title: Case C-552/03 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2003 by Unilever Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2003 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-65/98 between Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 59/13
As a result of its failure to fulfil those obligations, Spain must               —     2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the
pay default interest, in accordance with Community rules on                            Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
own resources. According to settled case-law, there is an                              Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the
indissoluble link between the obligation to establish the                              Community’s railways (1);
Community’ own resources, the obligation to credit them to
the Commission’s account within the prescribed time-limit                        —     2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
and, finally, the obligation to pay default interest, which is                         Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council
owed for the whole period of delay and is payable regardless                           Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway
of the reason for the delay in making the entry in the                                 undertakings (2);
Commission’s account. Consequently, the reference made by
the Spanish authorities to their internal procedures, has no
influence as regards its obligation to pay default interest. In                  —     2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the
order to enable the Commission to calculate the default                                Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of
interest, Spain must communicate to it all the information                             railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of
necessary on the periods which elapsed between the entry in                            charges for the use of railway infrastructure and
the accounts, as the relevant time for the establishment of own                        safety certification (3);
resources, according to the provisions of Community law on
the collection of those resources, and the practice followed by                  and in any event by failing to notify the provisions in
the Spanish authorities. The Kingdom of Spain has failed to                      question to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has
fulfil that obligation.                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives.
                                                                           —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913 of 12 October 1992 estab-
    lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1854/89 of 14 June 1989 on the
    entry in the accounts and terms of payment of the amounts of
    import duties or export duties resulting from a customs debt (OJ       Pleas in law and main arguments
    1989 L 186, p. 1).
(3) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989
    implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of
    the Communities own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).                   The period prescribed for transposing the directives into
(4) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May                national law expired on 15 March 2003.
    2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system
    of the Communities own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).
                                                                           (1) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 26.
                                                                           (3) OJ L 75 of 15.03.2001, p. 29.
Action brought on 23 December 2003 by the Commission
     of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic
                                                                           Appeal brought on 29 December 2003 by Unilever
                         (Case C-550/03)                                   Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd,
                                                                           against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2003 by
                                                                           the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                          (2004/C 59/22)
                                                                           European Communities in case T-65/98 between Van den
                                                                           Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December                                          (Case C-552/03 P)
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Georgios Zavvos and Wouter Wils, of its Legal
Service.                                                                                (2004/C 59/23)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 October 2003
—      declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              European Communities in case T-65/98 (1) between Van den
       Directives:                                                         Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, and the
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/14                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.3.2004
Commission of the European Communities, was brought                             adequate reasons as to why Bronner is not relevant to the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      present case.
29 December 2003 by Unilever Bestfoods (Ireland) Ltd,
formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland),
represented by M. Nicholson, M. Rowe, M. Biesheuvel and                   (1) OJ C 234, 25.07.1998, p. 28.
M. de Grave, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
(a)   set aside — in its entirety or partially — the judgment of          Appeal brought on 30 December 2003 by the Panhellenic
      the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 23 October           Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters against the
      2003 in case T-65/98, excluding paragraph 3 of the                  judgment delivered on 16 October 2003 by the Fifth
      operative part of the judgment; and                                 Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities in case T-148/
                                                                          00 (1) between the Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners
(b) annul — in its entirety or partially — the Commission                 and Exporters and the Commission of the European
      Decision in Case Nos. IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/                       Communities, supported by the Hellenic Republic
      35.946 relating to a proceeding under Articles 81
      (formerly 85) and 82 (formerly 86) of the Treaty (Van
      den Bergh Foods Ltd) or, alternatively, refer the case back                                 (Case C-553/03 P)
      to the Court of First Instance; and
                                                                                (2004/C 59/24)
(c)   order the Commission to pay the Applicant’s costs at first
      instance and in this Application on appeal.
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 October 2003
                                                                          by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-148/00
                                                                          between the Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Exporters and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          supported by the Hellenic Republic, was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 December
The Appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in           2003 by the Panhellenic Union of Cotton Ginners and
law by concluding that the distribution agreements of Van den             Exporters, established in Thessaloniki (Greece), represented by
Bergh Foods Ltd (formerly HB Ice Cream Ltd) are liable to have            K. Adamantopoulos and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert, lawyers, with an
an appreciable effect on competition for the purposes of                  address for service in Luxembourg.
Article 81(1) of the Treaty and contribute significantly to a
foreclosure of the market.
                                                                          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
The Appellant also submits that the Court of First Instance                     16 October 2003 in case T-148/00 which dismissed the
erred in law when applying Article 81(3) of the Treaty. It                      original application of the Appellant before the Court of
wrongly applied the relevant burden and standard of proof                       First Instance as inadmissible and ordered the Appellant
and, in so doing, rendered its judgment inadequatly reasoned.                   to bear its own costs and those of the European Com-
                                                                                mission in relation to the action before the Court of First
                                                                                Instance;
Finally, it is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in        2.    as requested originally before the Court of First Instance,
law in two respects when applying Article 82 of the Treaty:                     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision (2000/206/
                                                                                EC) (2) on an aid scheme applied in Greece to cotton by
                                                                                the Greek Cotton Board, in so far as it only declares
—     it drew legal inferences which were unwarranted and
                                                                                Article 30(3) of Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992, and not
      inadequately reasoned and cannot, therefore, support a
                                                                                Article 30(1) as well, incompatible with the common
      conclusion as to the abusive nature of the inducement;
                                                                                market; and
      and
                                                                          3.    order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceed-
—     it failed to apply the legal principles advanced by the                   ings, and those before the Court of First Instance, be
      Court in Bronner or, in the alternative, failed to give                   borne by the European Commission.


title: Case T-451/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Fujikura v Commission

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/41

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Fujikura v Commission
   (Case T-451/14)
   2014/C 303/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fujikura Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on it in Article 2 (o) of the decision for its direct participation in the cartel between 18 February 1999 and 30 September 2001;

               —

               annul Article 2 (p) of the decision insofar as it holds Fujikura jointly and severally liable for the fine imposed on Viscas between 1 January 2005 and 28 January 2009;

               —

               order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the Commission.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by including Viscas’ parents’ independent sales in 2004 into the value of sales used for the determination of the basic amount of the fine. The applicant submits that it only participated in the alleged cartel until 30 September 2001 and that its independent sales in the course of 2004 did not form part of the cartel.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality by insufficiently taking into account the limited weight of the Japanese undertakings in the cartel when setting the basic amount of the fine. The applicant submits that since it faced significant technical and commercial entry barriers in Europe, its commitment not to compete in the European Economic Area (EEA) was immaterial for the effectiveness of the European suppliers’ customer allocation arrangements within the EEA. The Commission should therefore have differentiated more significantly the gravity factors used for the fines imposed upon the applicant (or other Asian suppliers) and upon European suppliers.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred by retaining the applicant’s parent liability for the fine imposed on Viscas also from 1 January 2005 onwards. The applicant submits that when Viscas became a full-function joint venture in January 2005, the legal links (e.g. reporting), organizational links (e.g. secondment of full time directors) and economic links (e.g. guarantees for borrowings) between Viscas and the applicant became too thin for the Commission to conclude that the applicant continued to exercise decisive influence over Viscas during the infringement period between January 2005 and January 2009.


title: Case F-85/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Sørensen v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Appointment — Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules — Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/59

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Sørensen v Commission
   (Case F-85/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Appointment - Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules - Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 346/117
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Susanne Sørensen (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list B prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, pursuant to the less favourable provisions of those regulations (Article 12 of Annex XIII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials), and annulment of the decision to cancel the promotion points acquired by the applicant as a category C official

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Ms Sørensen’s action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.05, p. 26 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the number T-335/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-461/02: Action brought on 20 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
22.2.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/15
Action brought on 20 December 2002 by the Commission                      23 December 2002 by the Commission of the European
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy                       Communities, represented by N. B. Rasmussen and D. Martin,
                          of Luxembourg                                   acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-461/02)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2003/C 44/28)
                                                                          —     Declare that, in so far as it does not, under its legislation
                                                                                and administrative practice, allow employees who work
                                                                                outside Denmark and are resident in Denmark to use for
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                             commercial or private purposes a company car registered
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                    in a neighbouring country where the undertaking of
ties on 20 December 2002 by the Commission of the European                      their employer has its principal office, the Kingdom of
Communities, represented by H. Støvlbæk and F. Simonetti,                       Denmark has failed, within the terms of Article 226 EC,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    to fulfil its obligations under the combined provisions of
                                                                                Articles 39 EC and 10 EC;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     Declare that, in so far as, under its legislation and
—     declare that, by not reporting to the Commission every                    administrative practice, it allows employees who work in
      two years on the results of the measures taken to                         another EU Member State and are resident in Denmark
      implement the programmes provided for in Council                          to use for commercial and/or private purposes a motor
      Directive 93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit                         vehicle, in particular a company car, which is registered
      carbon dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency                   in another Member State in which the undertaking of
      (SAVE) (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to                   their employer has its principal office or seat, only subject
      fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of that directive;                 to the conditions (i) that the work in the foreign
                                                                                undertaking is the main activity engaged in by the person
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     concerned and (ii) that duty is paid on that vehicle, the
                                                                                Kingdom of Denmark has failed, within the terms of
                                                                                Article 226 EC, to fulfil its obligations under the com-
                                                                                bined provisions of Articles 39 EC and 10 EC;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
In view of the period prescribed for transposing the directive,                 present proceedings.
a first report on the results of the measures taken to implement
the programmes provided for in the directive should have
been submitted to the Commission on 31 December 1996
and a second report on 31 December 1998. The Luxembourg
authorities’ lack of resources cannot be used to justify breach           Pleas in law and main arguments
of an obligation under a directive.
( 1) OJ L 237 of 22.9.1993, p. 28.                                        The Danish rules which form the basis of the present
                                                                          action were amended during the course of the administrative
                                                                          procedure. According to the ‘previous scheme’ (see Notice
                                                                          No 18 of the Ministry of Justice of 10 January 1992, which
                                                                          subsequently became Notice No 592 of the Ministry of
                                                                          Transport of 24 June 1996), Danish residents who used a
                                                                          motor vehicle that had been registered by an employer/
                                                                          undertaking outside Denmark could, as a main rule, do so
Action brought on 23 December 2002 by the Commission                      only if the vehicle was registered in Denmark or if authorisation
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                        was granted. In the event of registration being required,
                              Denmark                                     registration duty was also payable under the terms of the
                                                                          Danish Law on registration duty. Under this legislation it was
                                                                          Danish administrative practice to refuse to issue authorisations
                          (Case C-464/02)
                                                                          requested for the purpose of ‘commercial trips within Den-
                                                                          mark, including visits to clients’. Authorisation could, however,
                           (2003/C 44/29)                                 be granted for vehicle use for the purpose of driving directly
                                                                          between the Danish-German border and the place of residence
                                                                          of the person concerned, but only with regard to weekends or
                                                                          holidays. Under no circumstances was it permitted to use
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought                      company cars for private purposes, for example, outside of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                working time.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/53

         Removal from the Register of Case T-409/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/116)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 27 April 2004, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-409/03, Manuel Simões dos Santos v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.


title: Case C-376/06: Action brought on 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/16

         Action brought on 14 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-376/06)
   (2006/C 261/30)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               primarily, a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2001/42/EC;

               —

               or, in the alternative, a declaration that, by failing forthwith to inform the Commission of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2001/42/EC;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30


title: Case C-19/06: Action brought on  17 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/28

         Action brought on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic
   (Case C-19/06)
   (2006/C 60/54)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2002/89/EC of 28 November 2002 amending Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measures against the introduction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and against their spread within the Community (1) or, in any event, by not communicating the provisions in question to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2002/89 expired on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 355 of 30.12.2002, p. 45.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2003 in Case T-54/98: Aruba v Commission of the European Communities (Association of the overseas countries and territories — Imports into the Community of sugar originating in Aruba — Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 304/28               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                        13.12.2003
X. Lewis), Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) and                       1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance),
APPLICATION for annulment of Council Decision 97/803/EC
                                                                            2.   The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
of 24 November 1997 amending at mid-term, Decision 91/
                                                                                Council;
482/EEC on the association of the overseas countries and
territories with the European Economic Community (OJ 1997
L 329, p. 50), the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                 3.   The interveners are to bear their own costs.
composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 September
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                            (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
2.    The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
      Council, including those relating to the proceedings for interim
      relief;
3.    The interveners are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.02.1998.
                                                                                of 17 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-54/98: Aruba v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
                                                                            (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Imports into the Community of sugar originating in Aruba
                                                                            — Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 — Action for annulment
                      of 17 September 2003                                                         — Inadmissibility)
in Case T-36/98: Aruba v Council of the European                                                     (2003/C 304/52)
                              Union (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Association of the overseas countries and territories —
Decision 97/803/EC — Action for annulment — Inadmissi-
                                bility)
                          (2003/C 304/51)                                   In Case T-54/98: Aruba, represented by P. Bos and M. Slot-
                                                                            boom, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                   (Language of the case: English)                          T. van Rijn), supported by the Council of the European Union
                                                                            (Agents: J. Huber and G. Houttuin) and by the United Kingdom
                                                                            of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill) —
                                                                            application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 2553/97 of 17 December 1997 on rules for issuing import
In Case T-36/98: Aruba, represented by P.V.F. Bos and M.
                                                                            licences for certain products covered by CN codes 1701, 1702,
Slotboom, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            1703 and 1704 and qualifying as ACP/OCT originating
against the Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Huber
                                                                            products (OJ 1997 L 349, p. 26) — the Court of First Instance
and G. Houttuin), supported by the Commission of the
                                                                            (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
European Communities (Agents T. van Rijn and X. Lewis) and
                                                                            and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
by the Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — application
                                                                            on 17 September 2003, the operative part of which is as
for annulment of Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 Novem-
                                                                            follows:
ber 1997 amending at mid-term, Decision 91/482/EEC on the
association of the overseas countries and territories with the
European Economic Community (OJ 1997 L 329, p. 50) —
                                                                            1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has made an order on 17 September 2003, the                      2.   The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
operative part of which is as follows:                                           Commission;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 304/29
3.    The interveners are to bear their own costs.                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.                                                                       of 30 September 2003
                                                                            in Case T-182/02: Uni-Pharma Kleon Tsetis Farmakeftika
                                                                            Ergastiria Anonimos Viomichaniki kai Emporiki Eteria
                                                                            against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-
                                                                                ment — Not necessary to give judgment)
                      of 29 September 2003
in Case T-183/01: Alza Corporation v Office for Harmon-                                             (2003/C 304/54)
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                             (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Community trade mark — Opposition — Amicable settle-
                 ment — No need to adjudicate)
                          (2003/C 304/53)                                   In Case T-182/02: Uni-Pharma Kleon Tsetis Farmakeftika
                                                                            Ergastiria Anonimos Viomichaniki kai Emporiki Eteria (Uni-
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Pharma ABEE), established in Kato Kifisia, Attica (Greece),
                                                                            represented by M. Bra and E. Gioti-Manthou, lawyers, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for
                                                                            Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto, E. Joly and O. Wael-
In Case T-183/01, Alza Corporation, established in Mountain                 broeck), with BIOFARMA S.A., established in Neuilly-sur Seine
View, California (United States of America), represented by                 (France) and represented by V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López,
M. Edenborough, lawyer, with an address for service in                      lawyers, intervening before the Court of First Instance —
Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                      action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen),               Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
the intervener before the Court of First Instance being: HEXAL              (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2002 (Case R 725/
AG, established in Holzkirchen (Germany), represented by A.                 2000-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Uni-
Spranger, lawyer: ACTION brought against the decision of the                Pharma Kleon Tsetis Farmakeftika Ergastiria Anonimos Vio-
Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in                   michaniki kai Emporiki Eteria (Uni-Pharma ABEE) and
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 May                     BIOFARMA S.A. — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
2001 (Case R 321/1999-2) relating to opposition proceedings                 Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and
between Alza Corporation and Hexal AG, the Court of First                   M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,                30 December 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
made an order on 29 September 2003, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                        1.   It is no longer necessary to give judgment on the present
                                                                                application.
1.    There is no longer any need to adjudicate on this action.
                                                                            2.   The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of OHIM.
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs, as well as those of the
      defendant.
                                                                            3.   The intervener shall bear its own costs.
3.    The intervener shall bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.
(1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 July 2001 in Case T-351/99: Christian Brumter v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Obligation to provide a statement of reasons — Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates — Discretion of the appointing authority — Staff report — Request for transfer)

text:
C 331/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.11.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               sels, represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and V. Peere,
                                                                          avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                           of 12 July 2001                                Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berar-
                                                                          dis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for
in Case T-204/99: Olli Mattila v Council of the European                  annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 January 1999
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                     to reject the applicant’s application for the post mentioned in
                                                                          the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and the decision of
                                                                          27 January 1999 to appoint Gérard Zahlen to that post — the
(Access to documents — Decisions 93/731/EC and                            Court of First Instance (Single Judge: J. Azizi); B. Pastor,
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Exception relating to the
                                                                          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
protection of the public interest in the field of international           on 20 July 2001, in which it:
                    relations — Partial access)
                          (2001/C 331/32)                                 1.    Annulled the Commission’s decision to appoint Mr Zahlen to
                                                                                the post mentioned in the notice of vacancy COM/173/98 and
                                                                                the decision to reject Mr Brumpter’s application for that post;
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          2.    Ordered the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-204/99: Olli Mattila, residing in Hyvinkää, Finland,
represented by Z. Sundström and M. Kauppi, Lawyers, with an               (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
European Union (Agents: J. Aussant and M. Bauer) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: U. Wölker
and X. Lewis) — application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s and the Council’s decisions of 5 and 12 July 1999
respectively refusing the applicant access to certain documents               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
— the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
P. Lindh, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                                       of 12 July 2001
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in which it:
                                                                          in Case T-131/00: Robert Charles Schochaert v Council of
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                                     the European Union (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs together with those      (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Statement of reasons
      incurred by the Council and the Commission.                         — Comparative examination of the merits of the candidates
                                                                                — Action for annulment)
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                                (2001/C 331/34)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-131/00: Robert Charles Schochaert, an official of
                                                                          the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels,
                           of 20 July 2001                                represented by J. A. Martin, avocat, against Council of the
                                                                          European Union (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) — appli-
in Case T-351/99: Christian Brumter v Commission of the                   cation for annulment of the Council’s decision not to promote
                   European Communities (1)                               the applicant to grade B1 in the course of the 1999 promotions
                                                                          procedure — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
(Officials — Notice of vacancy — Appointment — Obli-                      composed of P. Lindh, President of the Chamber, R. Garcı́a-
gation to provide a statement of reasons — Comparative                    Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen, Adminis-
examination of the merits of the candidates — Discretion of               trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001,
the appointing authority — Staff report — Request for                     in which it:
                               transfer)
                                                                          1.    Annulled the Council’s decision not to promote the applicant to
                          (2001/C 331/33)                                       grade B1 in the course of the 1999 promotions procedure;
                    (Language of the case: French)                        2.    Ordered the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
In Case T-351/99: Christian Brumter, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-


title: Case T-224/12: Action brought on 23 May 2012 — Accorinti and Others v ECB

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/19

         Action brought on 23 May 2012 — Accorinti and Others v ECB
   (Case T-224/12)
   2012/C 243/37
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Alessandro Accorinti (Nichelino, Italy) Michael Acherer (Bressanone, Italy), Giuliano Agostinetti (Mestre, Italy), Marco Alagna (Milan, Italy), Riccardo Alagna (Milan, Italy), Agostino Amalfitano (Forio, Italy), Emanuela Amsler (Turin, Italy), Francine Amsler (Turin, Italy), Alessandro Anelli (Bellinzago Novarese, Italy), Angelo Giovanni Angione (Potenza, Italy), Giancarlo Antonelli (Verona, Italy), Giuseppe Aronica (Licata, Italy), Elisa Arsenio (Sesto San Giovanni, Italy), Pasquale Arsenio (Sesto San Giovanni, Italy), Luigi Azzano (Concordia Sagittaria, Italy), Giovanni Baglivo (Lecce, Italy), Stefano Baldoni (Matera, Italy), Giulio Ballini (Lonato, Italy), Antonino Barbara (Naples, Italy), Armida Baron (Cassola, Italy), Paolo Baroni (Rome, Italy), Lucia Benassi (Scandiano, Italy), Michele Benelli (Madignano, Italy), Erich Bernard (Lana, Italy), Flaminia Berni (Rome, Italy), Adriano Bianchi (Omegna, Italy), Massimiliano Bigi (Montecchio Emilia, Italy), Daniele Fabrizio Bignami (Milan, Italy), Sergio Borghesi (Coredo, Italy), Borghesi Srl (Cles, Italy), Sergio Bovini (Cogoleto, Italy), Savino Brizzi (Turin, Italy), Annunziata Brum (Badiola, Italy), Christina Brunner (Laives, Italy), Giovanni Busso (Caselette, Italy), Fabio Edoardo Cacciuttolo (Milan, Italy), Vincenzo Calabrò (Rome, Italy), Carlo Cameranesi (Ancona, Italy), Giuseppe Campisciano (Besana in Brianza, Italy), Allegra Canepa (Pisa, Italy), Luca Canonaco (Como, Italy), Piero Cantù (Vimercate, Italy), Fabio Capelli (Tortona, Italy), Gianluca Capello (Sanremo, Italy), Sergio Capello (Sanremo, Italy), Mario Carchini (Carrara, Italy), Filippo Carosi (Rome, Italy), Elena Carra (Rome, Italy), Claudio Carrara (Nembro, Italy), Ivan Michele Casarotto (Verona, Italy), Anna Maria Cavagnetto (Turin, Italy), Gabriele Lucio Cazzulani (Segrate, Italy), Davide Celli (Rimini, Italy), Antonio Cerigato (Ferrara, Italy), Paolo Enrico Chirichilli (Rome, Italy), Celestino Ciocca (Rome, Italy), Mariagiuseppa Civale (Milan, Italy), Roberto Colicchio (Milan, Italy), Edoardo Colli (Trieste, Italy), Nello Paolo Colombo (Casatenovo, Italy), Mario Concini (Tuenno, Italy), Marika Congestrì (S. Onofrio, Italy), Luigi Corsini (Pistoia, Italy), Maria Chiara Corsini (Genoa, Italy), Aniello Cucurullo (Civitavecchia, Italy), Roberto Cugola (Melara, Italy), Roberto Cupioli (Rimini, Italy), Giuseppe D’Acunto (Lucca — S. Anna, Italy), Stefano D’Andrea (Ancona, Italy), Nazzareno D’Amici (Rome, Italy), Michele Damelon (Gruaro, Italy), Piermaria Carlo Davoli (Milan, Italy), Iole De Angelis (Rome, Italy), Roberto De Pieri (Treviso, Italy), Stefano De Pieri (Martellago, Italy), Ario Deasti (Sanremo, Italy), Stefano Marco Debernardi (Aosta, Italy), Gianfranco Del Mondo (Casoria, Italy), Salvatore Del Mondo (Gaeta, Italy), Gianmaria Dellea (Castelveccana, Italy), Gianmarco Di Luigi (Sant’Antimo, Italy), Alessandro Di Tomizio (Reggello, Italy), Donata Dibenedetto (Altamura, Italy), Angela Dolcini (Pavia, Italy), Denis Dotti (Milan, Italy), Raffaele Duino (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy), Simona Elefanti (Montecchio Emilia, Italy), Maurizio Elia (Rome, Italy), Claudio Falzoni (Besnate, Italy), Enrico Maria Ferrari (Rome, Italy), Giuseppe Ferraro (Pago Vallo Lauro, Italy), Fiduciaria Cavour Srl (Rome, Italy), Giorgio Filipello (Caccamo, Italy), Giovanni Filipello (Caccamo, Italy), Dario Fiorin (Venice, Italy), Guido Fortunati (Verona, Italy), Achille Furioso (Agrigento, Italy), Monica Furlanis (Concordia Sagittaria, Italy), Vitaliano Gaglianese (San Giuliano Terme, Italy), Antonio Galbo (Palermo, Italy), Gianluca Gallino (Milan, Italy), Giandomenico Gambacorta (Rome, Italy), Federico Gatti (Besana in Brianza, Italy), Raffaella Maria Fatima Gerardi (Lavello, Italy), Mauro Gini (Bressanone, Italy), Barbara Giudiceandrea (Rome, Italy), Riccardo Grillini (Lugo, Italy), Luciano Iaccarino (Verona, Italy), Vittorio Iannetti (Carrara, Italy), Franz Anton Inderst (Marlengo, Italy), Hermann Kofler (Merano, Italy), Alessandro Lepore (Giovinazzo, Italy), Fabio Lo Presti (Ponte S. Pietro, Italy), Silvia Locatelli (Brembate, Italy), Nicola Lozito (Grumo Appula, Italy), Rocco Lozito (Grumo Appula, Italy), Fabio Maffoni (Soncino, Italy), Silvano Maffoni (Orzinuovi, Italy), Bruno Maironi Da Ponte (Bergamo, Italy), Franco Maironi Da Ponte (Bergamo, Italy), Michele Maironi Da Ponte (Bergamo, Italy), Francesco Makovec (Lesmo, Italy), Concetta Mansi (Matera, Italy), Angela Marano (Melito di Napoli, Italy), Bruno Marchetto (Milan, Italy), Fabio Marchetto (Milan, Italy), Sergio Mariani (Milan, Italy), Lucia Martini (Scandicci, Italy), Alessandro Mattei (Treviso, Italy), Giorgio Matterazzo (Seregno, Italy), Mauro Mazzone (Verona, Italy), Ugo Mereghetti (Brescia, Italy), authorised to act for Fulvia Mereghetti (Casamassima, Italy), Vitale Micheletti (Brescia, Italy), Giuseppe Mignano (Genoa, Italy), Fabio Mingo (Ladispoli, Italy), Giovanni Minorenti (Guidonia Montecelio, Italy), Filippo Miuccio (Rome, Italy), Fulvio Moneta Caglio de Suvich (Milan, Italy), Giancarlo Monti (Milan, Italy), Angelo Giuseppe Morellini (Besana in Brianza, Italy), Barbara Mozzambani (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy), Mario Nardelli (Gubbio, Italy), Eugenio Novajra (Udine, Italy), Giorgio Omizzolo (Baone, Italy), Patrizia Paesani (Rome, Italy), Luigi Paparo (Volla, Italy), Davide Pascale (Milan, Italy), Salvatore Pasciuto (Gaeta, Italy), Sergio Pederzani (Ossuccio, Italy), Aldo Perna (Naples, Italy), Marco Piccinini (San Mauro Torinese, Italy), Nicola Piccioni (Soncino, Italy), Mauro Piliego (Bolzano, Italy), Vincenzo Pipolo (Rome, Italy), Johann Poder (Silandro, Italy), Giovanni Polazzi (Milan, Italy), Santo Pullarà (Rimini, Italy), Patrizio Ragusa (Rome, Italy), Rosangela Raimondi (Arluno, Italy), Massimo Ratti (Milan, Italy), Gianni Resta (Imola, Italy), Giuseppe Ricciarelli (San Giustino, Italy), Enrica Rivi (Scandiano, Italy), Maria Rizescu (Pesaro, Italy), Alessandro Roca (Turin, Italy), Mario Romani (Milan, Italy), Claudio Romano (Naples, Italy), Gianfranco Romano (Pisticci, Italy), Ivo Rossi (Nettuno, Italy), Alfonso Russo (Scandiano, Italy), Iginio Russolo (San Quirinino, Italy), Francesco Sabato (Barcelona, Spain), Giuseppe Salvatore (Silvi, Italy), Luca Eudilio Sarzi Amadé, (Milan, Italy), Tiziano Scagliola (Terlizzi, Italy), Antonio Scalzullo (Avellino, Italy), Liviano Semeraro (Gavirate, Italy), Laura Liliana Serpente (Ancona, Italy), Maria Grazia Serpente (Ancona, Italy), Luciana Serra (Milan, Italy), Giuseppe Silecchia (Altamura, Italy), Paolo Sillani (Bergamo, Italy), Vincenzo Solombrino (Naples, Italy), Patrizia Spiezia (Casoria, Italy), Alberto Tarantini (Rome, Italy), Halyna Terentyeva (Concordia Sagittaria, Italy), Vincenzo Tescione (Caserta, Italy), Riccardo Testa (Cecina, Italy), Salvatore Testa (Pontinia, Italy), Nadia Toneatti (Trieste, Italy), Giuseppe Ucci (Como, Italy), Giovanni Urbanelli (Pescara, Italy), Giuseppina Urciuoli (Avellino, Italy), Amelia Vaccaro (Chiavari, Italy), Maria Grazia Valentini (Tuenno, Italy), Giancarlo Vargiu (Bologna, Italy), Salvatore Veltri Barraco Alestra (Marsala, Italy), Roberto Vernero (Milan, Italy), Vincenza Vigilia (Castello d’Agogna, Italy), Celso Giuliano Vigna (Castel San Pietro Terme, Italy), Roberto Vignoli (Santa Marinella, Italy), Georg Weger (Merano, Italy), Albino Zanichelli (Busana, Italy), Andrea Zecca (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Sutti and R. Spelta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Decision ECB 2012/153/EU of 5 March 2012 on ‘the eligibility of market debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer’;

               —

               Order the ECB to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision challenged in these proceedings provides that collateral enhancement is to be provided by the Hellenic Republic to national central banks in the form of a buy-back scheme, which constitutes a quid pluris, as well as a necessary prerequisite, in order for it to be possible for debt instruments issued or fully guaranteed by the Hellenic Republic to be regarded as eligible in the context of the Hellenic Republic’s debt exchange offer, for at least as long as such additional collateral enhancement continues to be provided by that Member State; that is a form of credit facility and is subject to the conditions of a buy-back mechanism unilaterally geared by the Governing Council of the ECB in favour of national central banks. According to the applicants, no reference is made whatsoever in the contested decision to private investors, the so-called retail buyers of Greek bonds.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements (failure to state reasons and misidentification of the legal basis).

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard, in particular, that the contested decision fails to state reasons with regard, inter alia, to why the ECB decided to accept Greek bonds, why collateral enhancement should be provided by the Hellenic Republic to all national central banks and to them alone, and why retail private investors should, on the other hand, be burdened with the consequences of the preferential treatment afforded to certain persons.

                           —

                           As regards the legal basis, the contested decision has no connection whatsoever with monetary policy or price stability, which underlies Article 127 TFEU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the Treaty or the rules of law governing its application (breach of the principle of equal treatment, breach of the principle of sound administration, breach of the principle of sovereign debt, breach of Article 123 TFEU and Article 21 of the Statute of the European Central Bank, breach of the principle of proportionality).

                           —

                           According to the applicants, it is abundantly clear that the principle of equal treatment has been infringed in the present case, since all of them are, in exactly the same way as the ECB and the national central banks, creditors of the Greek State, in that they are holders of the relevant bonds, and the harm suffered by them has, in equal measure, the same capacity to have a systemic impact on the European economy.

                           —

                           The principle of sovereign debt is also infringed, as may be inferred from the very structure of the European Union, under which each Member State is responsible, specifically, for its own debt, and the debt of an individual State cannot, in any circumstances, jeopardise finance or the stability of the single currency. The very structure of EMU, as established by the Maastricht Treaty, does not allow for the mutualisation of debt, but, on the contrary, requires each Member State to keep public finances in order and to discharge its own responsbilities.

                           —

                           By the contested decision, the ECB has therefore infringed the rules laid down by primary and secondary law concerning the grant of financial assistance in a number of respects, in breach in particular of Article 123 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misuse of powers in the present case.

                           —

                           The applicants doubt whether a decision which makes the eligibility of a Member State’s debt instruments conditional on that Member State being required to take action in the form of a buy-back scheme in favour of national central banks is consistent with the anti-inflationary objective set out in Article 127 TFEU, which forms the legal basis of the contested decision.

                           —

                           Moreover, by the contested decision, the ECB has in fact created yet another form of indirect financial assistance for the Hellenic Republic, suspending the Eurosystem’s credit quality thresholds with regard to the Greek government bonds that are covered by the collateral enhancement, thus exceeding its statutory powers, which do not envisage any form of credit facility.


title: Case T-20/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Chatziioannidou (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Pensions — Annulment at first instance of Commission decisions calculating the number of years of pensionable service — Transfer of national pension rights)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Chatziioannidou
   (Case T-20/07) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Pensions - Annulment at first instance of Commission decisions calculating the number of years of pensionable service - Transfer of national pension rights)
   (2007/C 247/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Eleni Chatziioannidou (Auderghem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case F-100/05 Chatziioannidou v Commission (not yet published in the ECR) seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-735/15: Action brought on 18 December 2015 — The Art Company B & S/OHMI — Manifatture Daddato et Laurora (SHOP ART)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/37

         Action brought on 18 December 2015 — The Art Company B & S/OHMI — Manifatture Daddato et Laurora (SHOP ART)
   (Case T-735/15)
   (2016/C 068/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain) (represented by: L. Sánchez Calderón and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manifatture Daddato SpA (Barletta, Italy), Sabina Laurora (Trani, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘SHOP ART’ — Application for registration No 12 030 921

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 3050/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-286/04: Action brought on 9 July 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/25

         Action brought on 9 July 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-286/04)
   (2004/C 251/46)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Mr R. Thompson QC and Mr S. Grodzinski Barrister with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 2 of Commission Decision 2004/451/EC on the clearance of the accounts of Member States' expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, for the 2003 financial year, notified under document number C(2004) 1699 (1), insofar as it relates to the accounts of the Rural Payments Agency, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, the Forestry Commission and the Countryside Council for Wales;

               —

               Grant a declaration that the decision to disjoin the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department accounts is unlawful to the extent that it is based on non-compliance with the sampling methodology set out in Guideline 8 issued by the Commission Directorate-General VI (Agriculture) in July 1998;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission's Decision 2004/451 was taken within the framework of Council Regulation (EC) 1258/1999 (2) on the financing of the common agricultural policy. By the contested Article 2 the Commission decided to disjoin the accounts of, among others, the paying agencies referred to by the applicant, and make those accounts the subject of a future clearance decision.
   The applicant contends that, as far as those agencies are concerned, the decision to disjoin their accounts was made on the sole or principal basis that the ‘sampling’ methodology used by the United Kingdom's National Audit Office for the purposes of preparing its audit report and certificates for the 2003 accounts, was different from the particular sampling methodology suggested for use in Guideline 8.
   In support of its application the applicant first of all submits that the Commission has no legal competence to require national certifying bodies to conform to the methodology laid down in a Guideline, where it accepts that the criteria laid down in Regulation 1258/99 as well as Regulation 1663/1995 (3), have been met. The applicant further contends that the Commission has misdirected itself in law by interpreting its own Guideline as a binding rule of law. Even were it to be decided, contrary to the applicant's submissions, that the Guideline is in principle capable of laying down a binding rule of law, the applicant argues that it is at least ambiguous in its meaning and the Commission's interpretation is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. The applicant also alleges that in the light of the history of the matter, the conduct of the Commission in seeking to impose its own interpretation of Guideline 8 is contrary to the protection of legitimate expectations. Moreover, the Commission's attempt to control the way in which the United Kingdom National Audit Office exercises its expertise is, according to the applicant, contrary to the principle of subsidiarity laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty and manifested by Article 3 paragraph 1 of Regulation 1663/95. Finally, the applicant submits that, to the extent that it may be argued by the Commission that the contested decision was based on other considerations, it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.

      (1)  OJ L 155, 30/04/2004, p. 129-133.

      (2)  OJ L 160, 26/06/1999, p. 103-112.

      (3)  Commission Regulation (REGULATION) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158, 08/07/1995, p. 6.


title: Case F-74/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Longinidis v Cedefop (Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Reassignment — Appeals Committee — Composition and internal rules of procedure — Unfair behaviour — Dismissal — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/70

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Longinidis v Cedefop
   (Case F-74/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Members of the temporary staff - Reassignment - Appeals Committee - Composition and internal rules of procedure - Unfair behaviour - Dismissal - Statement of reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers)
   (2008/C 209/127)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Pavlos Longinidis (Panorama, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, and P. Anestis, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Directorate of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) of 30 November 2005 terminating the applicant's indefinite term contract along with a series of decisions concerning inter alia Cedefop's Appeals Committee and, second, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as partly inadmissible and partly unfounded;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 237, 30.9.2006, p. 15.


title: Case C-259/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/24

         Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-259/09)
   2009/C 220/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Marghelis, P. Van den Wyngaert, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries, or in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 1 May 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 102, p. 15


title: Case C-386/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of  28 September 2005  in Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 28 September 2005 in Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH
   (Case C-386/05)
   (2006/C 10/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) of 28 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Color Drack GmbH and Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH on the following question:
   Is Article 5(1)(b) 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 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) to be interpreted as meaning that a seller of goods domiciled in one Member State who, as agreed, has delivered the goods to the purchaser, domiciled in another Member State, at various places within that other Member State, can be sued by the purchaser regarding a claim under the contract relating to all the (part) deliveries — if need be, at the plaintiff's choice — before the court of one of those places (of performance)?


title: Case C-12/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 18 January 2007 — Autostrada dei Fiori SpA, AISCAT, Associazione Nazionale dei Gestori delle Autostrade v Government of the Italian Republic, Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Ministry of the Economy and Finance and Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 18 January 2007 — Autostrada dei Fiori SpA, AISCAT, Associazione Nazionale dei Gestori delle Autostrade v Government of the Italian Republic, Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Ministry of the Economy and Finance and Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS)
   (Case C-12/07)
   (2007/C 82/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Autostrada dei Fiori SpA AISCAT, Associazione Nazionale dei Gestori delle Autostrade

      Defendants: The Government of the Italian Republic, Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, Ministry of the Economy and Finance, Azienda Nazionale Autonoma delle Strade (ANAS)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Court of Justice consider that a body, which takes the form of a joint-stock company and has the objects, functions and powers of intervention on the market which the Italian legislature has assigned to ANAS spa (as emerge — in particular — from the instrument setting up the new body, the company constitution approved by the Interministerial Decree of 18 December 2002 and the new legislation contained in subparagraphs 82 to 90 of Article 2 of the Decree-Law of 3 October 2006, converted into law with the amendments introduced by the Government's ‘maxi-amendment ’to subparagraph 1034 of Article 1 of the 2007 Financial Law), may be regarded as an undertaking, albeit a public undertaking, for the purposes of Community law, and as such subject to the rules on competition (Article 86 of the EC Treaty)?

               2.

               Is legislation such as that at issue here, even as converted by Law No 286 of 2006, which — in contrast to the substantial power of expropriation accorded to a competing public undertaking such as ANAS spa — provides for a ‘possible right to compensation’, compatible with the fundamental right to property, which is protected by Community law?

               3.

               Having regard to the legislation at issue, and in the light of the amendments introduced on its conversion into law and by the so-called ‘maxi-amendment ’to the 2007 Financial Law, does Community law and, in particular, the rules on competition and the internal market (Article 43 et seq and 81 et seq of the EC Treaty) preclude assigning to an undertaking, under full public ownership and having characteristics similar to those of ANAS spa, the administration — on a temporary basis but without stipulating an absolute time-limit — of public services or public infrastructure, without holding a competitive tendering procedure?

               4.

               In relation to public procurement procedures, does Community law preclude a Member State from extending the regime provided for by the public procurement directives to ‘vertical ’transactions set in place by private-law undertakings which have been awarded concessions, with the Member State further reserving for itself the right to appoint the committees evaluating the tenders submitted by the concessionaires?

               5.

               In so far as they accord advantages which are not accorded to private-law competitors, and in so far as they are not subject to separate accounting, do financial measures like those implemented in favour of ANAS under subparagraph 12 of Article 7 of Decree-Law No 138 of 2002 and subparagraph 1-quater of Article 7 of Decree-Law No 138 of 2002, as well as subparagraph 453 of Article 1 of the 2005 Financial Law (Law No 311 of 30 December 2004), which enable ANAS to receive loans on preferential terms from the Cassa Depositi e Prestiti spa, as well as measures similar to those contained in subparagraph 299(c) and subparagraph 453 of Article 1 of Law No 311 of 2004 (the 2005 Financial Law), and/or contained in subparagraph 2 of Article 76 of Law No 289 of 2003, under which ANAS receives substantial public contributions which are declared to be intended for infrastructure projects but stipulate no separate accounting requirement, constitute State aid which is prohibited by Article 87 et seq of the EC Treaty? In addition, does a measure such as that extending the concession period awarded to ANAS spa, enabling it to avoid the competitive tendering procedure, as well as a provision of the kind contained in subparagraphs 87 and 88 of Article 2 of Law No 286 of 2006 (converting Decree-Law No 262 of 2006), according to which ANAS spa automatically succeeds — albeit on a temporary basis but with no absolute time-limit — to private-law sub-concessions which have expired, constitute State aid?


title: Case T-204/00: Action brought on 31 July 2000 by CCBB Vervoer- en Distributiecentrum BV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/29
Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Beemsterboer                          Action brought on 31 July 2000 by CCBB Vervoer- en
Coldstore Services B.V. against the Commission of the                    Distributiecentrum BV against the Commission of the
                     European Communities                                                    European Communities
                         (Case T-203/00)                                                         (Case T-204/00)
                         (2000/C 302/69)                                                         (2000/C 302/70)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                                           (Language of the Case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 2000 by Beemsterboer                    European Communities on 31 July 2000 by CCBB Vervoer-
Coldstore Services B.V., established at Harderwijk (Nether-              en Distributiecentrum BV, having its registered office in
lands), represented by K.H.L. van Waasbergen, of Messrs Den              Rotterdam, represented by R.G. Snouckaert van Schauburg, of
Hollander Advocaten, lawyers, of Hellevoetsluis (Netherlands),           the Amsterdam Bar.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
J.-J. Soisson, of Ernst & Young SA, Rue Richard Coudenhove               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Kalergi, Kirchberg.
                                                                         Primarily:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     Annul the decision of the Commission of the European
—      annul the Commission’s decision of 11 April 2000                        Communities of 4 February 1998 whereby the Com-
       (REM 34/99) addressed to the Kingdom of the Nether-                     mission rejected the request made the Netherlands to
       lands, concerning an application for remission of import                forego, for the applicant’s benefit, post-clearance recovery
       duties;                                                                 of import duties in respect of the importation of television
                                                                               sets from Turkey in November 1993, or to grant
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  remission of those duties (Decision C(98) 241);
                                                                         —     Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                ings.
The action concerns the import declaration relating to turkey            In the alternative, should the decision not be annulled:
meat slaughtered and prepared in the kosher way. The meat
in question was the subject of an import declaration which               —     Order the Commission none the less to pay the costs of
was submitted by the applicant under Customs Code                              these proceedings (its own costs and those of the
No 1602 3111 but which should have been submitted, accord-                     applicant).
ing to the customs authorities, under Code No 0207 2710.
The customs authorities nevertheless waited for over a year              In the further alternative:
before advising the applicant to that effect and demanding               —     Order the Commission to pay its own costs.
additional import duties. The contested decision rejected
Beemsterboer’s application for remission of import duties.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claim for annulment, the applicant advances
two pleas in law:                                                        In 1993 the applicant made a declaration to the customs
                                                                         authorities in Rotterdam concerning the importation for home
—      infringement, or misapplication, of Article 239 of the            use of 640 colour television sets. In view of the fact that an
       Community Customs Code: According to the applicant,               A.TR.1 certificate issued by the Turkish authorities in respect
       the Commission, applying incorrect criteria and without           of movements of goods, as prescribed in Decision No 5/72 of
       giving any explanation for the fact that approximately            the EEC-Turkey Association Council, was submitted along
       half a year elapsed between the discovery of what the             with the declaration in respect of those television sets, no
       customs authorities claim to be an incorrect code number          import duties were due.
       and the commencement of an in-depth investigation in
       that connection, concluded that there could be no                 The customs authorities in Rotterdam informed the applicant
       question of a ‘special situation’ within the meaning of           in 1995 that it appeared from an investigation conducted by
       Article 239 of the Community Customs Code;                        the European Commission that the A.TR.1 certificate which
                                                                         the applicant had submitted in 1993 had been improperly
—      failure to comply with the obligation to provide a                issued by the Turkish authorities. Post-clearance recovery of
       statement of reasons: No reasons are given for the                the import duties was for that reason effected.
       positions adopted by the Commission; alternatively, they
       are supported by reasons which are based on errors of             The customs authorities referred the matter to the European
       fact and law. Consequently, it cannot justify the positions       Commission, which delivered a decision on 4 February 1998
       adopted by it.                                                    to the effect that repayment of the import duties recovered
                                                                         post-clearance was not justified. The present action has been
                                                                         brought against that decision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
The applicant puts forward four pleas in law.                          Action brought on 8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                                Campos against European Parliament
First plea in law: infringement of an essential procedural
requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the EC Trea-                                   (Case T-207/00)
ty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC):
Contrary to Article 16 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure,                                  (2000/C 302/71)
in the version applicable at the material time, the decision was
not signed by the Commission Member responsible and by an
authorised agent of the Commission’s Secretary-General.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Second plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regulation No 2454/93                An action against the European Parliament was brought before
laying down provisions for the implementation of the Com-              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
munity Customs Code, and infringement of the principle of              8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos, residing in Lisbon,
legal certainty:                                                       represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.
The decision was adopted on 4 February 1998, but it was not
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
until 6 June 2000, that is to say, 28 months later, that the
customs authorities brought it to the applicant’s attention.
                                                                       —     declare unlawful the ‘Rules on the implementation of the
                                                                             mobility policy’, adopted by the Bureau of the European
Third plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
                                                                             Parliament on 16 December 1998;
Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the
Community Customs Code:
                                                                       —     annul the decision communicated to him by letter
                                                                             No 107854 of 30 March 2000 by the Directorate General
Under that provision, subsequent entry in the accounts is not                of Personnel, according to which he is subject to the
to take place where the amount of duty legally owed failed to                scheme for 2000;
be entered in the accounts as a result of an error on the part of
the customs authorities which could not reasonably have been
detected by the person liable for payment, the latter for his          —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
part having acted in good faith.
This matter was the subject of lengthy discussions between the         Pleas in law and main arguments
Turkish authorities and the European Commission.
The matter has been fully resolved since 1994, inasmuch as             The applicant has brought an action under Article 91(4) of the
the Turkish authorities have brought their export provisions           Staff Regulations of the European Communities against the
into line with the wishes expressed by the Commission.                 decision communicated to him by means of letter No 107854
                                                                       of 30 March 2000 from the Directorate General for Personnel,
                                                                       of the European Parliament, according to which he is subject
Article 220 of the Community Customs Code is not confined              to the mobility scheme for the year 2000.
to errors on the part of the customs authorities of the Member
States of the European Union. Errors made by the customs
authorities of non-member countries coming within the scope            The applicant claims that the contested measure:
of agreements entered into with the European Union must
also fall under that provision.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle of legal certainty
Fourth plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Article 239 of the Community Customs Code:                                   The assurance that Lisbon would be the place where he
                                                                             would undertake the duties for which he was recruited
                                                                             was, for the applicant, an essential element in his decision
According to the applicant, the Commission has wrongly                       to accept the offer of employment made to him by the
overlooked the fact that the present constitutes an exceptional              European Parliament.
case within the meaning of Article 239 of the Community
Customs Code, as elaborated in Article 905 of Regulation
No 2454/93, resulting from circumstances in which no decep-                  The Parliament must honour the promises it made as to
tion or obvious negligence may be attributed to the persons                  the place where the applicant was to undertake the duties
concerned.                                                                   for which he was recruited if it is not to be in breach of
                                                                             the principle of legitimate expectations.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle that laws are not retroactive


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2003 in Case C-220/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) Queen's Bench Division Commercial Court): Joseph Lennox, trading as "R. Lennox & Son", v Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine (Agriculture — Animal health — Importation of ovine animals — Health certificate — National safeguard measures against Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy)

text:
C 213/2                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               6.9.2003
lands (Agent: M.A. Fierstra, and, subsequently, J. van Bakel)              Bench Division (Commercial Court) (United Kingdom), for a
European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo and H. Duintjer Teb-                 preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
bens) and by Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Aus-                court between Joseph Lennox, trading as ‘R. Lennox & Son’,
sant F. van Craeyenest and F. Anton) v European Investment                 and Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine, on the interpretation
Bank (Agents: A. Morbilli, and, subsequently, E. Uhlmann,                  of Article 9 of Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January
assisted by A. Barav): Application for annulment of the                    1991 on animal health conditions governing intra-Community
Decision of the Management Committee of the European                       trade in ovine and caprine animals (OJ 1991 L 46, p. 19) and
Investment Bank of 10 November 1999 concerning cooper-                     of various other Community provisions, the Court (Fifth
ation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Court,               Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-             President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von
chet, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),               Bahr and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                     General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and               trar, has given a judgment on 3 July 2003, in which it has
A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 ruled:
Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 July 2003, in which it:
1.    Annuls the Decision of the Management Committee of the
      European Investment Bank of 10 November 1999 concerning
      cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);
                                                                           1.    A Member State cannot prevent the importation of sheep
2.    Orders the European Investment Bank to pay the costs;                      intended for slaughter when they arrive on its territory solely on
                                                                                the ground that they are accompanied by a Model II health
3.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Parlia-                certificate established by Annex E to Council Directive 91/68/
      ment and the Council of the European Union to bear their own               EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal health conditions
      costs.                                                                     governing intra-Community trade in ovine and caprine animals,
                                                                                which is provided for trade between Member States in ovine
                                                                                and caprine animals intended for fattening.
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
                                                                           2.    At the time of the facts in the main proceedings, Community
                                                                                law, and more particularly Directive 91/68 and Article 10 of
                                                                                Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
                                                                                veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view
                                                                                to the completion of the internal market, did not preclude a
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                         Member State from imposing a requirement under national
                                                                                law such as Italian Order No 600.3/VET/340/2/8920 of
                                                                                24 December 1996, as clarified by Explanatory Memorandum
                          of 3 July 2003                                         No 600.3/340/2/73 of 3 January 1997, that, when bovine
                                                                                and ovine animals originating in France, Ireland, Portugal or
in Case C-220/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                        the United Kingdom were imported for slaughter, breeding or
the High Court of Justice (England & Wales) Queen’s                              fattening, the health certificate accompanying those animals
Bench Division Commercial Court): Joseph Lennox, trad-                           state that they had been born and raised on a farm in which no
ing as ‘R. Lennox & Son’, v Industria Lavorazione Carni                          case of Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy had been
                             Ovine ( 1)                                          registered during the previous six years.
(Agriculture — Animal health — Importation of ovine
animals — Health certificate — National safeguard
measures against Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopa-
                                thy)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                         (2003/C 213/03)
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-220/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s