are contradictory and not sufficiently specific

                           —

                           The applicant states, that in its view, the Commission, in taking the decision, disregarded the fact that in the case of taxes to be determined on the basis of tax returns the Hungarian authorities are unable to prevent the grant of the aid, and that, further, the Commission’s decision was contradictory as regards the subject-matter of the suspension. Consequently, it did not define clear rules of conduct, whilst it can none the less require the Hungarian authorities to implement the decision.


title: Case C-176/16 P: Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 — Registration of the name ‘Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG)’ — Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/7

         Order of the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Proforec Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-176/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 - Registration of the name ‘Focaccia di Recco col formaggio (IPG)’ - Lack of legal interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2017/C 202/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Proforec Srl (represented by: G. Durazzo, M. Mencoboni and G. Pescatore, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by: F. Moro and J. Guillem Carrau, Agents, and subsequently by: F. Moro, Agent)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Proforec Srl shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016


title: Case T-7/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2015  — BQ v Court of Auditors (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Staff report — Psychological harassment — Dismissal in part of the action for compensation at first instance — Distortion of the facts — Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons — Proportionality — Allocation of costs)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2015 — BQ v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-7/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Staff report - Psychological harassment - Dismissal in part of the action for compensation at first instance - Distortion of the facts - Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons - Proportionality - Allocation of costs))
   (2015/C 096/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: BQ (Béreldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, J.-N. Louis and M. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union (represented initially by: T. Kennedy, B. Schäfer and I. Ni Riagáin Düro, and subsequently by: B. Schäfer and I. Ni Riagáin Düro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013, BQ v Court of Auditors (F-39/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:158) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr BQ to bear, in the present instance, his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Court of Auditors.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-390/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/92)
   By order of 18 November 2003 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-390/02: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.


title: Case T-645/13: Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Eycharis Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/9

         Action brought on 29 November 2013 — Eycharis Nezi v OHIM — Etam (E)
   (Case T-645/13)
   2014/C 61/15
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant): Eycharis Nezi (Mykonos, Greece) (represented by: A Salkitzoglou, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etam SAS (Clichy, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 October 2013 in Case R 329/2013-4;

               —

               vary the above decision so that the applicant’s mark is registered for all the goods and service which were applied for and,

               —

               order the opponent to pay all the applicant’s legal costs, including all costs of any interveners.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Ε’, for goods and services in Classes 14, 16, 18, 25, 26, 35 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 8701138.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The opponent before the Board of Appeal.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community figurative mark ‘Ε’, for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               Infringement of Article 4 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009, and

               —

               Infringement of Articles 15 and 42 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 10 June 1997 in Case C-392/95: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Nationals of third countries - Visas - Legislative procedure - Consultation of the European Parliament)

text:
No C 252/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 10 June 1997                                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-3 92/95 : European Parliament v. Council of the
                      European Union ( ! )                                                     of 12 June 1997
(Nationals of third countries — Visas — Legislative                   in Case C-l 10/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling
   procedure — Consultation of the European Parliament)               from the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division,
                                                                      Patents Court): Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v.
                         ( 97/C 252/06 )                              Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade
                                                                                Marks (')
                 (Language of the case: French)                       (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Supplementary
                                                                      protection certificate for medicinal products — Scope of
                                                                                Article 19)
                                                                                97/C 252/07 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-392/95 : European Parliament, (Agents: Johann                              (Language of the case: English)
Schoo and Jose-Luis Rufas Quintana ) v. Council of the
European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul Jacque and Michael
Bishop ), supported by French Republic ( Agents : Catherine
de Salins and Anne de Bourgoing) — application for
annulment of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 2317/95 of
                                                                      In Case C-l 10/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
25 September 1995 determining the third countries whose
nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the            of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice,
external frontiers of the Member States ( OJ No L 234,                Chancery Division, Patents Court for a preliminary ruling
3 . 10 . 1995 , p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C.                in the proceedings pending before that court between
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini and J. L.                Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd and Comptroller
Murray ( Presidents of Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn                   General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks — on the
 ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                  interpretation of Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, M. Wathelet and R.                    No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation
Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; D.                  of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                    products ( OJ No L 182, 2 . 7. 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 1997, in which             ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
it :                                                                  of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),
                                                                      H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                      Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
 1 . annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 2317/95 of                      12 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
      25 September 1995 determining the third countries
      whose nationals must be in possession of visas when
      crossing the external borders of the Member States;
                                                                       The grant of a supplementary protection certificate
 2 . declares that the effects of the annulled Regulation are         pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC)
      to be maintained until the Council of the European              No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation
      Union has adopted new legislation in the matter;                 of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
                                                                      products is, in accordance with Article 3 (b) of that
                                                                       Regulation, conditional on a valid authorization to place
                                                                       the product on the market as a medicinal product having
 3 . orders the Council to pay the costs;                              been granted in the Member State in which the application
                                                                       is submitted and at the date of that application.
 4. orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 159, 24 . 6 . 1995 .
 O OJ No C 46, 17. 2 . 1996 .


title: Action brought on 12 November 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-386/97)

text:
10. 1. 98              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/9
measures to incorporate the Directive at issue fully into                Does the application of paragraph 17 (1) (2b) or (5)
Greek law. It thus seeks a declaration that the Hellenic                 of the Lebensmittel- und Bedarfsgegenständegesetz in
Republic has committed that infringement.                                conjunction with Numbers 2.19/2.3411 et seq. of the
                                                                         Leitsätze für Fleisch und Fleischerzeugnisse of the German
(1) OJ L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 35.                                       Lebensmittelbuch by the Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim
(2) OJ L 303, 31. 10. 1990, p. 6.                                        or the Staatsanwaltschaft Osnabrück in the present case
                                                                         contravene Article 30 et seq. of the EEC Treaty, that is,
                                                                         the prohibition of discrimination laid down there?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative
Court by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in the
case of Dr Gerhard Köbler v. Federal Minister for Science,               Action brought on 12 November 1997 by the Commission
                   Research and Technology                               of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                        (Case C-382/97)                                                              Republic
                           (98/C 7/19)                                                          (Case C-386/97)
                                                                                (98/C 7/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European       Communities        by     an     order     of   the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof         (Administrative        Court)    of       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
22 October 1997, which was received at the Court                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Registry on 7 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                 on 12 November 1997 by the Commission of the
the case of Dr Gerhard Köbler v. Federal Minister for                    European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Science, Research and Technology on the following                        Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
question:                                                                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                         also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Can a right be derived from Article 48 of the EC Treaty
and Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1),
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
which lay down the right of workers to freedom of
movement and to access to the labour market in the
Community, to the effect that, in a salary scheme in which
remuneration depends on, inter alia, length of service,                  Ð declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
work of equal value which was performed in another                           period the laws, regulations and administrative
Member State must be taken into account in exactly the                       provisions necessary to implement Council Directive
same way as such work performed in the Member State                          95/23/EC of 22 June 1995 amending Directive 64/433/
applying that scheme?                                                        EEC on conditions for the production and marketing
                                                                             of fresh meat (1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                                                                             Directive;
                                                                         Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Nordhorn by decision of that court of 30 October 1997 in
the administrative criminal proceedings against Arnoldus
                Theodorus Maria van der Laan                             Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                        (Case C-383/97)                                  directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                         upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
                           (98/C 7/20)
                                                                         When the time limit for the transposition of the Directive
                                                                         at issue into national law expired on 1 July 1995, the
                                                                         Hellenic Republic had not adopted appropriate measures
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for its full incorporation into Greek law.
European Communities by a decision of the Amtsgericht
Nordhorn (Nordhorn Local Court) of 30 October 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 10 November                  (1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 7.
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative
criminal proceedings against Arnoldus Theodorus Maria
van der Laan on the following question:


title: Case F-4/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 8 December 2014  — Cwik v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Appraisal — Staff report — Appraisal period 1995/1997 — Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court — Application for annulment of the staff report — No referral to the Joint Committee on Staff Reports — Delay in the drawing up of the staff report — Action for damages)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 8 December 2014 — Cwik v Commission
   (Case F-4/13) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Appraisal - Staff report - Appraisal period 1995/1997 - Enforcement of a judgment of the General Court - Application for annulment of the staff report - No referral to the Joint Committee on Staff Reports - Delay in the drawing up of the staff report - Action for damages))
   (2015/C 026/55)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Cwik (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision adopting the applicant’s staff report in respect of the period from 1995 to 1997 and an application for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the European Commission’s decision of 12 March 2012 definitively establishing Mr Cwik’s new staff report in respect of the appraisal period 1995/1997;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Cwik the sum of EUR 15  000 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Cwik.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13/4/2013, p. 38.


title: Case T-621/13: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2014  — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/72

         Order of the General Court of 26 June 2014 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
   (Case T-621/13) (1)

   2014/C 315/120
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.