title: Case T-456/10: Action brought on 1 October 2010 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/46

         Action brought on 1 October 2010 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
   (Case T-456/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France) and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               principally, annul the decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 1 of the Decision in particular in so far as it states that CFPR and Timab participated in practices relating to sales conditions and a compensation system;

               —

               in any event, amend Article 2 of the Decision and reduce substantially the fine imposed jointly and severally on CFPR and Timab;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek, principally, annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 5001 final of 20 July 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA’) (Case COMP/38.866 — Animal feed phosphates) concerning a cartel in the European animal feed phosphates market relating to the allocation of sales quotas, the coordination of prices and sales conditions and the exchange of commercially sensitive information.
   The applicants put forward eight pleas in support of their action:

               —

               infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of sound administration, and of Regulation No 773/2004 (1) and the Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures (2) on account of the fact that the applicants were penalised for the fact that they withdrew from settlement discussions under Article 10a of Regulation No 773/2004, in so far as the likely fine that the Commission had set at the stage of the settlement discussions was subsequently increased by 25 %, whereas (i) the likely fine must not increase by more than 10 % following discontinuation of participation in the settlement procedure and (ii) the duration of the infringement was reduced by 60 %;

               —

               inadequate and contradictory grounds and infringement of the rights of the defence and the burden of proof inasmuch as practices in which the applicants did not participate were imputed to them, although the Commission possessed no evidence of such participation;

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-retroactivity of the more punitive law and infringement of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, equal treatment and legal certainty, since the amount of the fine was determined pursuant to the 2006 Guidelines, (3) whereas the infringement imputed took place before the publication of those guidelines; that retroactive application of the 2006 Guidelines increased the amount of the fine;

               —

               infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003, (4) the principle of proportionality, the principle that penalties must fit the offence and the principle of equal treatment, since the fine imposed does not reflect either the duration or the gravity of the practices;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment of the gravity of the practices alleged against the applicants and infringement of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of proportionality and the principle that penalties must fit the offence when the basic amount is set, since the Commission failed to take account of the fact that the infringement had no significant effects and that Timab participated in the cartel to a lesser extent than the other participants;

               —

               an error of assessment and infringement of the principle that penalties must fit the offence and the principle of equal treatment inasmuch as the Commission refused to grant the applicants the benefit of any attenuating circumstances despite their dependence on one of the other cartel participants and despite Timab’s competitive conduct;

               —

               infringement of the rights of the defence, the principle of equal treatment and the Leniency Notice, (5) in so far as the reduction of the fine granted to the applicants in respect of leniency at the stage of the settlement discussions was considerably reduced after the applicants withdrew from those discussions;

               —

               a manifest error of assessment of the applicants' ability to pay and infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the combined provisions of Article 3 TEU and Protocol No 17 annexed to the Treaty of Lisbon inasmuch as the Commission applied the provisions of the 2006 Guidelines on the applicants’ability to pay without taking account either of the exceptional circumstances arising from the crisis afflicting European agriculture or of the economic and social constraints specific to the applicants.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

      (2)  Commission Notice on the conduct of settlement procedures in view of the adoption of Decisions pursuant to Article 7 and Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in cartel cases (OJ 2008 C 167, p. 1).

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

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles [101 TFEU] and [102 TFEU] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

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


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 273, 6.11.2004

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/31

         (2004/C 284/60)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

      Past publications

      OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

      OJ C 251, 9.10.2004

      OJ C 239, 25.9.2004

      OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

      OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

      OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-123/07: Action brought on 28 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/32

         Action brought on 28 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-123/07)
   (2007/C 95/61)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not informing the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed in national law expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34.


title: Case T-234/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 239/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Noel McGing against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/                                             (Case T-233/03)
03 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 239/28)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Noel McGing,
                                                                              Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Adrian McClennaghan
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             (Case T-232/03)
                                                                              —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                            (2003/C 239/27)                                          Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                      (Language of the case: English)                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
                                                                                under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
                                                                                capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel,
                                                                                MFV Olgarry;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                ings.
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Adrian McClen-
naghan, Greencastle, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
                                                                              03 (1).
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application in respect of the MFV Northern Celt;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-                Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh
       ings.                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-234/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                           (2003/C 239/29)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Eamon McHugh,
                                                                              Killybegs, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Collins,
                                                                              Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/16                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        4.10.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take                   03 (1).
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                   (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel,
       MFV Antarctic;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.
                                                                              Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Larry Murphy against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-236/03)
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                                (2003/C 239/31)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Larry Murphy,
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Gerard Minihane                             Castletownbere, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and
   against the Commission of the European Communities                         A. Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                             (Case T-235/03)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            (2003/C 239/30)                                   —      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
                                                                                Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
                      (Language of the case: English)                                Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
                                                                                into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                                hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                                vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                            under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                           capacity application for a proposed new RSW vessel to
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Gerard Minihane,                             replace the MFV Menhaden;
Skibbereen, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A. Col-
lins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.                                    —      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
                                                                                ings.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission                Pleas in law and main arguments
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
                                                                              The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for
                                                                              03 (1).
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application in respect of the MFV Deborah M;
                                                                              (1 ) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
       ings.


title: Case C-77/14: Action brought on 12 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/25

         Action brought on 12 February 2014 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-77/14)
   2014/C 102/35
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and Α. Μarcoulli, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Hellenic Republic, by not taking within the prescribed time-limit all the measures necessary for the recovery of the aid which was held to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market, in accordance with Article 1 of the Commission Decision (1) of 13 July 2011, Ε (2011) 4916 final, concerning Aluminium of Greece SA (No SA.26117 — C 2/10, ex NN 62/09) or in any event by not fully informing the Commission of the measures taken, in accordance with Article 4 thereof, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that decision and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The subject-matter of the Commission’s action is the failure of the Hellenic Republic to comply with the Commission’s decision in relation to the unlawful State aid granted to the company Aluminium SA, which has to be recovered by the Public Power Corporation (PPC).
   The Commission points out that Greece was obliged to ensure compliance with the decision within four months following the date of its notification. The decision was notified on 14 July 2011 and the Commission has not granted any extension for compliance with the decision. Consequently, the period for compliance formally expired on 14 Νοvember 2011.
   The Commission emphasises that in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the only justification that may be put forward by a Member State in an action for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is that it is absolutely impossible for it properly to implement the decision.
   However, in this case, the Greek authorities have not put forward the argument that implementation is absolutely impossible. On the contrary, from the outset they expressed their willingness to implement the decision as quickly as possible. Nevertheless, the Commission notes that as of the date on which this action was lodged, they have not taken any steps that would constitute even partial implementation of the decision.
   Further, the Commission observes that by virtue of a decision of the First-Instance Court of Athens, the order for payment of the amount of the aid which PPC obtained against Aluminium SA was suspended. In the opinion of the Commission, the national court in question, when suspending enforcement of the payment order, did not take into account the conditions laid down in the Court’s settled case-law governing suspension of enforcement of a national measure adopted in implementation of European Union law. (2)

   The Commission considers that Greece has not undertaken the required action to secure compliance with the decision either in accordance with the solution which was discussed by the Commission’s staff and the competent Greek authorities or by any other appropriate means.

      (1)  OJ L 166 of 27 June 2012, pp. 83-89.

      (2)  Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 of 21 February 1991Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Case C-465/93 of 9 November 1995Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH and Others.


title: Removal from the register of T-196/96

text:
14 . 6 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 181 /23
          Removal from the register of T- 187/96 (')                           Removal from the register of T-139/95 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /50 )                                                       ( 97/C 181 /53 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 15 April 1997 the President of the Second
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 87/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-139/95 : Georges Cantone v. Commission of the
Communities .                                                         European Communities .
(') OJ No C 27, 25 . 1 . 1997.                                        O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
          Removal from the register of T-l 8 8/96 (')                          Removal from the register of T-2 13/96 ( ! )
                            97/C 181 /51 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /54 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 19 March 1997 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                  By order of 18 April 1997 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-l 88/96 : Salini                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Costruttori SpA v. Commission of the European                         Case T-213/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the
Communities .
                                                                      European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997 .
          Removal from the register of T-196/96 (')
                          ( 97/C 181 /52 )                                     Removal from the register of T-133/96 H
                                                                                ( 97/C 181 /55 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 10 April 1997 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of              By order of 23 April 1997 the President of the First
Case T-196/96 : Giorgio Lebedef v. Commission of the                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                      Case T-133/96 : Michael Boessen v. Economic and Social
 1 OJ No C 54 , 22 . 2 . 1997.                                        Committee .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case F-138/12: Action brought on 14 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/75

         Action brought on 14 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-138/12)
   2013/C 26/157
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant on the list of persons having passed the final exams of the training course forming part of the certification process and an application for compensation.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of EPSO not to include the applicant on the list of persons having passed the final exams of the training course forming part of the certification process;

               —

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

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-433/05: Action brought on  18 November 2005  — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/35

         Action brought on 18 November 2005 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case T-433/05)
   (2006/C 36/73)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the list of officials promoted under the 2004 exercise (1), insofar as that list does not include his name, and, as an incidental plea, the preparatory measures for that decision;

               —

               Annul the allocation of promotion points during the 2004 exercise, in particular, following the recommendations of the promotion committees;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official, challenges the decision not to promote him during the 2004 exercise. In support of his action, he submits that the definitive version of his career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 had not been compiled by the time the contested decision was adopted. In addition, he is of the opinion that when allocating 'priority points' to officials for the purpose of their classification with a view to promotion, the Commission gave excessive weight to the 'remainder' of the officials who, although they had reached the promotion threshold, had not been promoted during the earlier exercises. The applicant also levels a more general criticism against the allocation of points which, he states, fails to comply with the requirement to carry out a comparative examination of merits for the purpose of promotion.
   On that basis, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and of the General Implementing Provisions and the Commission's Administrative Guide for assessment and promotion, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, infringement of the principle of prohibition against arbitrary treatment, infringement of the duty to give reasons, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and infringement of the duty to have regard for the interests of officials.

      (1)  List published in Administrative Notice No 130 - of 30.11.2004


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by a decision of that court of 20 December 1994 in the case of Sparekassernes Datacenter v. Skatteministeriet (Case C-2/95)

text:
25 . 3 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/3
Italia Solo Musica Sri and Others ( C-338/54 ), ( 5 ) GETE            received at the Court Registry on 4 January 1995 , for a
(Tele Nova ) ( C-339/94 ), ( 6 ) Toscana TV and Others                preliminary ruling in the case of Sparekassernes Datacenter
( C-21/95 ), and ( 7) Nuova Antenna Tre SpA and Others                v. Skatteministeriet on the following questions:
( C-22/95 ) v. Ministero delle Poste e Telecomunicazioni on
Questions 1 and 2 in Case C-337/94 and on Question 2 in               Question 1
the other abovementioned cases .
                                                                      Should Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 3 to 5 of the Sixth VAT
Question 1                                                            Directive (*) be interpreted as meaning that VAT exemption
                                                                      should be granted for services of a type described above in
Is Directive 89/552/EEC (*) and, in particular, Articles 1 ( b )      Paragraphs 3 and 5 ( 2 )?
and 18 thereof, to be construed as meaning that the
expression 'forms of advertisements such as direct offers to          In that connection is the   granting of exemption from VAT
the public' in Article 1 8 is used under Community law, for           under Article 13 B (d )      Nos 3 to 5 precluded where a
the purposes of raising the ceiling of advertising                    transaction within the       meaning of that provision is
concentration to 20 % of daily transmission time:                     performed, wholly or in     part, electronically ?
(a ) purely by way of example and is capable of covering              Question 2
      other forms of advertising as well, apart from spot
      advertising, including for the purposes of this case            The wording used in Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 1 and 2 of the VAT
      'telepromotions' which, while not containing 'offers to         directive is 'by the person granting [the credit]' (ved den
      the public', could none the less be treated in the same         person, som har ydet lanene ) and 'by the person who' is
      way as such offers on account of some of their inherent         granting the credit' (ved den person, der har ydet kreditten).
      characteristics (telepromotions themselves can be               That description is not employed in Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 3
                                                                      to 5 .
      identified by the fact that, while suitable breaks clearly
      distinguish them from their editorial context,
      nevertheless there is generally a 'more time-consuming'         Should any importance be attached to that difference in the
      element of continuity for the insertion of shows and/or         interpretation of Article 13 B ( d) Nos 3 to 5 ?
      games than in the case of spot advertising); or:
                                                                      Question 3
( b ) by way of explanation or definition (in accordance with
      Article 12 of the contested legislation), as meaning that       A. Is it significant as far as the application of Article 3 B ( d)
                                                                           Nos 3 to 5 is concerned whether transactions are
      the possibility of increasing the daily concentration of
      advertising to 20 % relates only to 'offers to the public'           performed by financial institutions or by others ?
      in the strict sense and not to forms of advertising such as
      'telepromotions' as well, precisely because they lack the       B. Is it significant as far as the application of Article 13
      qualifying characteristics of an 'offer'?                            B (d) Nos 3 to 5 is concerned whether the entire
                                                                           financial service is performed by a financial institution
                                                                           which has a relationship with a customer ?
Question 2
                                                                      C. If it is unnecessary for the application of Article 13 B ( d)
Is Directive 89/552/EEC, and in particular Article 17 ( 1 ) ( b )          Nos 3 to 5 that the financial institution itself should
thereof, to be interpreted as precluding altogether any forms              perform the entire service, can the financial institution
of sponsorship in which the sponsor's name and/or logo                     purchase transactions wholly or in part from another
may be shown during the programme at times other than the                  person with the effect that the services performed by
beginning and/or the end of the programme (as provided                     that other person are covered by Article 13 B ( d ) Nos 3
for, subject to certain derogations, by Article 4 of the                   to 5 , or may particular requirements be made of that
contested decree ), or as freely permitting repeated forms of              other person ?
sponsorship even during the programme itself?
                                                                      Question 4
(!) OJ No L 298 , 17. 10 . 1989 , p . 23 .
                                                                      How is the wording used in Article 13 B ( d) Nos 3 to 4
                                                                      'transactions . . . concerning' to be interpreted ?
                                                                      This question seeks to ascertain whether the words
                                                                      'transactions . . . concerning' are to be understood as
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by           meaning that VAT exemption should also be granted in
a decision of that court of 20 December 1994 in the case of           cases where a person either performs only a part of the
        Sparekassernes Datacenter v. Skatteministeriet                service or performs only some of the transactions within the
                           (Case C-2/95 )
                                                                      meaning of the Directive that are necessary for the supply of
                                                                      the complete financial service.
                            ( 95/C 74/05 )
                                                                      Question 5
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret              In interpreting Article 13 B ( d) Nos 3 to 5 should
 [Eastern Regional Court] of 20 December 1994, which was              significance.be attached to the fact that the taxable person
 ---pagebreak--- No C 74/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       25 . 3 . 95
who requests tax exemption for transactions within the                       ( b ) If question (a ) is answered in the affirmative, is that
meaning of the provision performs those transactions on                             presumption rebuttable or irrebuttable ?
behalf of the financial institution in whose name the service
is performed ?                                                               (c ) If the presumption in question is rebuttable, is its
                                                                                possible rebuttal governed solely by national
Question 6                                                                          procedural law, in particular the rules of evidence
                                                                                of the     Member      State  concerned,    or    does
After the plaintiff's reorganization, is it significant as far as                   Community law also lay down requirements in that
application of Article 13 B (d ) Nos 3 to 5 is concerned that                       regard ?
the services in question are now provided by a company
which supplies the services to the associated financial                     ( d) If Community law makes the rebuttal of such a
institutions ?                                                                      presumption subject to certain requirements, what
                                                                                significance attaches in the present case to the
It will be noted that the said services are invoiced by the                         following circumstances:
company to the plaintiff which in turn invoices its financial
institution members .                                                               — the respondent authority has stated that, of the
                                                                                very much broader category of taxpayers
                                                                                residing abroad, almost one half are its own
(*) Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                nationals, without adducing any evidence in
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                         support of that assertion,
     basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , p. 1 ).
(2 ) Essentially electronic data-handling for SDC's members and                     — the      appellant,      who     pleads    indirect
     other financial institutions .                                                     discrimination based on nationality, has not
                                                                                contested the correctness of that assertion by
                                                                                the authority,
                                                                                — the respondent authority is in an appreciably
                                                                                better position than the appellant to collect
                                                                                information which may possibly rebut the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,                                aforementioned presumption ?
's-Hertogenbosch, by order of that court of 30 December
1994 in the case of F. C. Terhoeve v. Inspecteur der
  Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland                3 . Is there any rule of Community law precluding a
                                                                            Member State, regardless of any question of ( indirect)
                            Case C-18/95 )                                  discrimination based on nationality, from imposing, in a
                             ( 95/C 74/06 )                                 given year, a heavier social security contributions
                                                                            burden on an employee who moves his residence during
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      that year from that Member State to another Member
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof                            State, or' vice versa, than on an employee who, in
                                                                            otherwise similar circumstances, maintains his residence
( Regional Court of Appeal), 's-Hertogenbosch of
30 December 1994, which was received at the Court                           throughout the whole year in a single Member State ?
Registry on 23 January 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
case of F. C. Terhoeve v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst               4 . If the imposition of a heavier contributions burden, as
Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland on the following                     referred to in the previous question, is in principle
questions:                                                                  incompatible with Article 7 or Article 48 (2 ) of the EEC
                                                                            Treaty, or with any other rule of Community law, can it
1 . Are the provisions of Community law on freedom of                       be justified by one or more of the following
      movement for workers applicable to a national of a                    circumstances, albeit that they are not regarded as
      Member State who moves his residence in the course of a               connected with each other :
      year from another Member State to the Member State of
     which he is a national and who is successively employed                — the measure results from legislation whereby the
      in that year in each of those Member States, and who                        levying of income tax and social security
      undeniably earned most of his income during that year                       contributions is intended, for the sake of
      in one of the two Member States ?                                           simplification, to coincide to a very great extent, if
                                                                                not entirely,
2. (a) Does it follow from Community law, in particular
           Articles 7 and 48 (2 ) of the EEC Treaty and                     — solutions which, whilst maintaining that coherence,
           Article 7 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 , that                 seek to avoid the imposition of the heavier
           in the application of legislation operating to the                     contributions referred to above, result in technical
           disadvantage of emigrants and immigrants as                            problems of implementation or in possible
           regards liability to make social security                              over-compensation,
           contributions there is a presumption that such
           disadvantage mainly affects nationals of other                   — in certain cases, albeit not in the present case, joint
           States ?                                                               liability to income tax and social security


title: Case T-414/07: Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representation of a hand holding a card plus three triangles)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/45

         Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representation of a hand holding a card plus three triangles)
   (Case T-414/07)
   (2008/C 22/85)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Européene de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by P. Greffe and M. Chaminade, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 in Case R 290/2007-1, in so far as it refused the registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42;

               —

               registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising a representation of a hand holding a card followed by three black triangles for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42 (Application No 5 225 776)

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant states that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, the elements comprising the trade mark, the registration of which was partially refused, are distinctive and arbitrary in respect of the goods and services claimed and, consequently, their combination must be also considered to be distinctive and arbitrary.


               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/54

         Removal from the Register of Case T-313/99 (1)

   (2004/C 300/107)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 5 October 2004, the President of the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-313/99, Veka B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)   OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case T-378/13: Action brought on 23 July 2013 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/49

         Action brought on 23 July 2013 — Apple and Pear Australia and Star Fruits Diffusion v OHIM — Carolus C. (English pink)
   (Case T-378/13)
   2013/C 260/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd (Victoria, Australia) and Star Fruits Diffusion (Caderousse, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carolus C. BVBA (Nieuwerkerken, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

               —

               First, alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4 to the effect that the action brought by the applicants before the Board of Appeal is well founded and, consequently, that the opposition filed by the applicants should be upheld;

               —

               In the alternative, annul in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2013 in Case R 1215/2011-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Carolus C.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘English pink’ for goods in Class 31 — Application for Community trade mark No 8 610 768

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicants

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘PINK LADY’ and figurative marks containing the word elements ‘Pink lady’ for goods in Classes 16, 29, 30, 31 and 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of the principle of res judicata;

               —

               Infringement of the general principles of legal certainty, sound administration and protection of legitimate expectations;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


C 366/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-385/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-160/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/70)                                                        (1999/C 366/73)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-385/94: Johann Wißmüller v Council of the European              Case T-160/95: Harald Meuser v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 248 of 23.9.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-397/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-202/95 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/71)                                                        (1999/C 366/74)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-397/94: Gerjet Meyenburg v Council of the European              Case T-202/95: Heinrich Gottmann v Council of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Union and Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ No C 400 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 351 of 30.12.1995.
       Removal from the register of Case T-399/94 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case T-150/96 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/72)                                                        (1999/C 366/75)
                 (Language of the case: German)                                          (Language of the case: French)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth              By order of 19 October 1999 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of               Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-399/94: Josef Speckbacher v Council of the European             Case T-150/96: Austin Rowan v Commission of the European
Union and Commission of the European Communities.                      Communities.
(1) OJ No C 392 of 31.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ No C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case C-469/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Action for damages — Rejection of a bid submitted in a European Union tendering procedure — Limitation period — Point from which time starts to run — Application of the extension of time on account of distance)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-469/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Rejection of a bid submitted in a European Union tendering procedure - Limitation period - Point from which time starts to run - Application of the extension of time on account of distance)
   2013/C 9/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 22 June 2011 in Case T-409/09 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing as in part inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded an action for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision of the Commission rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the course of a tendering procedure — Periods prescribed for bringing proceedings — Extensions on account of distance

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case T-335/13: Action brought on 19 June 2013 — BT Limited Belgian Branch v Commission

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/12

         Action brought on 19 June 2013 — BT Limited Belgian Branch v Commission
   (Case T-335/13)
   2013/C 245/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BT Limited Belgian Branch (Diegem, Belgium) (represented by: T. Leeson, Solicitor, and C. Stockford, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision notified to the applicant on 19 April 2013, rejecting the applicant's tender in the framework of the restricted procedure DIGIT/R2/PR/2011/039 and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs;

               —

               Alternatively, appoint an independent expert with the mission of assessing the compliance of the offer of another tenderer with the tendering specifications and defer its decision until the appointed expert has submitted his/her report, subsequently, annul the decision of the Directorate-General for Informatics (‘DOGIT’) and order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               In the event DIGIT signs the Trans European Services for Telematics between Administrations — new generation (‘TESTA-ng’) contract, order the Commission to compensate the applicant for the damage it has suffered as a result of DIGIT's unlawful decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that that DIGIT infringed the principle of transparency and the obligation to state reasons set out in Article 113 of the Financial Regulation (1) and Article 296 TFEU. This is because — as a result of the excessive redaction of the contracting authority's evaluation report of another tenderer — BT has not been given the opportunity to verify whether the contracting authority has performed a fair evaluation of the successful tenderer's offer.
               The applicant alleges further that DIGIT has, first, not stated sufficient reasons for having redacted massive parts of the evaluation report of the offer of another tender, and second, even where DIGIT has provided reasons, those reasons are inadmissible.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that that DIGIT's scoring methodology for the evaluation of tenders breaches the general principles — including the principles of transparency and fair and equal treatment — applicable to public tendering procedures. In particular, since (i) DIGIT's scoring grid was not disclosed in advance of the tender and (ii) its unusual structure gave another tenderer an unlawful advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that that DIGIT's comments in the evaluation report and the corresponding scores awarded to the offer of another tenderer are inconsistent. These contradictions vitiate the decision, since they render the statement of reasons supporting the decision null and void.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that DIGIT has accepted the offer of another tenderer notwithstanding that the abnormally low price proposal should have led to its elimination from the tendering procedure. In this regard, the applicant submits that this claim cannot be undermined by DIGIT's claim that it scrutinized that offer in light of the rules on abnormally low offers. A generic reference to applicable legislation is not a substitute for a proper statement of reasons as to why — in light of its analysis — DIGIT nonetheless decided not to eliminate that offer from the tender procedure.
               As a subsidiary part of this plea in law, the applicant alleges that the price proposed by another tenderer in its offer is unrealistic and cannot correspond to an offer that complies with the tender requirements. In this regard, BT requests the General Court to appoint an independent expert to determine whether the offer in question in fact complies with certain tendering specifications.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that that decision is vitiated by the fact that the contract value calculated in that document is not accompanied by a sufficient statement of reasons.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that DIGIT lacks competence to adopt the contested decision on the grounds that it lacks the required delegated power.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2001 in Case C-446/00 P: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Promotions — Mobility)

text:
C 44/6                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.2.2002
European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2000 in                 1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
Case T-82/99 Cwik v Commission [2000] ECR-SC I-A-155                           administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
and II-713, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other                 Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of
party to the proceedings being: Michael Cwik, an official of                   the trans-European high-speed rail system, Ireland has failed to
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                        fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Brussels (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat — the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,        2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón, M. Wathe-
let (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; Advocate          (1) OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.
General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December 2001,
in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
      the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 335, 25.11.2000.                                                                         of 13 December 2001
                                                                         in Case C-446/00 P: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Appeal — Officials — Promotions — Mobility)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (2002/C 44/11)
                        (First Chamber)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     of 13 December 2001
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-372/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                         ties v Ireland (1)
                                                                         In Case C-446/00: Pascual Juan Cubero Vermurie, an official
                                                                         of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                   Brussels (Belgium), represented by E. Boigelot, avocat —
Directive 96/48/EC — Interoperability of the trans-Euro-                 APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                  pean high-speed rail system)                           the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October
                                                                         2000 in Case T-187/98 Cubero Vermurie v Commission
                                                                         [2000] ECR I-A-195 and II-885, seeking to have that judgment
                         (2002/C 44/10)                                  set aside and the same form of order as that sought by the
                                                                         appellant at first instance, the other party to the proceedings
                   (Language of the case: English)                       being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                         C. Berardis-Kayser, assisted by B. Wägenbaur) — the Court
                                                                         (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting for the
                                                                         President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha
                                                                         Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate Gen-
In Case C-372/00: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         eral; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Ireland (Agent: D.J. O’Hagan) —
                                                                         judgment on 13 December 2001, in which it:
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the                   1.    Dismisses the appeal;
interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system
(OJ 1996 L 235, p. 6), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations      2.    Orders Mr Cubero Vermurie to pay the costs.
under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón (Rapporteur)
and M. Wathelet, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                (1) OJ C 45, 10.2.2001.
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 December
2001, in which it:


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Case T-36/98: Aruba v Council of the European Union (Association of the overseas countries and territories — Decision 97/803/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 304/28               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        13.12.2003
X. Lewis), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) and                       1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance),
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 97/803/EC
                                                                            2.   The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
of 24 November 1997 amending at mid-term, Decision 91/
                                                                                Council;
482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and
territories with the European Economic Community (OJ 1997
L 329, p. 50), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 3.   The interveners are to bear their own costs.
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 September
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                            (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
      Council, including those relating to the proceedings for interim
      relief;
3.    The interveners are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-54/98: Aruba v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                                                                            (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Imports into the Community of sugar originating in Aruba
                                                                            — Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 — Action for annulment
                      of 17 September 2003                                                         — Inadmissibility)
in Case T-36/98: Aruba v Council of the European                                                     (2003/C 304/52)
                              Union (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
Decision 97/803/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissi-
                                bility)
                          (2003/C 304/51)                                   In Case T-54/98: Aruba, represented by P. Bos and M. Slot-
                                                                            boom, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                   (Language of the case: English)                          T. van Rijn), supported by the Council of the European Union
                                                                            (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin) and by the United Kingdom
                                                                            of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill) —
                                                                            application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import
In Case T-36/98: Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and M.
                                                                            licences for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,
Slotboom, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating
against the Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Huber
                                                                            products (OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26) — the Court of First Instance
and G. Houttuin), supported by the Commission of the
                                                                            (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
European Communities (Agents T. van Rijn and X. Lewis) and
                                                                            and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
by the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — application
                                                                            on 17 September 2003, the operative part of which is as
for annulment of Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 Novem-
                                                                            follows:
ber 1997 amending at mid-term, Decision 91/482/EEC on the
association of the overseas countries and territories with the
European Economic Community (OJ 1997 L 329, p. 50) —
                                                                            1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has made an order on 17 September 2003, the                      2.   The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
operative part of which is as follows:                                           Commission;


title: Case C-569/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — Bricmate AB v Tullverket (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commercial policy — Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 — Validity — Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 17 and 20(1) — Determination of the injury and of the causal link — Errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to exercise due care — Examination of the evidence sent by a sampled importer — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö — Sweden) — Bricmate AB v Tullverket
   (Case C-569/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Commercial policy - Anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 - Validity - Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 17 and 20(1) - Determination of the injury and of the causal link - Errors of fact and manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to exercise due care - Examination of the evidence sent by a sampled importer - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence))
   (2015/C 363/05)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Förvaltningsrätten i Malmö

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bricmate AB

      Defendant: Tullverket

      Operative part of the judgment

   Consideration of the question referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case C-538/14: Action brought on 26 November 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/15

         Action brought on 26 November 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-538/14)
   (2015/C 034/17)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: I. Koskinen and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to designate a body with competence to perform, in the field of working life, the tasks required by Article 13 of Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1), and by failing to ensure that those tasks are actually performed, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 13 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under Article 3(1) of Directive 2000/43/EC, the scope of the directive includes working life. Under Article 13 of Directive 2000/43/EC Member States are to designate a body or bodies for the promotion of equal treatment of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, and to ensure that the competences of at least one of the nominated bodies extend, as regards the matters and tasks laid down in that article, to action in questions concerning working life. Since no body is designated in Finnish legislation to carry out the tasks laid down in Article 13 of Directive 2000/43/EC in questions of working life, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3(1) and 13 of that directive.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-405/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/93)
   By order of 13 February 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-405/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.


title: Case C-450/04: Action brought on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/7

         Action brought on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-450/04)
   (2004/C 314/13)
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 October 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which are necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of them, 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
   The period for transposing the directive into national law expired on 2 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 149 of 2.6.2001, p. 34.


title: Case C-453/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gießen — Germany) — Hakan Er v Wetteraukreis (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Article 7, first paragraph, second indent — Right of residence of the adult child of a Turkish worker — Absence of paid employment — Conditions governing the loss of acquired rights)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gießen — Germany) — Hakan Er v Wetteraukreis
   (Case C-453/07) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Article 7, first paragraph, second indent - Right of residence of the adult child of a Turkish worker - Absence of paid employment - Conditions governing the loss of acquired rights)
   (2008/C 301/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Gießen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hakan Er

      Defendant: Wetteraukreis
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Gießen — Interpretation of the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association and of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol on the transitional phase laid down under the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (JO 1972 L 293, p. 1) — Right of residence of a Turkish national who entered the territory of a Member State as a minor for the purpose of family reunification — Loss of the right of residence — No lawful pursuit of an economic activity after the party in question attained majority
   Operative part of the judgment
   A Turkish national, who was authorised to enter the territory of a Member State as a child in the context of a family reunion, and who has acquired the right to take up freely any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the Development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, does not lose the right of residence in that State, which is the corollary of that right of free access, even though, at the age of 23, he has not been in paid employment since leaving school at the age of 16 and has taken part in government job-support schemes without, however, completing them.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-659/16: Action brought on 16 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Second Display)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/59

         Action brought on 16 September 2016 — LG Electronics v EUIPO (Second Display)
   (Case T-659/16)
   (2016/C 402/70)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, South Korea) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Second Display’ — Application for registration No 14 362 248

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 June 2016 in Case R 106/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Office’s First Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 read in conjunction with Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-395/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2015 — Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus S.L.

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 22 July 2015 — Mohamed Daouidi v Bootes Plus S.L.
   (Case C-395/15)
   (2015/C 354/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 33 de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamed Daouidi

      Defendants: Bootes Plus S.L., Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Public Prosecutor

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must the general prohibition of discrimination affirmed in Article 21.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (1) be interpreted as including, within the ambit of its prohibition and protection, the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because of his finding himself in a situation of temporary incapacity for work — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he was receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security?

               (2)

               Must Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that the protection that must be afforded a worker who has been the subject of a manifestly arbitrary and groundless dismissal must be the protection provided for in national legislation for every dismissal which infringes a fundamental right?

               (3)

               Would a decision of an employer to dismiss a worker previously well regarded professionally merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, fall within the ambit and/or protection of Articles 3, 15, 31, 34(1) and 35(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (or any one or more of them)?

               (4)

               If the three foregoing questions (or any of them) are answered in the affirmative and the decision to dismiss the worker, previously professionally well regarded, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — as a result of an accident at work, when he is receiving health assistance and financial benefits from Social Security, is to be interpreted as falling within the ambit and/or protection of one or more articles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, may those articles be applied by the national court in order to settle a dispute between private individuals, either on the view that — depending on whether a ‘right’ or ‘principle’ is at issue — that they enjoy horizontal effect or by virtue of application of the ‘principle that national law is to be interpreted in conformity with an EU directive’?
               If the four foregoing questions should be answered in the negative, a fourth question is referred:

               (5)

               Would the decision of an employer to dismiss a worker, previously well regarded professionally, merely because he was subject to temporary incapacity — of uncertain duration — by reason of an accident at work, be caught by the term ‘direct discrimination … on grounds of disability’ as one of the grounds of discrimination envisaged in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of Directive 2000/78 (2)?

      (1)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Case C-633/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 30 November 2015 — London Borough of Ealing v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 30 November 2015 — London Borough of Ealing v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-633/15)
   (2016/C 059/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: London Borough of Ealing

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the United Kingdom entitled, pursuant to the final paragraph of article 133 PVD (1), to impose the condition contained in paragraph (d) of that article on bodies governed by public law, (i) in circumstances where the relevant transactions were treated by the United Kingdom as taxable on 1st January 1989, but other Sporting Services were subject to exemption on that date and (ii) in circumstances where the relevant transactions had not first been granted exemption under national law before the United Kingdom sought to impose the condition contained in Article 133(d)?

               2.

               If the answer to (1) above is in the affirmative, is the United Kingdom entitled to impose the condition contained in paragraph (d) of article 133 PVD on non-profit making bodies governed by public law without also applying that condition to non-profit making bodies which are not governed by public law?

               3.

               If the answer to (2) above is in the affirmative, is the United Kingdom permitted to exclude all public non-profit making bodies from the benefit of the exemption contained in article 132(1)(m) without having considered in each individual case whether the granting of exemption would be likely to cause distortion of competition to the disadvantage of commercial enterprises subject to VAT?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax OJ L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-412/11: Action brought on 5 August 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/16

         Action brought on 5 August 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-412/11)
   2011/C 298/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, because the measures adopted by it to implement the first railway package are insufficient, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of and Annex II to amended Directive 91/440/EEC (1) and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC, (2)

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission complains of the national provisions in case since they provide that, in the event of disruption to traffic, allocation of train paths is made by the Société nationale des chemins de fer luxembourgeois (CFL; Luxembourg National Railway Company) and not by an independent body. CFL thus participates in the exercise of essential functions, which does not ensure fair and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure for other operators.
   In reply to the objections raised by the Luxembourg authorities, the Commission points out, firstly, that the statement of the Luxembourg authorities that there is no reallocation of train paths in the event of disruption to traffic is incorrect. When the timetable can no longer be followed, CFL lets late trains pass, which constitutes a reallocation of train paths. Secondly, the Commission contests the argument that Article 29 of Directive 2001/14/EC constitutes a lex specialis derogating from the general rule and enabling justification of the allocation of train paths by CFL in the event of disruptions.

      (1)  Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).


title: Case T-232/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Trevor Hutchings against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/24

         Action brought on 15 June 2005 by Trevor Hutchings against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-232/05)
   (2005/C 229/54)
   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 15 June 2005 by Trevor Hutchings, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin Membiela, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's decision fixing the applicant's classification in Grade B*4/Step 1;

               2.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission's decision to recruit him at Grade B*4 instead of B3 (B*7) as stated in the Commission's initial offer of recruitment. He relies on infringement of pacta sunt servanda, the Commission having unilaterally altered an essential component of his contract of employment.
   The applicant also claims infringement of the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination, and the protection of legitimate expectations, and an infringement of the call for applications.