title: Case T-115/01: Action brought on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 227/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi,                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
residing at Varano Borghi (Italy), and Evi Hainz, residing
at Besozzo (Italy), represented by Laure Levi and Georges                —     annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to
Vandersanden, avocats.                                                         Conclude Contracts (AECC) to cancel the recruitment
                                                                               procedures initiated by the publication of the following
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    vacancy notices: COM/R/5638/00 and COM/R/5639/00
                                                                               (in the case of Francesca Bertolo), COM/R/5526/00 (in
—     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to                        the case of Laurence Bories), COM/R/5645/00 (in the
      Conclude Contracts (AECC), of unknown date, appointing                   case of Lionello Brovelli), COM/R/5889/99 (in the case of
      persons to fill the posts declared vacant by, respectively,              Philippe Chemin), COM/R/5520/00 (in the case of Laura
      vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000                        Copes), COM/R/5646/00 (in the case of Maria Gabriella
      (in the case of Mr Cocchi) and COM/R/5500/00 of                          D’Elia), COM/R/5863/99 (in the case of Emanuele Mondi-
      24 February 2000 (in the case of Ms Hainz) and, in so far                ni) and COM/R/5521/00 (in the case of Helen Preissler);
      as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision rejecting
      the applicants’ complaints;                                        —     in the case of Philippe Chemin and Emanuele Mondini,
                                                                               annul, respectively, vacancy notices COM/R/5734/00
—     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages                    (Philippe Chemin) and COM/R/5735/00 (Emanuele Mon-
      for the prejudice suffered as a result of that decision, that            dini), published on 23 June 2000, and annul the decisions
      sum being fixed on an equitable and provisional basis;                   taken in the context of those new recruitment procedures;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          —     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
                                                                               for the prejudice suffered as a result of the contested
                                                                               decisions, that sum being fixed on an equitable and
                                                                               provisional basis;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced in this
application are analogous to those put forward in Case
T-330/00 (1).                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The present action reproduces the facts and legal arguments
(1) OJ 2000 C 372, p. 15.
                                                                         put forward in support of the application of certain applicants
                                                                         in Case T-331/00 Bories and Others v Commission (1).
                                                                         (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000, p. 16.
Action brought on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo
and Others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                         (Case T-115/01)                                 Action brought on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman Parra
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (2001/C 227/54)
                                                                                (Case T-117/01)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/55)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                  (Language of the case: French)
European Communities on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo,
residing at Varese (Italy), Laurence Bories, residing at Vallon
Pont d’Arc (France), Lionello Brovelli, residing at Angera (Italy),      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Philippe Chemin, residing at Gif sur Yvette (France), Laura              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Copes, residing at Ispra (Italy), Maria Gabriella d’Elia, residing       European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman
at Taino (Italy), Emanuele Mondini, residing at Gavirate                 Parra, residing at Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
(Italy) and Helen Preissler, residing at Siegsdorf (Germany),            Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.             service in Luxembourg.


               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/27

         Removal from the register of Case C-541/03 (1)

   (2006/C 36/54)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 7 October 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-541/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Lambert Roodbeen v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.


               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/1

         (2008/C 158/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 142, 7.6.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 128, 24.5.2008

      OJ C 116, 9.5.2008

      OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

      OJ C 92, 12.4.2008

      OJ C 79, 29.3.2008

      OJ C 64, 8.3.2008

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-365/14: Action brought on 27 May 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (TRECOLORE)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/47

         Action brought on 27 May 2014 — CBM Creative Brands Marken v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (TRECOLORE)
   (Case T-365/14)
   2014/C 253/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of April 1, 2014, in Case R 411/2013-5 in so far as the Fifth Board of Appeal annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, upholds the opposition and rejects the Application No 00 9 8 77  416 in regard of the goods in classes 18 and 25 and in regard of the services ‘Retail services, including via websites and teleshopping, in relation to clothing, footwear, headgear, sunglasses, precious metals and their alloys and goods in precious metals or coated therewith, jewellery, precious stones, horological and chronometric instruments, leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials, animal skins, hides, trunks and travelling bags, bags, handbags, wallets, purses, key cases, rucksacks, pouches, umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks, whips, harness and saddlery’ of class 35;

               —

               Dismiss the opposition against Application No 00 9 8 77  416 in its entirety;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘TRECOLORE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 77  416

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The community and national word and figurative mark ‘FRECCE TRICOLORI’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-36/08: Action brought on 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/16

         Action brought on 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-36/08)
   (2008/C 92/29)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and H.Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               Declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force rules such as Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/03 (Government Gazette 304/Α) which are not in compliance with Articles 30, 31 and 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (1) [of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications], and by not withdrawing diplomas issued although the conditions set out in that directive were not satisfied, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 31 and 36 of that directive.

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the opinion of the Commission, the doctors who are referred to in Article 29(d.1) and (d.2) of Law 3209/03 have acquired rights within the meaning of Article 36 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC, and accordingly are allowed to practise as doctors under the national social security scheme and to receive a certificate attesting to their acquired rights. However, to grant them the qualification of general practitioner without their undergoing the relevant specific training is contrary to Articles 30 and 31 of the Directive. Accordingly, the Greek authorities must withdraw the diplomas issued although the conditions of the Directive were not satisfied.

      (1)  OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.


C 378/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
limiting the effects of the liberalisation of special regular           promote unfair competition with regard to existing
services which was introduced by that regulation.                       regular services, and, in particular, to the disadvantage
Consequently, according to the Commission, the French                   of those provided by Schiocchet SARL;
State has not breached Community law.
                                                                    Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
The applicant maintains that the exemption provision laid
                                                                        Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
down in Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 is
                                                                        19 August 1998.
unlawful, inasmuch as that provision is itself incompatible
with the Treaty and, in particular, with Article 75(1)(a) of
the Treaty of Rome. In the present case, the exemption              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
provision at issue has enabled SocieÂteÂ Mousset, since the
entry into force of Article 4(2) of the regulation in               The present case concerns allegedly unlawful conduct on
question, to continue to compete with the existing regular          the part of the company known as Taxi Gaby Colarelli, a
service provided by the applicant, which was established            competitor of the applicant.
prior to that regulation, and has the effect of distorting
competition in the common market.                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                                                                    those relied on by the applicant in Case T-169/98
According to the applicant, the Commission wrongly                  Schiocchet v. Commission.
considered SocieÂteÂ Mousset to have been exempt from the
authorisation requirement since the entry into force of
Regulation (EEC) No 684/92. In addition, the
Commission erred in law in considering that paragraph
1.3 of Article 2 of that regulation was not intended to
restrict the scope of Article 4(2) thereof.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-159/97 (1)
The Commission has also engaged in unlawful                                                  (98/C 378/47)
discrimination, inasmuch as it applied different treatment
to comparable situations, thereby placing the applicant at                         (Language of the case: French)
a disadvantage by comparison with other providers of
regular services. That difference in treatment was not              By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
justified by the existence of any other objectives to which         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
any weight attaches.                                                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    Case T-159/97: Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca FerraÄo v.
                                                                    Office for the Harmonisation of the Internal Market
                                                                    (trade marks and designs).
Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL                (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-170/98)
                        (98/C 378/46)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case T-297/97 (1)
An action against the Commission of the European                                             (98/C 378/48)
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                                 (Language of the case: English)
1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
at Beuvillers (France), represented by Pascal Barbier, of the       By order of 9 October 1998 the President of the Third
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich              Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Heine.                                                              Case T-297/97: David T. Keeling v. Office for the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Harmonisation of the Internal Market (trade marks and
                                                                    designs).
Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    Regulation No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is to              (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Action brought on 29 January 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Case C-26/98)

text:
C 72/14                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  7.3.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
                                                                      necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                                                                      conclusions of the Commission.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                      (1) OJ L 157, 24.6.1994, p. 33.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                      (2) OJ L 43, 20.2.1979, p. 20.
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1995
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to
comply with the directive referred to in the conclusions of
the Commission.
(1) Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    Council (OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 3).                                    Removal from the register of Case C-276/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 72/28)
                                                                      By order of 10 November 1997 the President of the Sixth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 29 January 1998 by the Commission of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register
             the European Communities v. Ireland                      of Case C-276/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
                          (Case C-26/98)
                           (98/C 72/27)                               (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 January 1998
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hans Christian Stùvlbñk, a member of its
Legal Service, and Michael Shotter, a national official
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-170/97 (1)
seconded to the Commission under an arrangement for the
exchange of officials, acting as agents, with an address for                                   (98/C 72/29)
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, a member of the Legal Service of the
Commission, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                           removal from the register of Case C-170/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Ð declare that by failing to notify the laws, regulations             (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/26/EC (1) of 15 June 1994 adapting to
     technical progress Council Directive 79/196/EEC (2) of
     6 February 1979 on the approximation of the laws of
     the Member States concerning electrical equipment for
     use in potentially explosive atmospheres employing
     certain types of protection, or by failing to adopt the
     measures necessary to comply with it, Ireland has                      Removal from the register of Case C-171/97 (1)
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive, and
                                                                                (98/C 72/30)
Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      By order of 13 November 1997 the President of the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   removal from the register of Case C-171/97: Commission
                                                                      of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
down in the directive. That period expired on 31 March


title: Case C-223/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain) lodged on 7 May 2014  — Tecom Mican, S.L. v Man Diesel & Turbo SE

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain) lodged on 7 May 2014 — Tecom Mican, S.L. v Man Diesel & Turbo SE
   (Case C-223/14)
   2014/C 223/12
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 7 de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tecom Mican, S.L.

      Defendant: Man Diesel & Turbo SE

      Questions referred

               1)

               Can a purely private document be considered an ‘extrajudicial document’ within the meaning of Article 16 of Regulation No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007, (1) regardless of whether it was issued by a non-judicial public authority or official?

               2)

               If so, can any private document whatsoever be considered an extrajudicial document or must it meet certain specific requirements?

               3)

               Supposing that the private document meets those requirements, may a citizen of the Union request service under the procedure laid down in Article 16 of Regulation No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 in its current form, when he has already effected such service through another non-judicial public authority, for example, a notary?

               4)

               Finally, is it necessary, for the purposes of Article 16 of Regulation 1393/2007, to take into account the fact that the cooperation has cross-border implications and is necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market? When must it be understood that cooperation has ‘cross-border implications and is necessary to the proper functioning of the internal market’?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79


title: Action brought on 4 July 1997 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-243/97)

text:
C 318/4                    EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 18 . 10 . 97
— that general meeting took place before completion of                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       the audit of the parent company 's annual accounts for
       that financial year, and
                                                                       A. Disallowance of expenditure in the olive
                                                                            oil sector
— the national court is satisfied that the subsidiary 's
       annual accounts for the financial year in question give
       a true and fair view of its assets and liabilities,             In the view of the Hellenic Republic the financial
       financial position and profit or loss,                          corrections in the olive oil sector are the result of a
                                                                       mistaken assessment of the factual circumstances and of
                                                                       the Commission exceeding the limits of its discretion . The
                                                                       Hellenic Republic had informed the Commission of the
it is not contrary to the rule laid down in                            objective difficulties of establishing a register of olive
Article 31 (1 ) (c) (aa) of the fourth Council Directive 78/           cultivation within the period laid down in Regulations
660/EEC based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the                ( EEC ) No 154/75 and ( EEC) No 3453/80 and had bona
annual accounts of certain types of companies, as                      fide collaborated with it to resolve those difficulties . It
amended by the seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC                    could, consequently, rely on the impossibility of
based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated              implementing a Community measure, in accordance with
accounts, for the national court to consider that the
                                                                       the case-law in Case C-52/84 Commission v. Belgium and
profits in question must be entered in the parent                      Case C-348/93 Commission v. Italy. Moreover, the flat
company 's balance sheet for the financial year in respect             rate reduction of the amount of aid for the production of
of which they were appropriated by the subsidiary.                     olive oil is arbitrary and exceeds the limits of the
                                                                       discretionary power of the Commission.
H OJ C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 , p . 2 .
( 2 ) OJ C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 , p . 3 .
                                                                       B. Disallowance of expenditure in the
                                                                            tobacco sector
                                                                       The Hellenic Republic claims that the Commission has
                                                                       wrongly interpreted the Regulations in question . It refers
Action brought on 4 July 1997 by the Hellenic Republic                 on this point to its arguments in Case C-61/95 on which
     against the Commission of the European Communities                the judgment of the Court of Justice is awaited and which
                                                                       concerned the accounts for the year 1991 .
                            ( Case C-243/97
                              ( 97/C 318/06
                                                                       C. Disallowance of expenditure for the
                                                                            cultivation of vineyards
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                 The applicant relies on the difficulties of establishing the
4 July 1997 by the Hellenic Republic, represented by                   vineyard register of which it informed the Commission
Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of the State Legal               and which the Council recognized, extending the period
Service, and Elli Mamouna, of the Special Legal                        for completing the register in question until 31 December
Department for the European Communities in the                         1998 . Moreover, the local controls of grubbed
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with an address for service in            up vineyards concerned 100% of the cases aided.
Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 177 Val Ste Croix.                    Consequently, the flat-rate financial correction of 2%
                                                                       imposed is unjustified.
The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should:
                                                                       D. Disallowance of expenditure in the public
                                                                            storage of cereal sector
— hold the application admissible,
                                                                      The Hellenic Republic maintains that for 1993 it applied
                                                                      in this sector a new control system, radically different
— annul or amend Commission Decision E(97) 1180                        from the previous system, and the Commission itself, in its
      final of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts          summary statement, acknowledged the improvements
      presented by the Member States in respect of the                made . Consequently a flat-rate correction of 2 % was
      expenditure for 1993 of the EAGGF, Guarantee                     imposed erroneously in that sector.
      Section, as regards the specifically-contested chapters
      which relate to financial corrections in the olive oil,
      tobacco, wine and cereals ( public storage ) sectors.


title: Case C-289/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 7 — Condition of double criminality — Article 9 — Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality — National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove — Slovakia) — Criminal proceedings against Joszef Grundza
   (Case C-289/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 7 - Condition of double criminality - Article 9 - Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality - National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority))
   (2017/C 063/03)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Party in the main proceedings

   Joszef Grundza

      Intervening party: Krajská prokuratúra Prešov

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(3) and Article 9(1)(d) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of double criminality must be considered to be met, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, where the factual elements underlying the offence, as reflected in the judgment handed down by the competent authority of the issuing State, would also, per se, be subject to a criminal sanction in the territory of the executing State if they were present in that State.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-240/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Fortum Project Finance SA (Article 56(1) EC — Directive 69/335/EEC — Article 12(1)(a) and (c) — Exception to the prohibition on double taxation of contributions of capital — Contribution of capital in the form of shares to a company established in another Member State — Exchange of shares — Capital transfer tax)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/17

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Fortum Project Finance SA
   (Case C-240/06) (1)

   (Article 56(1) EC - Directive 69/335/EEC - Article 12(1)(a) and (c) - Exception to the prohibition on double taxation of contributions of capital - Contribution of capital in the form of shares to a company established in another Member State - Exchange of shares - Capital transfer tax)
   (2007/C 315/27)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fortum Project Finance SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 56 EC and Article 12(1)(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969(II), p. 412) — Derogation from the prohibition of double taxation concerning tax on capital contributions — Contribution in the form of securities to a company established in another Member State — Share transfer tax
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that Article 12(1)(c) does not apply to the charging of a duty, such as Finnish capital transfer tax (varainsiirtovero), where securities are transferred as a contribution to a capital company which gives new shares of its own as consideration for that transfer. Article 12(1)(a) of the directive allows such a duty to be charged.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case C-190/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 April 2011 — Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 22 April 2011 — Daniela Mühlleitner v Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi
   (Case C-190/11)
   2011/C 204/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Daniela Mühlleitner

      Respondents: Ahmad Yusufi and Wadat Yusufi

      Question referred

   Does the application of Article 15(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) presuppose that the contract between the consumer and the undertaking has been concluded at a distance?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-495/06 P: Order of the Court of 25 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Staff report — Decision establishing the definitive version of the report — Decision to promote another official to the grade of Translator-reviser — Claim for compensation for damage — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/18

         Order of the Court of 25 October 2007 — Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors of the European Communities
   (Case C-495/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Staff report - Decision establishing the definitive version of the report - Decision to promote another official to the grade of Translator-reviser - Claim for compensation for damage - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 22/35)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (represented by: F. Rollinger, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 3 October 2006 in Case T-171/05 Bart Nijs v Court of Auditors, in which the Court of First Instance dismissed — in so far as it relied on grounds other than a failure to give reasons — the action seeking, first, annulment of the decision establishing the definitive version of the appellant's staff report for the 2003 reporting period, the decision allocating the appellant merit points for the 2003 reporting period and the decision not to promote him in 2004, and of the decision rejecting the complaint brought against those decisions and, secondly, an application for compensation in respect of the harm suffered
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Nijs to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-205/12: Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/10

         Action brought on 16 May 2012 — GRE v OHIM — Villiger Söhne (LIBERTE american blend)
   (Case T-205/12)
   2012/C 209/17
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GRE Grand River Enterprises Deutschland GmbH (Kloster Lehnin, Germany) (represented by: I. Memmler and S. Schulz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Villiger Söhne GmbH (Waldshut-Tiengen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 March 2012 in Case R 387/2011-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘LIBERTE american blend’ for goods in Class 34 — application No 7 481 211

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Villiger Söhne GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘LA LIBERTAD’ and the figurative mark ‘La LIBERTAD’ for goods in Classes 14 and 34

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 February 1996 in Case T-125/95: Hassan Belhanbel v. Commission of the European Communities (Official - Competition - Decision of the selection board that a candidate has failed the oral test - Scope of the obligation to state reasons)

text:
30 . 3 . 96          | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 95/ 15
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including              Hoskins, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
      those incurred in the procedure for interim measures.            address for service at Brick Court Chambers, 8 Avenue de la
                                                                       Joyeuse Entree, Brussels, against Council of the European
(M OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .                                        Union ( Agents: Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ) and
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Frank
                                                                       Benyon and Lucio Gussetti ) — application for suspension of
                                                                       the operation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254/91 of
                                                                       4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the
                                                                       Community and the introduction into the Community of
                                                                       pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               originating in countries which catch them by means of
                      of 15 February 1996                              leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet
                                                                       international humane trapping standards ( OJ No L 308 ,
in Case T-125/95 : Hassan Belhanbel v. Commission of the
                                                                       p. 1 ) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
                   European Communities ( 1 )                          order on 12 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as
(Official — Competition — Decision of the selection board              follows :
that a candidate has failed the oral test — Scope of the
                  obligation to state reasons)
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                             ( 96/C 95/29 )
                                                                       2.   costs are reserved.
                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-125/95 , Hassan Belhanbel, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing at Namur ( Belgium ), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               Action brought on 21 December 1995 by 'T' against the
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                 European Parliament
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana                                           Case T-233/95 )
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the                                     ( 96/C 95/31 )
decision of the selection board in competition COM/B/765
awarding the applicant, in the oral test, a lower mark than
the minimum required and refusing to enter his name on the                             (Language of the case: Greek)
reserve list — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of: C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and              An action against the European Parliament was brought
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment           before the Court of First Instance on 21 December 1995 by
on 15 February 1996, in which it:                                      'T', represented by Harisios Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . dismisses the action;                                              Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
( ! ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                    — annul the staff report on the applicant for the period
                                                                           1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 , in particular heading
                                                                           10 . 1 ,
                                                                       — annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the
                                                                           Parliament of 19 September 1995 confirming the above
                                                                           staff report,
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
                      of 12 February 1996
in Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Union and Commission of the European
                             Communities
                                                                       The applicant, an official of the Parliament in Grade A 5
                             ( 96/C 95/30 )                            serving in the Legal Service, states that, for the purpose of
                                                                       promoting another candidate, the detailed part of his staff
                                                                       report for the period 1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 was
               (Language of the case: English)                         decided in advance and did not correspond to reality . In
                                                                       support of that claim he relies on the lack of consistency
In Case T-228/95 R: S. Lehrfreund Ltd, established in                  between the detailed report and the general assessment
London, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark                    contained in the report. In his view the huge improvement


title: Case T-533/93: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2009 — Bouma and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2009 — Bouma and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-533/93) (1)

   2009/C 90/58

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed in part from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 334, 9.12.1993.


title: Case T-188/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014  — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark NOTFALL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2014 — Murnauer Markenvertrieb v OHIM — Healing Herbs (NOTFALL)
   (Case T-188/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark NOTFALL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Equal treatment))
   (2014/C 462/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH (Egelsbach, Germany) (represented by: F. Traub and H. Daniel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Healing Herbs Ltd (Walterstone, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Price, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 132/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Healing Herbs Ltd and Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Murnauer Markenvertrieb GmbH to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by Healing Herbs Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 1.6.2013.


title: Case C-142/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/5

         Appeal brought on 24 March 2015 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2015 in Case T-507/13: SolarWorld AG and others v European Commission
   (Case C-142/15 P)
   (2015/C 190/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission,
   Brandoni solare SpA,
   Global Sun Ltd,
   Silicio Solar, SAU,
   Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Set aside the General Court’s Order in Case T-507/13;

               —

               Declare the Application for annulment in Case T-507/13 admissible; and

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the Appellant put forward the following arguments:
   The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly concerned by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU (1) because that Decision would not directly affect the legal situation of the Appellant and was subject to implementing measures.

               —

               The General Court erred by finding that the Appellant is not directly affected by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU because it was implemented by Regulation 748/2013 (2). Regulation 748/2013 is a confirmatory act in relation to Decision 2013/423/EU. The Appellant had therefore standing to appeal Decision 2013/423/EU directly.

               —

               The General Court’s finding that the Decision 2013/423/EU entails implementing measures was erroneous as the General Court did not analyse whether the Commission had any discretion when adopting Regulation 748/2013 or whether the implementation of Decision 2013/423/EU was merely automatic with regard to the Appellant, which in fact was the case.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 209, p. 26.

      (2)  Commission Regulation of 2 August 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 513/2013 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China, OJ L 209, p. 1.


title: Case T-23/09: Action brought on 21 January 2009 — CNOP and CCG v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/49

         Action brought on 21 January 2009 — CNOP and CCG v Commission
   (Case T-23/09)
   (2009/C 55/88)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Conseil National de l'Ordre des Pharmaciens (CNOP) (Paris, France), Conseil Central de la Section G de l'Ordre National des Pharmaciens (CCG) (Paris, France) (represented by: Y.-R. Guillou, H. Speyart and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6494 of 29 October 2008 in which the Commission, pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), ordered the applicants to submit to an inspection concerning their possible participation in and/or implementation of agreements or concerted practices contrary to the provisions of Articles 81 EC and/or 82 EC.
   That conduct took the form of decisions aimed at preventing pharmacists and/or legal persons from gaining access to the market in bio-medical analysis services, to restrict their activities on that market, or to exclude them from that market, inter alia, by not registering pharmacists and/or legal persons wishing to offer bio-medical analysis services in the Section G List, and by not updating their registration on that list.
   In support of their actions, the applicants put forward three pleas in law alleging:

               —

               breach of the principle that the decisions of the Community institutions must be addressed to entities having legal personality, as the Ordre National des Pharmaciens is also an addressee of the contested decisions although it has no legal personality;

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons, as the Commission did not identify the entity which may constitute an undertaking or an association of undertakings, within the meaning of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003, and as it did not state the reasons justifying such a categorisation;

               —

               infringement of Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003, inasmuch as neither the applicants, nor the Ordre National des Pharmaciens (i) are undertakings, since they do not carry out any economic activity, or (ii) could be categorised as associations of undertakings since they group together a body of members who do not all carry out an economic activity, and they do not satisfy the circumstantial requirements for identifying an association of undertakings, set out by the Court, in the case of professional associations responsible for public tasks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-272/12 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Appeal — State aid — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils — Court acting of its own motion — Plea adopted of its own motion by a court of the European Union — Relationship between tax harmonisation and monitoring of State aid — Respective powers of the Council and the Commission — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 December 2013 — European Commission v Ireland, French Republic, Italian Republic, Eurallumina SpA, Aughinish Alumina Ltd
   (Case C-272/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils - Court acting of its own motion - Plea adopted of its own motion by a court of the European Union - Relationship between tax harmonisation and monitoring of State aid - Respective powers of the Council and the Commission - Principle of legal certainty - Presumption of legality attaching to European Union measures)
   2014/C 45/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte, D. Grespan, N. Khan and K. Walkerová, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, Agent, and P. McGarry SC), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and, initially, J. Gstalter, and, subsequently N. Rouam, Agents), Italian Republic, (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato), Eurallumina SpA, (represented by: R. Denton, A. Stratakis, L. Martin Alegi and L. Philippou, Solicitors), Aughinish Alumina Ltd, (represented by: C. Waterson, C. Little and J. Handoll, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission by which the General Court annulled Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia respectively implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12) — Errors of law — Lack of jurisdiction of the General Court — Procedural irregularities adversely affecting the interests of the Commission — Court acting of its own motion — Infringement of Articles 87 and 88 EC and of the second paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Concept of State aid — Whether contested exemptions attributable to Member States or the Council — Relationship between tax harmonisation and State aid — Principle of legal certainty — Presumption of legality — Principle of good administration.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court (Grand Chamber):

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 21 March 2012 in Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV Ireland and Others v Commission;

               2.

               Refers Joined Cases T-50/06 RENV, T-56/06 RENV, T-60/06 RENV, T-62/06 RENV and T-69/06 RENV back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1o Juízo Cível da Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 11 July 1995 in the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim against CTV - Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela, Lda. (Case C-326/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/9
necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the               Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of
conclusions of the Commission .                                            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-327/95 )
(')  OJ  No L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                                        ( 95/C 333/ 17 )
(2)  OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(■') OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .
(4)  OJ  No L 187, 7 . 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 1 1 July 1995 in             The applicant claims that the Court should :
the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio
Mauricio Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima
Barros Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis                    1 . declare that, by imposing a minimum price on oil-cake,
                           de Vouzela, Lda.                                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                           ( Case C-326/95 )                                  under the common organization of the market in
                             ( 95/C 333/ 16 )
                                                                              oils and fats established by Council Regulation
                                                                              No 136/66/EEC ( } ) of 22 September 19 66 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
European Communities by order of the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of 11 July
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       Pleas in law and main arguments:
16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio Mauricio
Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima Barros                     The oil and fats industry is governed by Regulation
Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis de                        No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 and subsequent
Vouzela Lda ., on the following questions :                              amendments . Article 1 lists the products to which it applies
                                                                         ( among them oil-cake and olive-residue oils ), grouping the
                                                                         various categories according to the treatment applied to
1 . Must be BFE be regarded as an ' undertaking' and in                  them by the organization of the market. That treatment
     particular 'a public undertaking', within the meaning of            varies according to the various products and constitutes
     Articles 90 and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                          exhaustive and complete regulation of the organization of
                                                                         the agricultural markets in oils and fats, which leaves no
2 . May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its                      room for unilateral and autonomous action by the Member
     competitors be interpreted as being ' State aid ' within the        States .
     meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?
                                                                         The minimum prices for purchase by oil-presses and for sale
3 . Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to the              by oil producers, imposed in respect of oil-cake by Italian
     freedom to provide services within the Community,                   Law No 1527/61 , mainly concern ( wholesale ) marketing of
     within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty of                   a product covered by the common organization of the
     Rome ?                                                              market in oil and fats .
4 . Do Articles 59 , 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of Rome        It follows that the Law is contrary to and incompatible with
     have direct effect and may they be relied upon in the               the provisions governing the aforementioned common
     present proceedings ?                                               organization of the market inasmuch as it constitutes a
                                                                         national intervention measure in a field where Community
5 . Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence over              rules are exhaustive .
     and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                         The arguments put forward by the Italian authorities to
6 . Does the present case concern a question of Community                justify keeping in force the mandatory fixing of the
     law, or is the interpretation thereof sufficiently clear and        minimum price of oil-cake are not, in the view of the
     self-evident such as to obviate the need to make a                  Commission, of such a kind as to bring to an end the
     reference for a preliminary ruling ?                                infringement at issue . Even if it were to be accepted that the
                                                                         imposition of a minimum price could contribute to attaining
                                                                         objectives in themselves worthy of protection, it would not
                                                                         however render lawful the choice of an instrument which


title: Case C-182/09: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen’s Bench Division — United Kingdom) — Seaport (NI) Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/37

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen’s Bench Division — United Kingdom) — Seaport (NI) Ltd v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
   (Case C-182/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/66
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-324/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 / 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     necessary to comply with the Directive named in the
                                                                        Commission's application.
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                 (') OJ L 168 , 18 . 7. 1995, p. 14 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ L 384 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p. 1 .
out in Case C-320/97 (2 ); the period prescribed in the
Directive expired on 31 December 1995 .
O OJ L 368 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 38 .
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
                                                                                ( Case C-325/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /29 )
Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                          ( Case C-324/97)                              brought before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997
                                                                        by the Commission of the European Communities,
                            ( 97/C 331/28 )                             represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
                                                                        Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                        also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before               Kirchberg.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 September 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal              The Commission claims that the Court should:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                               necessary to comply with Directives 94/39/EC ( ! ) and
                                                                               95/10/EC (2 ) within the period prescribed, the Federal
                                                                               Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    under the EC Treaty and those Directives;
                                                                        2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     European Parliament and Council Directive 95/27/EC                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     of 29 June 1995 (') amending Council Directive
     86/662/EEC       on     the  limitation  of   noise  emitted       Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
     by hydraulic excavators, rope-operated excavators,                 out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for
     dozers, loaders and excavator-loaders ( 2) or, in any              transposition expired on 30 June 1995 .
     event, by not having communicated such measures, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        O OJ L 207, 10 . 8 . 1994, p. 20 .
     under that Directive;
                                                                        (2 ) OJ L 91 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p . 39 .
                                                                        (3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive                                         (Case C-326/97)
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, places Member                                                   ( 97/C 331 /30 )
States under an obligation to comply with the time-limits
set by directives for their implementation. In the present
case, when the time-limit expired on 31 December 1995 ,                 An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
the Italian Republic had not adopted the measures                        before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 2003 in Case C-429/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 90/219/EEC — Genetically modified organisms — Contained use)

text:
C 21/4                   EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                              24.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              represented by a stave divided into measures and showing, in
                                                                                particular, a clef, musical notes and rests whose form indicates
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                            the relative value and, where necessary, accidentals.
                       of 27 November 2003                                     (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
in Case C-283/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Shield Mark BV v Joost
                       Kist h.o.d.n. Memex (1)
(Trade marks — Approximation of laws — Directive 89/
104/EEC — Article 2 — Signs of which a trade mark may                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
consist — Signs capable of being represented graphically —
Sound signs — Musical notation — Written description —                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                           Onomatopoeia)
                                                                                of 27 November 2003
                           (2004/C 21/07)
                                                                               in Case C-429/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                   ties v French Republic (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                    in the European Court Reports)                             transpose Directive 90/219/EEC — Genetically modified
                                                                                organisms — Contained use)
In Case C-283/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                                 (2004/C 21/08)
EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
court between Shield Mark BV and Joost Kist h.o.d.n. Memex,
on the interpretation of Article 2 of First Council Directive 89/
104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40,                                            in the European Court Reports)
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha
Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                    In Case C-429/01, Commission of the European Communities
eral; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                (Agent: G. zur Hausen, assisted by M. van der Woude and
has given a judgment on 27 November 2003, in which it has                      V. Landes) with an address for service in Luxembourg, v French
ruled:                                                                         Republic (Agent: initially by G. de Bergues and D. Colas, then
                                                                               by G. de Bergues and C. Isidoro), with an address for service in
                                                                               Luxembourg, APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing
1.    Article 2 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 Decem-             to transpose correctly and in full Articles 14(a) and (b), 15(1)
      ber 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                    and (2), 16(1) and 19(2) to (4) of Council Directive 90/219/
      relating to trade marks is to be interpreted as meaning that             EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically
      sound signs must be capable of being regarded as trade marks             modified micro-organisms (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1), as amended
      provided that they are capable of distinguishing the goods or            by Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994
      services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings             adapting to technical progress Directive 90/219 (OJ 1994
      and are capable of being represented graphically.                        L 297, p. 29), and by failing to transpose the provisions of
                                                                               that directive in respect of certain contained use by the
2.    Article 2 of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning             Ministry of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      that a trade mark may consist of a sign which is not in itself           obligations under that directive and Article 249 EC, the Court
      capable of being perceived visually, provided that it can be             (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the
      represented graphically, particularly by means of images, lines          President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet,
      or characters, and that its representation is clear, precise, self-      F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
      contained, easily accessible, intelligible, durable and objective.       Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
      In the case of a sound sign, those requirements are not satisfied        on 27 November 2003, in which it:
      when the sign is represented graphically by means of a
      description using the written language, such as an indication            1.    Declares that, by failing to transpose correctly and in full
      that the sign consists of the notes going to make up a musical                 Article 14(a) and (b), first subparagraph, third sentence, and
      work, or the indication that it is the cry of an animal, or by                 Article 19(2) to (4) of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of
      means of a simple onomatopoeia, without more, or by means                      23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified
      of a sequence of musical notes, without more. On the other                     micro-organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 94/
      hand, those requirements are satisfied where the sign is                       51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                    C 21/5
      Directive 90/219, and by failing to transpose the provisions of               of the assessment of the most economically advantageous tender
      that directive in respect of certain contained use by the Ministry            for a contract for the supply of electricity, an award criterion
      of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          with a weighting of 45 % which requires that the electricity
      under that directive;                                                         supplied be produced from renewable energy sources. The fact
                                                                                that that criterion does not necessarily serve to achieve the
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        objective pursued is irrelevant in that regard.
3.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.                                      On the other hand, that legislation does preclude such a
                                                                                criterion where
(1) OJ C 369 of 22.12.2001.
                                                                                —      It is not accompanied by requirements which permit the
                                                                                accuracy of the information contained in the tenders to be
                                                                                effectively verified,
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                —      it requires tenderers to state how much electricity they can
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                 supply from renewable energy sources to a non-defined
                                                                                group of consumers, and allocates the maximum number
                        of 4 December 2003                                                 of points to whichever tenderer states the highest amount,
                                                                                where the supply volume is taken into account only to the
in Case C-448/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                                  extent that it exceeds the volume of consumption expected
the Bundesvergabeamt): EVN AG, Wienstrom GmbH v                                            in the context of the procurement.
Republik Österreich, third parties: Stadtwerke Klagenfurt
             AG and Kärntner Elektrizitäts-AG (1)                                   It is for the national court to determine whether, despite the
                                                                                contracting authority’s failure to stipulate a specific supply
(Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Concept                            period, the award criterion was sufficiently clearly formulated to
of the most economically advantageous tender — Award                                satisfy the requirements of equal treatment and transparency of
criterion giving preference to electricity produced from                            procedures for awarding public contracts.
renewable energy sources — Directive 89/665/EEC — Public
procurement review proceedings — Unlawful decisions —                         2.    The Community legislation on public procurement requires the
Possibility of annulment only in the case of material influ-                        contracting authority to cancel an invitation to tender if it
ence on the outcome of the tender procedure — Illegality of                         transpires in review proceedings under Article 1 of Directive
an award criterion — Obligation to cancel the invitation to                         89/665 that a decision relating to one of the award criteria
                                 tender)                                            laid down by that authority is unlawful and it is therefore
                                                                                annulled by the review body.
                            (2004/C 21/09)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-448/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) for a preliminary ruling                                          of 27 November 2003
in the proceedings pending before that body between EVN
AG, Wienstrom GmbH and Republik Österreich, third parties:                    in Case C-497/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Stadtwerke Klagenfurt AG and Kärntner Elektrizitäts-AG, on                    the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg): Zita
the interpretation of Article 26 of Council Directive 93/36/                  Modes Sàrl v Administration de l’enregistrement et des
EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award                                                     domaines (1)
of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and of
Articles 1 and 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of
                                                                              (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 5(8) — Transfer of a
21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regu-
                                                                              totality of assets — Continuation by the transferee in
lations and administrative provisions relating to the application
                                                                              the same branch of business as the transferor — Legal
of review procedures to the award of public supply and public
                                                                                authorisation to pursue the activity)
works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33), as amended by
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordi-
nation of procedures for the award of public service contracts                                              (2004/C 21/10)
(OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the                                         (Language of the case: French)
Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                                    in the European Court Reports)
on 4 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
1.    The Community legislation on public procurement does not                In Case C-497/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      preclude a contracting authority from applying, in the context          EC by the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxem-


title: Case C-215/05 P: Appeal brought on  21 March 2005  by Theodoros Papoulakos against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) made on  26 November 2001  in Case T-248/01 Theodoros Papoulakos v Italian Republic and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/12

         Appeal brought on 21 March 2005 by Theodoros Papoulakos against the order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) made on 26 November 2001 in Case T-248/01 Theodoros Papoulakos v Italian Republic and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-215/05 P)
   (2006/C 165/20)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Appellant: Theodoros Papoulakos (represented by: D. Koutouvalis, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic and Commission of the European Communities
   By order of 2 February 2006, the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as inadmissible.


title: Case C-627/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Dumitru Gavrilescu, Liana Gavrilescu v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — sucursala Câmpulung

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) lodged on 23 November 2015 — Dumitru Gavrilescu, Liana Gavrilescu v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — sucursala Câmpulung
   (Case C-627/15)
   (2016/C 165/05)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Câmpulung

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dumitru Gavrilescu, Liana Gavrilescu

      Defendants: SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — sucursala Câmpulung

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘main subject matter of the contract’ and ‘the adequacy of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other’ cover a term in a credit agreement denominated in a foreign currency concluded between a seller or a supplier and a consumer, which was not the subject of individual negotiation, and which provides, in respect of the loan repayment instalments, that the debtor alone must bear the ‘currency risk’, that is to say the potential negative effect of an increase in the monthly repayment instalments caused by fluctuations in the exchange rates of the currency, which the consumer must bear as a consequence of concluding the loan agreement and the requirement to repay the amounts disbursed under the agreement in a currency other than the national currency of Romania?

               2.

               For the purposes of Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13, does the consumer’s obligation to bear the cost, when repaying the loan, of the difference arising from an increase in the exchange rate of the currency in which the loan was granted (CHF) represent remuneration whose adequacy as against the service supplied may not be examined for the purpose of assessing whether it is unfair?

               3.

               If the reply to the above question is that such a term escapes the assessment of unfairness, may that term be regarded as satisfying the requirements of good faith, balance and transparency laid down by the directive in question, by enabling the consumer to be able to foresee, on the basis of clear and intelligible criteria, the consequences for him of such a term?

               4.

               Does a contractual term such as that referred to in [point] 4.2 of the General conditions of the contract, to the effect that the bank is given the right to convert a loan granted in CHF into national currency in the event of a rise in the exchange rate of more than 10 % in relation to the value at the time when the contract was concluded, in order to prevent the bank continuing to increase its exposure to the currency risk, without a similar right being given to the consumer, fall within the scope of protection of Directive 93/13 or does it escape the assessment of unfairness?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Case F-49/07: Action brought on 23 May 2007 — R v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/49

         Action brought on 23 May 2007 — R v Commission
   (Case F-49/07)
   (2007/C 199/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: R (represented by: O. Martins, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, order the annulment of the Commission's decision of 13 February 2007 dismissing the Applicant's complaint and claim for damages for loss suffered of 8 November 2006 and the decision of 19 December 2005;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, declare the official's entire probationary period and all the measures produced in that connection void and/or order the annulment of all the preparatory and secondary measures or those which seek to extend the effect of the official's end of probationary period report of 10 January 2005 and, in particular, the so-called intermediate report of 11 August 2004, Ms X's memorandum of 13 April 2005 and Appointing Authority's act of reassignment of 3 March 2005;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, order the partial annulment of the end of probationary period report of 10 January 2005 for a member of the temporary ‘Research’ staff, finalised on 18 May 2004, relating to the comments introduced by the countersigning officer;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, order the annulment of Director General DG ADMIN's memorandum of 20 July 2005 dismissing the applicant's request for assistance, pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, of 11 November 2004;

               —

               hold the European Community liable by virtue of all of the contested decisions and measures and the Commission's unlawful conduct towards the applicant;

               —

               grant the applicant, in any event, damages for loss suffered in the amount of EUR 2 500 000;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               in so far as is necessary, call on the Commission to take part in conciliation proceedings under Article 7(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the Commission was guilty of unlawful acts, omissions and failures in the management of personnel amounting to unlawful conduct towards the applicant such as to render that institution liable. According to the applicant, the Commission misused its powers and breached numerous essential procedural requirements, the rights of the defence and the duty to state reasons. Moreover, the contested acts are vitiated by manifest errors of assessment and infringe Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and Regulation No 45/2001 (1), the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, the duty to assist laid down by Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, the principles of reasonable career prospects and sound administration. Furthermore, the applicant was a victim of psychological harassment.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case C-498/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simboulio tis Epikratias lodged on 16 September 2013 — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Αgrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Region of Thessaly

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/49

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Simboulio tis Epikratias lodged on 16 September 2013 — Agrooikosystimata EPE v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Αgrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Region of Thessaly
   (Case C-498/13)
   2013/C 344/85
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simboulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agrooikosystimata EPE

      Defendants: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon, Ipourgos Αgrotikis Anaptixis kai Trofimon, Region of Thessaly

      Question referred

   Must those who are to qualify as beneficiaries of the long-term agricultural land set-aside scheme under Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 746/96 (2) be farmers or is it sufficient if they assume the financial risk of the land entered in the scheme and are responsible for its management?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 85).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/96 of 24 April 1996 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1996 L 102, p. 19).


title: Case F-122/14: Action brought on 27 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/58

         Action brought on 27 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-122/14)
   (2015/C 007/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   On one hand, the finding of the inapplicability of Regulation 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union in that it provides for the suspension of the method of adjusting remuneration and introduces a solidarity levy, and, on the other hand, the annulment of the decision of the Council applying that solidarity levy from 1 January 2014 to the applicant’s remuneration although his remuneration is not subject to adjustment for the period between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2015.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the inapplicability of Regulation 1023/2013 in that it provides for the suspension from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015 of the method of adjusting remuneration set out in Annex XI to the Staff Regulations while reintroducing, for the same period, a collection of a ‘solidarity’ levy of 6 %;

               —

               Consequently, annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.