title: Reference for preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by order of that court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Hermès International société en commandite par actions, Paris v. FHT Marketing Choice BV (Case C-53/96)

text:
No C 95/ 14             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30 . 3 . 96
      institutions are able to transfer their rights to the                by order of that court of 1 February 1996 , received at the
       Community pensions scheme, the Kingdom of Spain has                 Court Registry on 22 February 1996, for a preliminary
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 ( 2 ) of           ruling in the case of Hermes International societe en
   v Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the               commandite par actions, Paris v. FHT Marketing Choice BV
      European Communities f 1 ) and Article 5 of the EC                   on the following question :
      Treaty; and
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                          is an interim measure, such as, for example, is provided for
                                                                           in Article 289 et seq. of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Rechtsvordering (Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure )
                                                                           whereby an immediate, enforceable measure may be sought,
Despite the fact that the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges its                covered by the expression 'provisional measures' within the
obligation to comply with the provisions and Royal Decrees                 meaning of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related
have been drafted, no national implementing measures in                    Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS ) (*)?
the field have yet been adopted .
                                                                           (') OJ No L 336 , 1994 , p . 213 .
(') Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 259/68 of the Council of
     29 February 1968 ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 30 ),
     as amended by Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 571 /92
     ( OJ No L 62 , 1962 , p. 1 ).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-402/95
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/27 )
Reference        for      preliminary         ruling     from      the
Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by order of that
court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Hermes                             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
International societe en commandite par actions, Paris v.
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                   FHT Marketing Choice BV                                 22 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
                           ( Case C-53/96 )                                Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                             ( 96/C 95/26 )                                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by order of the                                By order of 20 February 1996 the Court has ordered that
Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam,                    the case be removed from the register.
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                       of 15 February 1996                                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                           21 , Rue de Nassau, v. European Foundation for the
in Case T-5 89/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European                        Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ( Agents :
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                       John McColgan and subsequently Terry Sheehan, in the
                             Conditions ( 1 )                              written procedure, and Clive Purkiss, in the oral procedure,
(Officials — Servants of the European Foundation for the                   assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions —                             the annulment of the notice of vacancy concerning
Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an internal                           a post as administrator of the Foundation's publications
candidate — Actions for annulment of measures — Action                     programme, the notice of restricted competition relating to
                             for damages)                                  the filling of that post, the recruitment committee's
                             ( 96/C 95/28 )                                memorandum of 5 November 1993 and the decision of the
                                                                           Director of the Foundation of 22 November 1993 rejecting
                                                                           the applicant's application for that post, and , second, an
                                                                           order requiring the Foundation to pay damages in the sum
                 (Language of the case: French)                            of Bfrs 75 000 the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
                                                                           composed of: C. P. Briet, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
                                                                           A. Potocki , Judges; B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 15 February 1996, in which it:
In Case T-589/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan, a servant of the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, represented by Luc Misson and                          1 . dismisses the action;


title: Action brought on 14 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-178/98)

text:
4.7.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/27
Action brought on 14 May 1998 by the Commission of                    Integration, against Fatna Mesbah on the following
  the European Communities against the French Republic                questions:
                        (Case C-178/98)
                                                                      1. Can a member of the family of a worker, who was
                         (98/C 209/54)
                                                                           originally Moroccan but subsequently acquired
                                                                           Belgian nationality, still rely on Article 41(1) of the
                                                                           Cooperation Agreement between the European
An action against the French Republic was brought before                   Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on
14 May 1998 by the Commission of the European                              behalf of the Community by Council Regulation
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal                         (EEC) No 2211/78 (1) of 26 September 1978 and on
Adviser, and Olivier Coustert-Castera, official seconded to                the principle of non-discrimination with regard to
the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for                   Moroccan workers' and members of their family'
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                  living with them, which is contained therein?
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      2. What degree of relationship Ð vertical and/or
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                horizontal Ð is covered by the term family',
                                                                           contained in Article 41(1) of the EEC-Morocco
                                                                           Agreement, and can that term also be applied to
1. declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate                    persons of Moroccan nationality who are related only
     all the measures necessary to comply with Council                     by marriage?
     Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries
     and accumulators containing certain dangerous
                                                                      (1) OJ L 264, 27.9.1978, p. 1.
     substances (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
     its obligations under that directive,
2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht
                                                                      te Nijmegen by judgments of that court of 8 May 1998 in
                                                                      the cases of Pavel W. Pavlov (Case C-180/98), Dirk Boetie
The fact that the laws, regulations and administrative                van der Schaaf (Case C-181/98), Marinus Anthony Pieter
provisions necessary to comply more generally with                    Kooyman (Case C-182/98), Evert Wilhelm Geert Weber
Directive 91/158/EEC have not yet been adopted by                     (Case C-183/98) and Rob Slappendel (Case C-184/98)
France (2) is irrelevant in order to find that it has failed to           against Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten
fulfil its specific obligations under Article 6 of the                                 (Case C-180/98 to C-184/98)
directive with regard to the drawing up of the
programmes referred to therein.                                                               (98/C 209/56)
(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
(2) See Joined Cases C-282/96 and C-283/96, OJ C            212,      the European Communities by judgments of the
    12.7.1997, p. 6.
                                                                      Kantongerecht te Nijmegen (Cantonal Court, Nijmegen)
                                                                      of 8 May 1998, received at the Court Registry on 15 May
                                                                      1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Pavel W.
                                                                      Pavlov (Case C-180/98), Dirk Boetie van der Schaaf (Case
                                                                      C-181/98), Marinus Anthony Pieter Kooyman (Case
                                                                      C-182/98), Evert Wilhelm Geert Weber (Case C-183/98)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail,            and Rob Slappendel (Case C-184/98) against Stichting
Brussels (Sixth Chamber) by judgment of that court of                 Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten on the following
11 May 1998 in the case of Belgian State, in the person of            questions:
the Secretary of State for Social Integration, against Fatna
                            Mesbah                                    1. In the light of the Wet betreffende verplichte
                        (Case C-179/98)                                    deelneming in een beroepspensioenregeling (Law on
                                                                           compulsory affiliation to an occupational pension
                         (98/C 209/55)                                     scheme, hereinafter the WVD'), is an occupational
                                                                           pension scheme which, pursuant to and in accordance
                                                                           with the WVD, makes membership compulsory for all,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     or one or more specified groups of, persons belonging
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                            to a profession, entailing the legal consequences . . .
Travail (Higher Labour Court), Brussels (Sixth Chamber)                    attendant upon the Law, to be regarded as an
of 11 May 1998, received at the Court Registry on 15 May                   undertaking within the meaning of Articles 85, 86 or
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Belgian State,               90 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic
in the person of the Secretary of State for Social                         Community?


title: Case F-58/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Collotte v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2006 promotion procedure — Ability to work in a third language)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/70

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Collotte v Commission
   (Case F-58/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2006 promotion procedure - Ability to work in a third language)
   (2009/C 44/122)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pascal Collotte (Abstraat, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, initially, and É. Boigelot and L. Defalque, subsequently, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, initially, and C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, subsequently, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: I. Šulce and M. Simm, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade A*12 in the 2006 promotion procedure for failure to demonstrate the ability to work in a third language — Claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities not to include Mr Collotte's name on the list of officials promoted to grade A*12 for the 2006 promotion procedure;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the forms of order sought;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the applicant;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 50.


title: Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Ginette Nabavi against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-104/97)

text:
No C 181 /20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 6 . 97
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Massimo Lombardini, residing in Brussels, represented
by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                Case T- 16/97 (').
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                        O OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 1996
    rejecting the applicant's request that it give
    consideration to the possible application of
    Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                          Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Ginette Nabavi
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-l 04/97 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
    adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                                                   ( 97/C 181 /41 )
    expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
                                                                        by Ginette Nabavi , residing at Tervuren ( Belgium ),
                                                                        represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Case T-16/97 (').                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
(') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                             rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                             consideration to the possible application of
                                                                             Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Georges Herbillon
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
                          ( Case T-103/97 )
                                                                             adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
                                                                             expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                            ( 97/C 181 /40 )
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997                    Case T-16/97 (').
by Georges Herbillon, residing at Arlon ( Belgium ),
represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an             (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        Action brought on 7 April 1997 by Jorge D. Savio against
— annul the Commission's decision of 17 June 1996                               the Commission of the European Communities
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                                               ( Case T-105 /97 )
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                                     ( 97/C 181 /42 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul , in so far as may be necessary, the decision
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1997
— order the defendant to pay all the costs .                            by Jorge D. Savio, residing in Brussels, represented by


title: Case C-454/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 13 August 2013 — Belgacom SA v Commune d’Etterbeek
   (Case C-454/13)
   2013/C 313/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgacom SA

      Defendant: Commune d’Etterbeek

      Question referred

   Must Articles 12 and 13 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’) (1) be interpreted as precluding the introduction, for budgetary purposes, by legislation of a national or local authority, of a tax on mobile communications infrastructures, installed on public or private property, used to carry on activities provided for in the general authorisation?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Case T-555/08: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 9 December 2009 — IPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing v OHIM (Representation of a navigational device)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 9 December 2009 — IPublish Ganske Interactive Publishing v OHIM (Representation of a navigational device)
   (Case T-555/08) (1)

   2010/C 37/75

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-710/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/32

         Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Drex Technologies v Council
   (Case T-710/15)
   (2016/C 059/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Drex Technologies SA (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               as a consequence, order the European Union to repair all of the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant at an amount to be fixed equitably by the Court;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging the fact that it has suffered non-material damage, consisting of harm to its reputation, as a direct causal link to the measures taken by the Council of the European Union, for which the Council is liable.


title: Decisions adopted by the Court of First Instance at its plenary conference on 5 June 1997

text:
12 . 7. 97                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/25
was allocated, by Regulation ( EC ) No 390/97, 38 886                              Removal from the register of C-40/95 (')
tonnes, which is 1 139 tonnes less than the quantity                                                 ( 97/C 212/46 )
provided for by the Act of Accession.
                                                                         By order of 3 February 1997 the President of the Court of
( 1 ) Council Regulation (EC ) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
      fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the     removal from the register of Case C-40/95 ( reference for a
      total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under      preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal,
      which they may be fished ( OJ No L 66, 6. 3 . 1997, p. 1 ).        London ): Conoco Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and
( 2 ) OJNoL 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p . 1 .                                   Excise .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
                                                                             OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Decisions adopted by the Court of First Instance at its                       the President of the Court of First Instance designates
                 plenary conference on 5 June 1997                            the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of
                             ( 97/C 212/47)                                   the case, will be in the reverse order of precedence of
                                                                              those Judges based, in accordance with Article 6 of the
                                                                              Rules of Procedure, on their seniority in office, save
 1 . Composition of the First Chamber, Extended                               where the Judge thus designated is the Judge
        Composition, of the Second Chamber and of the                         Rapporteur. In the latter case, the Judge immediately
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition —                                senior to him is to be designated .
        Assignment of Judges to Chambers
        In the light of the decision of the Governments of the
        Member States of 29 May 1997 appointing Karl Joerg
        Pirrung a Member of the Court of First Instance
        following the death of Judge Heinrich Kirschner, the
        Court of First Instance decided at its plenary
        conference on 5 June 1997, in accordance with                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        Article 10 of its Rules of Procedure, to modify the                                        (Fourth Chamber)
        composition of its Chambers, as decided on                                                  of 15 May 1997
        12 September 1996 ( OJ No C 294, 5 . 10 . 1996 , p. 10 ).
                                                                          in Case T-273/94: N v. Commission of the European
        For the period from 11 June 1997 to 30 September                                            Communities ( ] )
        1997, Judge Pirrung is assigned to the First Chamber,             (Officials — Duty to act in good faith — Official
        Extended Composition, the Second Chamber and the                  suspected of conduct inconsistent with the dignity of his
        Second Chamber, Extended Composition .                            office — Official's cooperation in good faith with the
                                                                          investigation — Lacking — Disciplinary proceedings —
        In cases where another Judge has been designated by                                       Removal from post)
        the President of the Court of First Instance, pursuant
        to Article 32 ( 3 ) of the Rules of Procedure, to                                              ( 97/C 212/48 )
        complete those Chambers in place of Judge Kirschner
         and the written procedure has been completed and a                               (Language of the case: French)
         hearing in the oral procedure has been held or fixed
         before 11 June 1996 , those Chambers shall continue              In Case T-273/94: N, a former official of the Commission
         to sit with that composition for the purposes of the              of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
         oral procedure, deliberation and judgment.                        represented by Xavier Magnee, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                           an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
   2 . Plenary session                                                     Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue Fort Rheinsheim v. Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia,
         At is plenary conference on 5 June 1997, the Court of             Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck ) —
         First Instance decided, in accordance with the second             application for annulment of the Commission's decision of
         subparagraph of Article 32 ( 1 ) of its Rules of                  4 October 1993 removing the applicant from his post, and
         Procedure, that where, following the designation of an            a claim for damages — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
         Advocate-General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules              Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
         of Procedure , there is an even number of Judges of the           and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the
          Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the          Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 May 1997, the operative
          rota established in advance, in accordance with which            part of which is as follows:


title: Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Société Fotini Chiou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-225/95)

text:
16 . 3 . 96        [ EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 77/ 13
The applicants claim that the Court should :                        Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Société Fotini
                                                                    Chiou against the Commission of the European
— annul the European Commission's Decision of                                                 Communities
    23 October 1995 regarding French nuclear tests,                                        ( Case T-225/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/31 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these
     proceedings .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicants, three citizens and residents of Tahiti ( French
Polynesia ), challenge the decision of the Commission of            An action against the Commission of the European
23 October 1995 , granting its assent under Article 34 ( 2 ) of     Communities was brought before the Court of First
the EAEC Treaty in relation to the French nuclear tests on          Instance of the European Communities on 13 December
the Pacific atoll of Mururoa . Alternatively, the present           1995 by Fotini Chiou, residing in Brussels, represented by
application should be considered as being brought against           Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
the decision by which the Commission refused to consider            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8-10
                                                                    Rue Mathias Hardt .
that Article 34 was applicable to the French nuclear
tests .
They submit that the defendant institution has, through this        The applicant claims that the Court should :
decision and the way in which it was reached, violated its
obligations under Community law, specifically under the
Euratom Treaty and Council Directive 88/835/Euratom . It            — annul the decision rejecting her complaint against the
is stressed on this point that the Commission should have                Commission's decision of 18 November 1994 ,
applied a purposive intepretation of the notion of
'particularly dangerous experiment' ( Article 34 ), which at a
minimum, in the light of the preamble of the EC Treaty,             — as far as is necessary, annul the decision of the
should have focused on the prevention of health and safety               Commission of 1 8 November excluding her from the list
hazards, rather than merely providing an interpretation                  of successful candidates in the internal competition
which restricts itself to 'a perceptible risk of significant             for movement of officials from Category C to
exposure of workers and the general public to ionizing                   Category B,
radiation '. On the basis of this purposive interpretation the
Commission should have conducted a much more extensive
                                                                    — order the defendant to pay the costs .
and thorough research into the possible health and safety
hazards involved .
Moreover, in applying Article 34 of the EAEC Treaty the             Pleas in law and main arguments:
Commission must take into account all three of the basic
principles contained in Article 6 of the Directive; i.e. the
justification of every activity resulting in an exposure to         In support of her action, the applicant submits pleas in law
ionizing radiation by the advantages that it produces, the 'as      and arguments similar to those put forward in Case
                                                                    T- 15 9/95 .
low as reasonably achievable' principle and the necessity of
specific dose-limits . However, the Commission has, without
any motivation, restricted itself to the third aspect alone .       She too bases her application on a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment, pointing out, first, that she holds several
The Commission has also ignored relevant rules of                   university qualifications and since 1992 has been
international law, including the 1982 United Nations                performing duties which are well beyond those of
Convention on the Law of the Sea , the 1985 Asean                   Category C and, secondly, that her performance in the oral
Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural                 test deserved a mark higher than the minimum required . In
Resources, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.             addition, the applicant claims that the person who was
                                                                    chairman of the selection board did not possess the
                                                                    necessary independence to assess her aptitude , since that
Finally, it is further submitted that the European                  person was also the chairman of the selection board in a
Commission has violated fundamental rights of the                   previous competetion, the result of which forms the subject
applicants including, but not limited to, the right to life as      of an action brought by the applicant before the Court of
guaranteed in Article 2 of the European Convention on               First Instance; in that respect, she pleads infringement of
 Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant           Article 14 of the Staff Regulations of officials and also of the
on Civil and Political Rights, and also the right to privacy         rules governing the activities of selection boards .
 and family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the European
 Convention on Human Rights .


title: Case T-101/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 156/31
According to the applicant, the remedy in the Shell/DEA case                Pleas in law and main arguments
remains ineffective as long as this problem is not addressed.
According to the applicant, the commitment from BP/E.ON,
that it will not use its voting rights to block any special                 The applicant in the present case is a purchaser of merchant
resolutions pending the sale of the shares to be divested, is               ethylene outside the ARG+ pipeline network.
insufficient and remains unclear on what is to happen in a
number of situations. The applicant claims therefore that this
commitment does not offer an interim solution at all.
                                                                            The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission
                                                                            declaring an operation where Deutsche Shell GmbH would
                                                                            acquire sole control of the undertaking DEA Mineraloel AG
                                                                            under certain conditions compatible with the common market
(1) With the operation examined by the Commission in this case, BP,         and the EEA Agreement. These conditions were necessary
    together with E.ON would acquire joint control of Veba Oel. The         since the operation gave rise to substantial competition
    Decision of the Commission in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON              concerns on the ARG+ merchant ethylene market. In particu-
    is also contested by this applicant in Case T-101/02.                   lar, there was a risk of creating a joint dominant position of
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on              Shell/DEA and BP/Veba Oel (case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of         E.ON (1).
    30.12.1989 p. 1; text republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990,
    p. 13).
                                                                            According to the applicant, the present Decision has an
                                                                            important effect on the ARG+ merchant ethylene market.
                                                                            There is a clear price link between this market and markets for
                                                                            merchant ethylene outside the ARG+, in which the applicant
                                                                            operates.
                                                                            The pleas and arguments put forward in the present case are
                                                                            the same as those put forward in Case T-99/02.
Action brought on 5 April 2002 by EVC International N.V.
against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (1) With the operation examined by the Commission in this case, BP,
                                                                                together with E.ON, would acquire joint control of Veba Oel. The
                           (Case T-100/02)                                      Decision of the Commission in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON
                                                                                is also contested by this applicant in Case T-102/02.
                          (2002/C 156/59)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            Action brought on 5 April 2002 by Ineos NV against the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                             Commission of the European Communities
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 April 2002 by EVC International
N.V., represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC                                              (Case T-101/02)
and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels
(Belgium).
                                                                                (2002/C 156/60)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                     (Language of the case: English)
—      annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty, the Commission
       Decision in case no. COMP/M.2389-Shell/DEA in its
       entirety and/or insofar as it concerns the market for                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
       supply of merchant ethylene;                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 5 April 2002 by Ineos NV,
                                                                            represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC and Mr
—      order the Commission to pay the costs                                Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels (Belgium).
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/32               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.6.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Action brought on 5 April 2002 by EVC International N.V.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
                                                                                (Case T-102/02)
      Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON in its
      entirety and/or insofar it concerns the market for the
      supply of merchant ethylene;
                                                                                (2002/C 156/61)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           European Communities on 5 April 2002 by EVC International
                                                                          N.V., represented by Mr Julian Ellison, Mr Mark Clough QC
                                                                          and Mr Matthew Hall of Ashurst Morris Crisp, Brussels
                                                                          (Belgium).
The applicant in the present case is a purchaser of merchant
ethylene on the ARG+ pipeline network in Belgium, the
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Netherlands and western Germany.
                                                                          —     annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the Commission
                                                                                Decision in case no. COMP/M.2533-BP/E.ON in its
                                                                                entirety and/or insofar it concerns the market for the
The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission                           supply of merchant ethylene;
declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
These conditions were necessary since the operation gave rise
to substantial competition concerns on the ARG+ merchant
ethylene market. In particular, there was a risk of creating a
joint dominant position of BP/Veba Oel and Shell/DEA (case
no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/DEA (1).
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant in the present case is a purchaser of merchant
The decisions in the BP/E.ON case is closely related to the               ethylene outside the ARG+ pipeline network.
decision in the Shell/DEA case. These cases were treated
similarly and the remedies imposed in each case are only
effective if the remedies in the other case are operative as well.
Therefore, the applicant puts forward the same arguments as               The applicant contests the Decision of the Commission
in Case T-99/02.                                                          declaring an operation where BP, together with E.ON, would
                                                                          acquire joint control of Veba Oel under certain conditions
                                                                          compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement.
                                                                          These conditions were necessary since the operation gave rise
                                                                          to substantial competition concerns on the ARG+ merchant
                                                                          ethylene market. In particular, there was a risk of creating a
(1) Under the operation examined by the Commission in this case,          joint dominant position of BP/Veba Oel and Shell/DEA (case
    Deutsche Shell would acquire sole control of the undertaking          no. COMP/M. 2389-Shell/DEA (1).
    DEA Mineraloel. The decision in case nr COMP/M. 2389-Shell/
    DEA is also contested by this Applicant in Case T-99/02.
                                                                          The Decision in the BP/E.ON case is closely related to the
                                                                          decision in the Shell/DEA case. These cases were treated
                                                                          similarly and the remedies imposed in each case are only
                                                                          effective if the remedies in the other case are operative as well.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 1996 in Case C-280/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Y. M. Posthuma-van Damme v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen, and N. Oztürk v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (Equal treatment for men and women - Social security - Directive 79/7/EEC - Interpretation of the judgment of 24 February 1994 in Case C-343/92 De Weerd, née Roks, and Others)

text:
No C 108/2               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13 . 4 . 96
      that provision, that omission does not prevent the                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      national customs authority from considering the                                              ( Sixth Chamber)
      application with reference to that provision.
                                                                                of 1 February 1996
                                                                          in Case C-280/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(') OJ No C 18 , 21 . 1 . 1994 .
                                                                          the Centrale Raad van Beroep ): Y. M. Posthuma
                                                                          van Damme v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor
                                                                          Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen, and N. Oztürk
                                                                          v. Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (')
                                                                          (Equal treatment for men and women — Social security —
                                                                          Directive 79/7/EEC — Interpretation of the judgment of
                                                                          24 February 1994 in Case C-343/92 De Weerd, née Roks,
                                                                                and Others)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/03 )
                          ( Sixth Chamber )
                        of 1 February 1996
in Case C-l 77/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
from the Pretura Circondariale, Rome, Sezione Distaccata
di Frascati ): criminal proceedings against Gianfranco
                                 Perfili ( 1 )
(Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           — Judicial procedure — Discrimination)                                   published in the European Court Reports)
                             { 96/C 108/02 )
                                                                          In Case C-280/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                          of the EC Treaty from the Centrale Raad van Beroep
                                                                          ( Higher Social Security Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be              proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                          Y.    M.   Posthuma-van        Damme     and Bestuur    van    de
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en
                                                                          Huisvrouwen, and, on the other hand, between N. Oztiirk
In Case C-177/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177               and Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging —
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale ( District                on the interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
Magistrate's Court ), Rome, Sezione Distaccata di Frascati                 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
 ( Frascati Division) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal            the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
proceedings pending before that court against Gianfranco                  matters of social security ( OJ 1979 L 6 , p . 24 ) — the Court
Perfili, civil party: Lloyd's of London — on the                           ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris, President of
interpretation of Articles 3 , 5 and 6 of the EC Treaty and               the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler
Article 6 of the European Convention for the protection of                 ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; N. Fennelly,
human rights and fundamental freedoms of 4 November                       Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for
 1950, the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                          the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February 1996 , in
 C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,                 which it rules :
 F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and
 H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General ;
 R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 February 1996 ,
                                                                           Article 4 (1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December
 the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                           1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of
                                                                           equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
 Article 6 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Articles 52                security does not preclude the application of national
 and 59 thereof, laying down the principle of non                         legislation which makes receipt of a benefit for incapacity
 discrimination on the grounds of nationality, must be                     for work subject to the requirement of having received a
  interpreted as not precluding a Member State's legislation               certain income from or in connection with work in the year
 from requiring a victim of a criminal offence who wishes to               preceding the commencement of incapacity, even if it is
  bring suit as a civil party in criminal proceedings to grant his         established that that requirement affects more women than
                                                                           men .
  representative a special power of attorney, even when the
  law of the Member State of which the victim is a national
  does not lay down such a formality.
                                                                            (') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
  C ) OJ 1994 C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Case T-122/10: Action brought on 10 March 2010 — USFSPEI and Others v Council

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/33

         Action brought on 10 March 2010 — USFSPEI and Others v Council
   (Case T-122/10)
   2010/C 148/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Union syndicale fédérale des services publics européens et internationaux (USFSPEI) (Brussels, Belgium), Giuseppe Calo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Jean-Pierre Tytgat (Mamer, Luxembourg) (represented by: J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen, B. Cambier, L. Renders, S. Pappas, avocats)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remunerations and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto, which is nevertheless to remain in force until the Council has adopted a new regulation, in accordance with the proposal of the Commission, to take effect on 1 July 2009;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicants Calo and Tytgat, as well as other officials and servants of the European Union, arrears in remuneration and pensions which they are entitled to from 1 July 2009 onwards, together with default interest from the date those arrears were due, at the rate laid down by the ECB for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points;

               —

               order the Council to pay the USF one Euro by way of symbolic compensation for the moral harm suffered through the wrongful act in the form of the adoption of the illegal Regulation No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applications seek the annulment of Council Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009 adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants of the European Union and the correction coefficients applied thereto. (1)

   In support of their action, the applicants allege that Regulation No 1296/2009 is illegal, that there has been an abuse of process and an infringement of the principles of sincere cooperation and coherence flowing from Article 4(3) TEU.
   The applicants also submit that there has been an infringement of Articles 65 and 65a of the Statute, Articles 1 and 3 of Annex XI thereof as well as the principle of parallel action, the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’.
   Finally, the applicants submit that there has been an infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 348, p.10


title: Case T-83/13 P: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — BS v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Rules on insurance against the risks of accident and occupational disease — Principle of collegiality — Legal nature of the dispute — Rate of adverse effect on physical or mental integrity — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/21

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2014 — BS v Commission
   (Case T-83/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Social security - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Rules on insurance against the risks of accident and occupational disease - Principle of collegiality - Legal nature of the dispute - Rate of adverse effect on physical or mental integrity - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))
   (2014/C 431/36)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: BS (Messina, Italy) (represented by: C. Pollicino, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and V. Joris, and subsequently by J. Currall, acting as Agents, and D. Gullo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 in Case F-90/11 BS v Commission, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:188, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               BS shall bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the course of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-433/04: Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Angela Davi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/42

         Action brought on 22 October 2004 by Angela Davi against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-433/04)
   (2005/C 6/82)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 October 2004, by Angela Davi, residing in Brussels, represented by L. Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Appointing Authority's decision adopted on 2 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint dated 1 March 2004, by which she challenged the decision refusing to promote her from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

               —

               If, and in so far as necessary, annul also the Appointing Authority's original decision in December 2003 refusing to promote the applicant from Grade C3 to Grade C2, for the 2003 promotion procedure;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in Case T-432/04.


title: Case T-761/15: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Sogepa v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Crystal-ware — Aid in the form of a loan — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Obligation to recover the aid granted to an insolvent undertaking — Disregard of formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/20

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2016 — Sogepa v Commission
   (Case T-761/15) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Crystal-ware - Aid in the form of a loan - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Obligation to recover the aid granted to an insolvent undertaking - Disregard of formal requirements - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 410/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société wallonne de gestion et de participations (Sogepa) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: A. Lepièce and H. Baeyens, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, L. Armati and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of Articles 3 to 6 of Commission decision (EU) 2015/1825 of 31 July 2014 on non-notified State aid SA.34791 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Belgium — Rescue aid for Val Saint-Lambert SA (OJ 2015 L 269, p. 47).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Société wallonne de gestion et de participations (Sogepa) is ordered to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 30 June 1997 in Case C-66/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa): Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA v. Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim and Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ldª (CTV) (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissible)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 252/ 13
2 . On a proper construction of Article 30 of the EC                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     Treaty, a Member State is not precluded from taking,              court between Societe Civile Immobiliere Parodi and
     on the basis of provisions of its domestic legislation,           Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie — on the interpretation
     measures against an advertiser in relation to television          of Articles 59 and 61 (2 ) of the EEC Treaty — the Court,
     advertising, provided that those provisions affect in             composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Second and
     the same way, in law and in fact, the marketing of                Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, J. C. Moitinho
     domestic products and of those from other Member                  de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon ( Presidents of
     States, are necessary for meeting overriding                      Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
     requirements of general public importance or one of               Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm
     the aims laid down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty, are            ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
     proportionate for that purpose, and those aims or                 Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
     overriding requirements could not be met by measures              the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 1997, the
     less restrictive of intra-Community trade.                        operative part of which is as follows :
3 . On a proper construction of Article 59 of the EC                    With regard to the period preceding the entry into force of
      Treaty, a Member State is not precluded from taking,             Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
     on the basis of provisions of its domestic legislation,           1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
     measures against an advertiser in relation to television          administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
     advertising. However, it is for the national court to             pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
     determine whether those provisions are necessary for              Directive 77/780/EEC, Article 59 of the EEC Treaty must
     meeting overriding requirements of general public                 be construed as precluding a Member State from requiring
     importance or one of the aims stated in Article 56 of             a credit institution already authorized in another Member
                                                                       State to obtain an authorization in order to be able to
     the EC Treaty, whether they are proportionate for that
     purpose and whether those aims or overriding                      grant a mortgage loan to a person resident within its
     requirements could be met by measures less restrictive            territory, unless that authorization:
     of intra-Community trade.
                                                                       — is required of every person or company pursuing such
                                                                            an activity within the territory of the Member State of
4 . Directive 89/552/EEC is to be interpreted as                            destination,
     precluding the application to television broadcasts
     from other Member States of a provision of a domestic             — is justified on grounds of public interest, such as
      broadcasting law which provides that advertisements                   consumer protection, and
      broadcast in commercial breaks on television must not
      be designed to attract the attention of children under
      12 years of age.                                                 — is objectively necessary to ensure compliance with the
                                                                            rules applicable in the sector under consideration and
                                                                            to protect the interests which those rules are intended
H OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                             to safeguard, and the same result cannot be achieved
                                                                            by less restrictive rules.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 208 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 9 July 1997
in Case C-222/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
by the French Cour de Cassation ): Société Civile                                                of 30 June 1997
 Immobilière Parodi v. Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie (')
                                                                       in Case C-66/97 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Free movement of capital — Freedom to provide services                the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa): Banco de
— Credit institutions — Grant of a mortgage loan —                     Fomento e Exterior SA v. Amândio Maurício Martins
Authorization requirement in the Member State in which                 Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim and
                      the service is provided)                                  Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ld? ( CTV) (')
                           ( 97/C 252/24 )                                   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/25 )
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-222/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177             In Case C- 66/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the French Cour de Cassation for a                  of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Civel da Comarca de
 ---pagebreak---  No C 252/14           I EN [               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 8 . 97
 Lisboa ( Local Civil Court, Lisbon) for a preliminary ruling           1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 in the proceedings pending before that court between
 Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA and Amândio Mauricio
                                                                       2.    The costs are reserved.
 Martins Pechim, Maria de Luz Lima Barros Raposo
 Pechim and Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ld? ( CTV) on
 the interpretation of Articles 59, 90 and 92 of the EC
 Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
 Almeida ( Rapporteur ), J. L. Murray and L. Sevón
 ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                  Action brought on 25 February 1997 by the Region
 Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,               Wallone against the Commission of the European
 G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.                                              Communities
 Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                                           ( Case C-95/97)
 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 30 June
 1997, in which it has held:                                                                      ( 97/C 252/27)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
 The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
 Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa is inadmissible.
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 25 February 1997 by the
                                                                       Region Wallone, represented by Jean-Marie de Backer,
 (') OJ No C 108 , 5 . 4. 1997 .                                       Olivier Ralet and Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                       decision of 18 December 1996 entitled ' Steel ECSC —
                                                                       Forges de Clabecq'.
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
                         of 21 March 1997                              By order of 21 March 1997 the Court referred the case to
                                                                       the Court of First Instance .
in Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v.
Council of the European Union, supported by
Commission of the European Communities and Italian
                              Republic
 (Application for interim measures — System of association
 of the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
           measure — Serious and irreparable loss)                    Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber) by judgment
                            97/C 252/26 )
                                                                      of that court of 9 April 1997 in the case of Fazenda
                                                                      Publica against Antram — Associaçao Nacional de
                                                                             Transportes Públicos Rodoviários de Mercadorias
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                ( Case C-205/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/28 )
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          published in the European Court Reports)                    European Communities by judgment of the Second
                                                                      Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                      ( Supreme Administrative Court) of 9 April 1997, which
In Case C-l 10/97 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:               was received at the Court Registry on 29 May 1997, for a
Marc Fierstra ) v. Council of the European Union (Agents:             preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda Publica against
Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ),                      Antram — Associaçao Nacional de Transportes Públicos
supported by Commission of the European Communities                   Rodoviários de Mercadorias on the following questions :
( Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) and Italian Republic ( Agent:
Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Francesca Quadri,
Avvocato dello Stato) — application for suspension of                  1 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC (') preclude
                                                                            a national court from ordering suspension of
operation, as regards imports of rice originating in the
Dutch Antilles and Aruba, of Council Regulation ( EC )
                                                                            implementation of a decision taken by that customs
No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard                         authority, against which an appeal has been lodged,
                                                                            directly, that is without the need to submit such an
measures in respect of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                            application to the customs authority ?
countries and territories ( OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p. 1 ),
or other interim measures — the President of the Court
has made an order on 21 March 1997, the operative part                2 . Does Article 243 et seq. of the CCC preclude a
of which is as follows :                                                    national court from suspending a decision taken by the


title: Case C-282/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances v Truck Center SA (Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) — Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) — Taxation of legal persons — Income from capital and movable property — Retention of tax at source — Withholding tax — Charging of withholding tax on interest paid to non-resident companies — No charging of withholding tax on interest paid to resident companies — Double taxation convention — Restriction — None)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge — SPF Finances v Truck Center SA
   (Case C-282/07) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 43 EC) and Article 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC) - Free movement of capital - Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) - Taxation of legal persons - Income from capital and movable property - Retention of tax at source - Withholding tax - Charging of withholding tax on interest paid to non-resident companies - No charging of withholding tax on interest paid to resident companies - Double taxation convention - Restriction - None)
   (2009/C 44/19)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: État belge — SPF Finances

      Respondent: Truck Center SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Free movement of capital — Taxation of legal persons — Withholding tax deducted by the tax authorities of one Member State on income from capital allocated by a company established in that State to a company established in another Member State — No deduction of withholding tax where that income is allocated to a company established in the same Member State — Unjustified difference in treatment or difference in situation justifying different treatment? — Effect, in that respect, of a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 52 of the EC Treaty (now, following amendment, Article 43 EC), 58 of the EC Treaty (now Article 48 EC), 73b of the EC Treaty and 73d of the Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC respectively) must be interpreted as not precluding tax legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the retention of tax at source on interest paid by a company resident in that Member State to a recipient company resident in another Member State, while exempting from that retention interest paid to a recipient company resident in the first Member State, the income of which is taxed in that Member State by way of corporation tax.

      (1)  OJ C 199 of 25.8.2007.


title: Case T-473/15: Action brought on 14 August 2015 — Capella v OHIM — Abus (APUS)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/33

         Action brought on 14 August 2015 — Capella v OHIM — Abus (APUS)
   (Case T-473/15)
   (2015/C 328/30)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Capella EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: F. Henkel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Abus August Bremicker Söhne KG (Wetter/Volmarstein, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Capella EOOD

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘APUS’ — Application for registration No 10 415 511

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 June 2015 in Case R 117/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of the second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 1999 in Case T-81/98: Patricia Boyes v Commission of the European Communities (Death of the applicant — Proceedings not continued by her successors — No need to adjudicate)

text:
8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 102/25
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maria Dennewald, 12 Avenue                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
de la Porte Neuve, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
Frédéric Anton and Georg Berrisch) — application for taxation
of costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 18 September 1995 in Case T-168/94 Blackspur and Others                                    of 6 December 1999
v Council and Commission [19951 ECR II-2627 — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij,         in Case T-81/98: Patricia Boyes v Commission of the
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has                                European Communities (1)
made an order on 7 February 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                        (Death of the applicant — Proceedings not continued by her
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed jointly and severally
                                                                                successors — No need to adjudicate)
by Blackspur DIY Ltd and by Steven Kellar, J.M.A. Glancy and
Ronald Cohen to the Council of the European Union is fixed at DEM
32 860.
                                                                                (2000/C 102/51)
(1) OJ C 277 of 15.10.1993.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        In Case T-81/98: Patricia Boyes, residing in Porlock, United
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Kingdom, represented by Becket Bedford, Barrister, of the Bar
                                                                        of England and Wales, and John Kelly, Sarah Ferdinand and
                                                                        Jatinder Sandhu, of Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts
                      of 4 February 2000                                Hill, Birmingham v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (Agents: Klaus Wiedner and Xavier Lewis), supported by The
in Case T-147/96: Howard Batho v Commission of the                      Grand Pub Company Ltd, whose registered office is in London,
                  European Communities (1)                              represented by John Boyce and Bertrand Louveaux, Solicitors,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Philippe Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill — application for
(Officials — Objection of inadmissibility — New and
                                                                        annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 March 1998
substantial fact — Confirmatory act — Classification in
                                                                        (Case IV/94.907/F3 - NAIL) rejecting the applicant’s complaint
       grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                        under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
                                                                        6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85
                       (2000/C 102/50)                                  and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
                                                                        p. 87) concerning the standard lease used by Inntrepreneur
                                                                        Estates Ltd for letting its licensed premises in the United
                  (Language of the case: French)                        Kingdom, requiring tenants to purchase certain specified types
                                                                        of beer exclusively from the supplier designated by the lessor,
                                                                        and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by
In Case T-147/96: Howard Batho, official of the Commission
                                                                        reason of that decision — the Court (Third Chamber), compo-
of the European Communities, residing in Honnekinberg,
                                                                        sed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
Belgium, represented by J.-N. Louis and T. Demaseure, of the
                                                                        H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 December 1999,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        the operative part of which is as follows:
Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
sia and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the
                                                                        1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
Commission decision of 12 February 1996 classifying the
applicant — the Court of First Instance (single judge) has made
an order on 4 February 2000 in which it:
                                                                        2. The parties, including the intervener, shall bear their own costs.
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.                             (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case C-43/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LG Electronics Inc. (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative mark including the word elements ‘compressor technology’ — Opposition of the proprietor of the word marks KOMPRESSOR PLUS and KOMPRESSOR — Partial refusal of registration — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 60 — Regulation (EC) No 216/96 — Article 8(3) — ‘Ancillary’ appeal — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Weak distinctive character of the earlier national marks — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 November 2016 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), LG Electronics Inc.
   (Case C-43/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including the word elements ‘compressor technology’ - Opposition of the proprietor of the word marks KOMPRESSOR PLUS and KOMPRESSOR - Partial refusal of registration - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 60 - Regulation (EC) No 216/96 - Article 8(3) - ‘Ancillary’ appeal - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Weak distinctive character of the earlier national marks - Likelihood of confusion))
   (2017/C 006/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch and R. Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent), LG Electronics Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.