title: Case C-217/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d'État, Section d'Administration (Belgium) by judgment of that Court of 28 May 2002 in the case of Michel Tillieut, Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy Gregoire and Association L'Épine Blanche against Région wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de l'Environnement SA ("PAGE")

text:
C 191/20                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.8.2002
e)    In upholding the Commission in its use of the turnover                       (a)  only the right to be heard in proceedings before the
      method of assessing rent subsidy,                                                 competent authority for the recognition of another
                                                                                breeding organisation (breeding association) but
                                                                                not the right to have recognition of that other
f)    In concluding that non-contractual benefits said to be
                                                                                organisation (association) refused where recognition
      provided by Bass plc can be off-set against the price
                                                                                would endanger the preservation of the breed or
      differentials.
                                                                                jeopardise the operation or the improvement or
                                                                                selection programme of an existing organisation or
                                                                                association, and
(1) OJ C 6, 8.1.2000, p. 29.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on
    the application of Article 85(3) of categories of exclusive purchas-           (b) no right to challenge the grant of recognition by the
    ing agreements (OJ L 173, 30.6.1983, p. 5).                                         authority in the courts (the Verwaltungsgerichtshof),
                                                                                even where the existing organisation or association
                                                                                made submissions opposing recognition?
                                                                             (1) OJ L 192, p. 63.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 23 May 2002 in the
action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österrei-
             chischer Shetlandponyzuchtverband
                          (Case C-216/02)                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’État,
                                                                             Section d’Administration (Belgium) by judgment of that
                                                                             Court of 28 May 2002 in the case of Michel Tillieut,
                          (2002/C 191/32)                                    Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
                                                                             Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
                                                                             wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion
                                                                                de l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-                                            (Case C-217/02)
hof (Administrative Court) of 23 May 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 12 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the action of the Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys,                                          (2002/C 191/33)
Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen; intervener: Österreichischer
Shetlandponyzuchtverband, on the following questions:
1.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of Commission Decision
      92/353/EEC (1) of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      for the approval or recognition of organisations and                   European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État,
      associations which maintain or establish stud-books for                Section d’Administration (Belgium) (Council of State, Adminis-
      registered equidae (OJ 1992 L 192, p. 63) confer on                    trative Section) of 28 May 2002, received at the Court Registry
      existing breeding organisations (breeding associations) a              on 13 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Michel
      right to have the competent authority refuse recognition               Tillieut, Association des habitants de Louvain-La-Neuve, Willy
      of another breeding organisation (another breeding                     Gregoire and Association L’Épine Blanche against Région
      association) if recognition of that other breeding organis-            wallonne; intervener: Propreté, Assainissement, Gestion de
      ation (breeding association) would endanger the preser-                l’Environnement SA (‘PAGE’) on the following questions:
      vation of the breed or jeopardise the operation or the
      improvement or selection programme of an existing
                                                                             1.    Does the obligation imposed on Member States by
      organisation or association?
                                                                                Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
                                                                                on waste (1), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of
2.    Does Article 2(2), first indent, of the Commission                           18 March 1991 (2), to draw up one or more waste
      Decision referred to in the first question preclude the                      management plans relating in particular to ‘suitable
      application of a provision of national law which confers                     disposal sites or installations’ mean that the States to
      on an existing breeding organisation or breeding associ-                     which the Directive is addressed are required to mark on
      ation                                                                        a geographical map the precise locations of the planned
 ---pagebreak--- 10.8.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 191/21
     waste disposal sites or to determine location criteria                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     which are sufficiently precise to enable the competent                   comply fully with Directive 98/84/EC (1) of the European
     authority responsible for issuing a permit under Article 9               Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on
     of the Directive to ascertain whether the site or installation           the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of,
     is covered by the management prescribed by the plan?                     conditional access, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                              fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
2.   Does Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended by
     Directive 91/156, whether or not read in conjunction               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     with Article 9 of Directive 75/442 or with any other
     provision of the same directive, preclude a Member State
     which has not adopted within the period prescribed one
     or more waste management plans relating to ‘suitable               Pleas in law and main arguments
     disposal sites or installations’ from issuing individual
     permits to operate waste disposal installations such as
     landfills?
                                                                        In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                        directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
3.   Does Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by               each Member State to which they are addressed.
     Directive 91/156, mean that the plan or plans relating in
     particular to ‘suitable disposal sites or installations’ must
     be drawn up not later than 1 April 1993, or does it mean           Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
     that they must be drawn up within a reasonable period,             to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
     which may exceed the period prescribed for transposing             to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
     the Directive into national law?                                   or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                        Community.
(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 78 of 28.3.1991, p. 32.                                        It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                        measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
                                                                        The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                        has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
                                                                        ation of the directive at issue into Greek law or, of course,
                                                                        notified such measures to the Commission.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 320, 28.11.1998, p. 54.
Action brought on 12 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-219/02)
                        (2002/C 191/34)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        Social No 3 of Orense by order of that Court of 30 March
                                                                        2002 in the case of Rosa Garcı́a Blanco against Instituto
                                                                        Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria General de
                                                                                la Seguridad Social
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 June
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                                (Case C-225/02)
represented by Maria Patakia and Niels Bertil Rasmussen, of its
Legal Service.
                                                                                (2002/C 191/35)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
—    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
     Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,             (Social Court) No 3 of Orense of 30 March 2002, received at


title: Case T-552/08: Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Commission v Domótica

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/78

         Order of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Commission v Domótica
   (Case T-552/08) (1)

   2010/C 113/114

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-481/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public procurement — Infringement of Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36/EC — General principles of the Treaty — Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency — National rules allowing use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts relating to certain medical equipment)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/24

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-481/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public procurement - Infringement of Article 6(3) of Directive 93/36/EC - General principles of the Treaty - Principle of equal treatment and obligation of transparency - National rules allowing use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts relating to certain medical equipment)
   (2008/C 51/38)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and X. Lewis, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: S. Chala and D. Tsagkaraki, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and of the obligation to ensure effective and fair competition — National provision placing all material for medical use into categories and setting a specific maximum price for each category — Provision forming part of a legislative framework which allows use of the negotiated procedure for public supply contracts in respect of whole groups of products of that nature which are not comparable
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by retaining in force Article 7(2) of Law 2955/2001 relating to the ‘Supplies of hospitals and other health units of regional health and pension schemes and other provisions’ and Joint Ministerial Decisions DY6a/oik.38611 and DY6a/oik.38609 of 12 April 2005, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001 and has infringed general principles of the Treaty, in particular equal treatment and the obligation of transparency;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by order of that court of 13 July 1995, in the case of Beecham Group plc against Europharm of Worthing Ltd (Case C-268/95)

text:
14. 10. 95            1 EN j               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 268/13
     by individuals from obstructing the free movement of             forces of law and order have either not been present or have
     fruit and vegetables, the French Republic has failed to          declined to take any active steps to prevent destruction from
     fulfil its obligations under the common organization of          taking place, or have failed to make use of information
     the market in agricultural products and Article 30 of the        available to them in order to avert incidents . Furthermore,
     EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 5 thereof,                 the facts communicated do not show that the French
                                                                      authorities have taken the measures necessary in order
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                        effectively to penalize those responsible for the acts of
                                                                      destruction and menaces .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Article 30 of the EC Treaty must be regarded as forming part
of the common organization of the market in agricultural              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
products . The right to the free movement of goods enshrined         Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, by order of that
in the Treaty obliges Member States to adopt all appropriate          court of 13 July 1995 , in the case of Beecham Group pic
measures to ensure compliance with that principle,                                   against Europharm of Worthing Ltd
including measures against individuals who compromise the
                                                                                ( Case C-268/95 )
exercise of that right.
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/28 )
In 1993 , the Commission was forced to conclude that acts of
violence ( attacks upon, and the destruction of, shipments            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and means of transport, threats against lorry-drivers and             European Communities by an order of the High Court of
distributors of fruit and vegetables ) had ceased to be acts of       Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, of 13 July 1995 ,
an isolated and impulsive nature, as they had been in the             which was received at the Court Registry on 9 August 1995 ,
past, and had , at the prompting of certain groups such as            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Beecham Group pic
Coordination rurale, become part of an organized plan to              against Europharm of Worthing Ltd, on the following
control the supply of goods imported from other Member                questions :
States . Between April and July 1993 , shipments of Spanish
fruit and vegetables , in particular strawberries intended for        1.     that the provisions and effect of Article 47 of the
the French market or in transit on the territory of the French               Spanish Treaty of Accession to the European
Republic, were subjected to a campaign of harassment                         Communities will continue to apply to pharmaceutical
orchestrated by the Coordination rurale movement. In                         products
August and September, shipments of tomatoes from
Belgium were in turn targeted by Coordination rurale.                 1.1 imported from Spain, or
Between April and May 1994 , a fresh campaign of violence
was launched in France with a view to obstructing the free            1.2 first marketed in Spain
movement on French territory of strawberries arriving from
Spain and Morocco . In addition, the Commission received              until
information regarding various illegal activities by
organizations such as Coordination rurale, which continued                   ( a ) 7 October 1995 , or
to threaten and blackmail wholesale and retail commercial
centres offering for sale products from other Member States                  ( b ) 31 December 1995 , or
( for example, Spanish strawberries and Belgian
tomatoes ).                                                                  (c ) 7 October 1996 , or
Given that the Community is entitled, in view of the                         ( d ) 31 December 1996, or
repeated and serious infringements of the French Penal
Code which have taken place over several years ( acts of                     ( e ) the end of the third year after the particular
destruction and menaces by gangs ), to expect the French                           pharmaceutical, protected by a product patent in
authorities, in particular the forces of law and order and the                     one or more Member State(s ) of the European
judicial authorities , to take action to prevent and suppress                      Union and which was previously unpatentable in
such infringements on the basis of clear and positive                              Spain, has become patentable in Spain
instructions, by means of an appropriate, vigorous and
rapid system of police intervention putting an effective stop         stating which of such dates is applicable with regard to such
to such destruction and menaces, and by means of effective            acts .
judicial investigations undertaken with the resolute aim of
prosecuting offenders, the Commission is bound to                     2.     After the expiration of Article 47, in case where :
conclude that the response of the French authorities is
inadequate in structural terms .
                                                                      2.1 an undertaking is the proprietor ( the 'Proprietor') of a
                                                                             patent (the 'Patent') in one or more Member States of
It appears from the facts available to the Commission that,                  the European Communities ( the 'Member State') for a
all too often, and repeatedly over a number of years, the                    pharmaceutical product ( the 'Pharmaceutical');
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/ 14           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 10 . 95
2.2 . the Pharmaceutical was first put on the market in a              preliminary ruling in the case of Benincasa v . Dentalkit srl
      country by the Proprietor after that country's accession         on the following questions :
      to the EC but at a time when the Pharmaceutical could
      not be protected by a product patent in the                      ( 1 ) is a plaintiff to be regarded as a consumer within the
      country ;
                                                                              meaning of the first paragraph of Article 13 and the
                                                                              first paragraph of Article 14 of the Convention on
2.3 a third party imports the Pharmaceutical from that                        jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil
      country into the Member State;                                          and commercial matters ('the Convention ') even if his
                                                                              action relates to a contract which he concluded not for
2.4 and the patent legislation in the Member State granted                    the purpose of a trade which he was already pursuing
      the proprietor of the Patent the right to oppose by legal               but a trade to be taken up only at a future date ( here : a
      action the importation of the Pharmaceutical from that                  franchising agreement concluded for the purpose of
      country,                                                                setting up a business )?
                                                                       (2 ) If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative :
do the rules set forth in the EC Treaty concerning the free
movement of goods prevent the Proprietor from availing                        does point 1 of the first paragraph of Article 13 of the
himself of the right referred to in paragraph 2.4 above, in                   Convention ( contract for the sale of goods on
particular if:                                                                instalment credit terms) cover a franchising agreement
                                                                              which obliges the plaintiff to buy from the other party
      ( a ) the Proprietor had and continues to have a legal                  to the agreement, over a period of several ( three ) years,
            and/or ethical obligation to market and to                        the articles and goods required to equip and operate a
            continue marketing the Pharmaceutical in that                     business (without instalment credit terms having been
            country; and/or                                                   agreed ) and to pay an initial fee and, as from the second
                                                                              year of the business , a licence fee of 3 % of
      ( b ) that country's and/or EC legislation effectively                  turnover ?
            requires that, once the Pharmaceutical is put on
                                                                       ( 3 ) Does the court of a Member State specified in an
            the market in that country, the Proprietor supplies
                                                                              agreement conferring jurisdiction have exclusive
            and continues to supply sufficient quantities to
                                                                              jurisdiction pursuant to the first sentence of the first
            satisfy the needs of domestic patients; and/or
                                                                              paragraph of Article 17 of the Convention even when
                                                                              an action is inter alia for a declaration of the invalidity
      ( c ) that country's legislation grants to its authorities,
                                                                              of a franchising agreement in which the agreement
            and its authorities exercise, the right to fix the sale
                                                                              conferring jurisdiction is itself contained, the following
            price of the Pharmaceutical in that country and
            legislation prohibits the sale of the Pharmaceutical              wording ( English translation ) 'the courts in Florence
                                                                              have jurisdiction over any dispute concerning the
            at any other price; and/or
                                                                              interpretation , performance or other aspect of this
      ( d ) the price of the Pharmaceutical in that country has               contract' being separately accepted with a reference to
                                                                              Articles 1341 and 1342 of the Italian Codice Civile ?
            been fixed by its authorities at a level at which
            substantial exports of the Pharmaceutical from
            such country to the Member State are anticipated
            with the result that the economic value of the
            Patent would be significantly eroded and research          Appeal brought on 9 August 1995 by C. Kik against the
            and development for future pharmaceuticals                 order made on 19 June 1995 by the First Chamber of the
            planned by the Proprietor significantly                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
            underminded, contrary to the rationale                     Case T-107/94 between C. Kik and the Council of the
            underlying the recent introduction by the EC               European Union and the Commission of the European
            Council     of     the   Supplementary     Protection            Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
            Certificate .
                                                                                ( Case C-270/95 P )
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/30 )
                                                                       An appeal against the order made on 19 June 1995 by the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-107/94 between C. Kik and the Council of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                            European Union and the Commission of the European
Oberlandesgericht Miinchen, by order of that court of                  Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain , was
  5 May 1995 , in the case of Benincasa v. Dentalkit srl               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                          ( Case C-269/95 )                            Communities on 9 August 1995 by C. Kik, represented by
                            ( 95/C 268/29 )                            G. L. Kooy, of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16 Avenue
                                                                       Marie-Thérèse .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the                                The appellant claims that the Court should :
Oberlandesgericht Miinchen ( Higher Regional Court,
Munich ), Eighth Chamber, of 5 May 1995 , which was                    — set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance of
received at the Court Registry on 9 August 1995 , for a                      19 June 1995 dismissing as inadmissible the applicant's


title: Case C-273/07: Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/14

         Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-273/07)
   (2007/C 211/26)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
               In the alternative:

                           declare that, by failing to notify the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/51/EC of 7 September 2005 amending Annex XX to Directive 2004/17/EC and Annex VIII to Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on public procurement, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2005/51/EC expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 257, p. 127.


title: Case T-615/13: Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger — Ground for invalidity — Lack of visibility of part of a complex product — Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/26

      Judgment of the General Court of 20 January 2015 — Aic v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchangers)
      (Case T-615/13) (1)

      (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a heat exchanger - Ground for invalidity - Lack of visibility of part of a complex product - Article 4(2) and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
      (2015/C 073/34)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Aic S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, Legal Adviser)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2013 (Case R 291/2012-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between ACV Manufacturing and Aic S.A.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2)

                  Orders Aic S.A. to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case C-264/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto, (Portugal) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto, (Portugal) lodged on 29 May 2012 — Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins v Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, S.A.
   (Case C-264/12)
   2012/C 209/09
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sindicato Nacional dos Profissionais de Seguros e Afins

      Defendant: Fidelidade Mundial — Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the principle of equal treatment, from which the prohibition of discrimination derives, be interpreted as being applicable to public sector employees?

               2.

               Is the non-payment by the State of previously due holiday and Christmas allowances, by means of the Lei do Orçamento de Estado para 2012, applicable only to persons employed in the public sector or by a public undertaking, contrary to the principle of prohibition of discrimination in that it discriminates on the basis of the public nature of the employment relationship?

               3.

               Must the right to working conditions that respect dignity, laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that it is unlawful to make salary cuts without the employee’s consent, if the contract of employment is not first altered to that effect?

               4.

               Must the right to working conditions that respect dignity, laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, be interpreted as meaning that employees have the right to fair remuneration which ensures that they and their families can enjoy a satisfactory standard of living?

               5.

               As the suspension of payment of holiday and Christmas allowances is not the only possible measure and is not necessary and fundamental to the efforts to consolidate public finances in a serious economic and financial crisis in the country, is it contrary to the right laid down in Article 31(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to put at risk the standard of living and the financial commitments of employees and their families who did not reckon with a reduction in their annual income in the amount of two months’ salary?

               6.

               Is such a reduction in the amount of two months’ salary by the Portuguese State contrary to the right to working conditions that respect dignity in that it was unforeseeable and unexpected by the employees?

               7.

               Is the abovementioned Lei do Orçamento de Estado para 2012, which establishes that the rules governing suspension of the payment of the allowances referred to above cannot be derogated from by collective regulatory agreements and takes precedence over such agreements, contrary to the right to collective bargaining?


title: Case T-551/12: Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/20

         Action brought on 27 December 2012 — Coppenrath-Verlag v OHIM — Sembella (Rebella)
   (Case T-551/12)
   2013/C 55/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Coppenrath-Verlag GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: D. Pohl, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sembella GmbH (Timelkam, Austria)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 October 2012 in Case R 1681/2011-2;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Rebella’ for goods in Classes 20 and 24 — Community trade mark application No 8 498 735

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Sembella’ for goods in Classes 17, 20 and 22

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed and the application was accordingly rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case F-139/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2015 — van Oudenaarden v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Annual leave — Carry over limited to 12 days — Compensation — Pension statement — Failure to contest within the time-limit — Lack of new material facts — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/25

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2015 — van Oudenaarden v Parliament
   (Case F-139/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Annual leave - Carry over limited to 12 days - Compensation - Pension statement - Failure to contest within the time-limit - Lack of new material facts - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 254/28)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Annetje Elisabeth van Oudenaarden (Grevenmacher, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Moyse, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Ecker and N. Chemaï, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to carry over to 2013 days of leave not taken by the applicant in 2012 due to illness and a claim for damages in respect of material and non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissble.

               2.

               Ms van Oudenaarden and the European Parliament shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 46.


title: Case C-302/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS, in liquidation v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation AS (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 31 — Request for recognition and enforcement of a judgment ordering provisional or protective measures — Article 1(1) — Scope — Civil and commercial matters — Concept — Claim for compensation in respect of damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union competition law — Reductions in airport charges — Article 22(2) — Exclusive jurisdiction — Concept — Dispute in proceedings concerning companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons — Decision granting reductions — Article 34(1) — Grounds for refusal of recognition — Public policy in the State in which recognition is sought)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS, in liquidation v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation AS
   (Case C-302/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 31 - Request for recognition and enforcement of a judgment ordering provisional or protective measures - Article 1(1) - Scope - Civil and commercial matters - Concept - Claim for compensation in respect of damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union competition law - Reductions in airport charges - Article 22(2) - Exclusive jurisdiction - Concept - Dispute in proceedings concerning companies or other legal persons or associations of natural or legal persons - Decision granting reductions - Article 34(1) - Grounds for refusal of recognition - Public policy in the State in which recognition is sought))
   (2014/C 439/09)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS, in liquidation

      Defendants: Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS, Air Baltic Corporation AS

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 1(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an action such as that in the main proceedings, seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union competition law, comes within the notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision and, therefore, falls within the scope of that regulation.

               2)

               Article 22(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that an action such as that in the main proceedings, seeking legal redress for damage resulting from alleged infringements of European Union competition law, does not constitute proceedings having as their object the validity of the decisions of organs of companies within the meaning of that provision.

               3)

               Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that neither the detailed rules for determining the amount of the sums which are the subject of the provisional and protective measures granted by a judgment in respect of which recognition and enforcement are requested, in the case where it is possible to follow the line of reasoning which led to the determination of the amount of those sums, and even where legal remedies were available which were used to challenge such methods of calculation, nor the mere invocation of serious economic consequences constitute grounds establishing the infringement of public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought which would permit the refusal of recognition and enforcement in that Member State of such a judgment given in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case F-108/06: Action brought on 18 September 2006 — Diomede Basili v Commission

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/37

         Action brought on 18 September 2006 — Diomede Basili v Commission
   (Case F-108/06)
   (2006/C 261/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Tamara Diomede Basili (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the career development report (CDR) notified to the applicant on 10 November 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official of grade AD 11, took part in the DG ECFIN Joint Evaluation Committee and in the Selection Board for competition COM/PA/04 during 2004. In her action, she challenges her CDR, in so far as it did not take into account the opinion of the ‘ad hoc working party and the staff representatives' suggestions for promotion’ laid down in Article 6(3)(c) of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations (GIP). In addition to the infringement of that provision of the GIP, the applicant alleges the infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations.


20150731009616612015/C 270/182362015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150521151511Case C-236/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1510120150521EN0018151151Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Dinu Antoci v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor
   (Case C-236/15)2015/C 270/18Language of the case: Romanian
      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Constanţa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Dinu Antoci

      Respondent: Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

      Question referred

   Does Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preclude the creation, under Article 4(a) of Decree-Law No 9/2013, of an obligation to pay an environmental stamp duty in respect of second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle is registered with the competent authorities under Romanian law by its first owner in Romania and a registration certificate and registration number are issued?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-216/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen v Burgenländische Landesregierung (Free movement of goods — Intra-Community trade in equidæ — Procedure for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidæ — Article 2(2) of Decision 92/353/EEC)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-216/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen v Burgenländische Landesregierung (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Intra-Community trade in equidæ - Procedure for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidæ - Article 2(2) of Decision 92/353/EEC)
   (2005/C 6/07)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-216/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 23 May 2002, received at the Court on 12 June 2002, in the proceedings between Österreichischer Zuchtverband für Ponys, Kleinpferde und Spezialrassen and Burgenländische Landesregierung, and Österreichischer Shetlandponyzuchtverband (intervener) – the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               On a proper construction of the first indent of Article 2(2) of Commission Decision 92/353/EEC of 11 June 1992 laying down the criteria for the approval or recognition of organisations and associations which maintain or establish stud-books for registered equidæ, where one or more of the circumstances mentioned in that provision is or are proved to exist, organisations or associations already officially recognised or approved in respect of a breed of equidæ are not entitled to demand of the competent authorities that the latter should refuse to recognise or approve a new association or organisation maintaining or establishing stud-books for the same breed.

               2.

               It is not contrary to Community law for the legislation of a Member State to deprive associations and organisations already in existence, which have submitted observations opposing the recognition of a new association or organisation, of a judicial means of obtaining redress challenging the competent national authorities' decision to grant recognition.

      (1)   OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


title: Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections  Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

text:
               23.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/9

         Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
   Cases where the Commission raises no objections
   (Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty)
   (2015/C 024/02)

               Date of adoption of the decision

               11.11.2014

               Aid number

               SA.37726 (2013/N)

               Member State

               Germany

               Region

               —

               —

               Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

               Bund: Modell- und Demonstrationsvorhaben im Bereich Tierschutz im weiteren Sinne

               Legal basis

                           a)

                           Richtlinie über die Förderung von Modellvorhaben ‘Demonstrationsbetriebe im Bereich Tierschutz’

                           b)

                           § § 23 und 44 Bundeshaushaltsordnung (BHO)

                           c)

                           § § 48, 49, 49a Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (VwVfG)

                           d)

                           Richtlinie für Zuwendungsanträge auf Ausgabenbasis — AZA

               Type of measure

               Scheme

               —

               Objective

               Investments in agricultural holdings, Technical support (AGRI)

               Form of aid

               Direct grant

               Budget

               Overall budget: EUR 12 (in millions)
               Annual budget: EUR 4 (in millions)

               Intensity

               100 %

               Duration (period)

               until 31.12.2018

               Economic sectors

               Animal production, Raising of dairy cattle, Raising of other cattle and buffaloes, Raising of sheep and goats, Raising of swine/pigs, Raising of poultry, Raising of other animals

               Name and address of the granting authority

                           Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

                           Deichmanns Aue 29, 53179 Bonn

               Other information

               —

         The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm


title: Election of Presidents of Chambers

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/1

         Election of Presidents of Chambers
   (2004/C 156/02)
   At their meeting on 13 May 2004, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Rosas as President of the Third Chamber of five judges, for a period expiring on 6 October 2006, and, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, elected Mr Puissochet as President of the new Sixth Chamber, for a period expiring on 6 October 2004.


title: Case T-155/00: Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Achema against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.9.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 259/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
      the Research Directorate-General rejecting her application         —     annul the Provisional Regulation to the extent that it
      for the vacant post (ref. no COM/R/7029/99) of head of                   imposes an anti-dumping duty of EUR 5,19 per tonne on
      the Mediterranean Unit in Directorate E of that Director-                Achema;
      ate-General and, in so far as may be necessary, annul the
      decision rejecting the applicant’s complaint;
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of the              —     order the Commission to pay the costs;
      Research Directorate-General appointing another candi-
      date to the post in question;
                                                                         —     take such other or further steps as justice may require.
—     order the Commission to pay compensation, provision-
      ally quantified in the sum of EUR 100 000, for the non-
      material damage suffered by the applicant;
—     order the defendant to take all the measures necessary in
      order to comply with the judgment annulling the afore-             Pleas in law and main arguments
      said decisions, namely by appointing the applicant to the
      post in question;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          The applicant in the present case, a joint stock company
                                                                         (limited liability company) established under the laws of
                                                                         Lithuania, which is the sole producer of Urea and Ammonium
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Nitrate (UAN) in Lithuania, attacks Regulation EC
                                                                         No 617/2000, imposing provisional anti-dumping duties on
The applicant maintains that she was unquestionably the                  imports of solution of urea and ammonium nitrate originating
person best qualified, on account of both her knowledge and              in Alegeria, Belarus, Lithuania, Russia and Ukraine and
her experience, to occupy the post in question, and that the             accepting, on a provisional basis, an undertaking offered by an
decision to appoint another candidate was taken solely because           exporting producer in Algeria (1).
that other candidate was an Italian national. She pleads, on
that basis, that the appointment procedure, as provided for in
Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations of officials, was used
in order to achieve aims other than those indicated by                   In support of its action the applicant submits that the
Articles 1a and 7(1) and the third paragraph of Article 27 of            Provisional Regulation:
the Staff Regulations and, consequently, that the contested
decisions are vitiated by a misuse of powers, that they disregard
the principle of non-discrimination and that they are based on           —     Is unlawful, because the normal value calculation on
manifest errors of assessment of the facts, resulting in errors                which it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) of Regulation
of law.                                                                        384/96 (2), in that it is, at last in part, based on unofficial
                                                                               records kept by Achema for promotional reasons and not
                                                                               based on ACHEMA’s accounts prepared in compliance
                                                                               with Lithuanian Law. Regulation 384/96 provides that
                                                                               the Commission should calculate costs on the basis of
                                                                               records kept by the party under investigation.
Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Achema against the
         Commission of the European Communities                          —     Is unlawful in that the normal value calculation on which
                                                                               it is based is contrary to Article 2(5) (b) of Regulation
                                                                               384/96, in so far as the challenged Regulation fails ti give
                         (Case T-155/00)                                       any consideration to adopting The Applicant’s used cost
                                                                               allocation methods.
                        (2000/C 259/46)
                                                                         —     Contains manifest errors of appreciation of the facts, in
                   (Language of the case: English)                             as much as it draws selectively from two distinct sets of
                                                                               accounts, one of which should not have been used at all,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      in an inconsistent and illogical manner, and as a result of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     these selective drawings, the normal value has been
European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Achema, represent-                      determined in an inappropriate and unreasonable man-
ed by Alastair Sutton and James Killick of White & Case,                       ner. Moreover, one of the two sets of accounts should
Brussels.                                                                      have not relate to the investigation period.
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/26                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.9.2000
—     Is contrary to Article 253 EC.                                     (4) order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     Found a dumping margin of 7,6 % and imposed anti-
      dumping duties of EUR 5,19 per tonne on the Applicant.             Pleas in law and main arguments
      Had the above breaches of Community law not been
      made, only the minimis dumping would have been found               The pleas in law and principal arguments are the same as in
      and no duties should have been imposed.                            Case T-110/00 (2).
                                                                         (1) OJ L 56 of 1.3.2000, p. 39.
(1) OJEC L 75, of 24.3.2000, p. 3.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000, p. 30.
(2) Council Regulation EC No 384/96, of 22 December 1996, on
    protection against dumping imports from countries not members
    of the European Community (OJEC L 56, of 6.3.1996, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel
                                                                         GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV against                                              (Case T-168/00)
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2000/C 259/48)
                         (Case T-159/00)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (2000/C 259/47)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         16 June 2000 by Appel & Frenzel GmbH, of Düsseldorf
                                                                         (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Johann-Chris-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         toph Gaedertz, Rechtsanwalt, of Gaedertz Rechtsanwälte,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         Bockenheimer Landstraße 98-100, Frankfurt (Federal Republic
European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Suproco NV,
                                                                         of Germany).
represented by R.J. van Agteren, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
M.M. Slotboom, of the Rotterdam and Brussels Bars, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
                                                                         —     amend Decision R 263/1999-3 of the Third Board of
                                                                               Appeal, dated 13 April 2000, and order registration of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the mark ‘Tönnchen’ as a Community trade mark in
                                                                               accordance with the annexed illustration.
(1) declare the action brought by Suproco admissible;
(2) annul Regulation No 465/2000 (1) of 29 February 2000                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      introducing safeguard measures for imports from the
      overseas countries and territories of sugar sector products        The trade mark con-             ‘Tönnchen’      —      application
      with EC/OCT cumulation of origin;                                  cerned:                         No 624189
                                                                         Goods or service con-           Class 30 goods (mustard)
(3) rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
                                                                         cerned:
      by Suproco as a result of the safeguard measure and that
      the parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent           Decision         contested      Refusal of registration by the
      of the damage suffered by Suproco, and order that, if no           before the Board of             examiner
      such agreement is reached within a time-limit to be                Appeal:
      specified by the Court, the proceedings are to continue
      with a view to determining the quantum of the damage,              Grounds of claim:               — incorrect finding by the Board
      and order the Community in any event to pay the                                                        of Appeal that the mark has
      damages provisionally quantified and yet to be quantified,                                             no distinctive character
      alternatively to pay such compensation as the Court may
      deem fair and equitable, together with interest thereon
      from the date of the application until payment in full;


title: Case F-84/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2008 — Agim Islamaj v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Former members of the temporary staff paid from research appropriations — Promotion — Cancellation of points from the rucksack — Transfer of an official from the research part to the administration part of the general budget)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/20

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2008 — Agim Islamaj v Commission
   (Case F-84/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Former members of the temporary staff paid from research appropriations - Promotion - Cancellation of points from the ‘rucksack’ - Transfer of an official from the research part to the administration part of the general budget)
   (2008/C 260/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Agim Islamaj (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and L. Lozano Palacios, then by C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to cancel the 38,5 points from the applicant's ‘rucksack’ which he accumulated as a member of the temporary staff — Application for a declaration that Article 2 of the Commission Decision on detailed rules governing the promotion procedure for officials paid from research appropriations in the general budget is unlawful.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Islamaj to bear two thirds of his own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay, in addition to its own costs, one third of Mr Islamaj's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 33.


title: Case C-275/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland), lodged on 5 June 2014 — Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard v Minister Finansów

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland), lodged on 5 June 2014 — Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-275/14)
   (2015/C 171/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jednostka Innowacyjno-Wdrożeniowa Petrol S.C. Paczuski Maciej i Puławski Ryszard

      Defendant: Minister Finansów
   By order of 5 February 2015, the Court held that the second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1) must be construed as precluding national provisions, such as those in issue in the main proceedings, which impose excise duty on additives coming under heading 3811 of the Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, at a rate which differs from that applied to the fuel to which they are added.
   The second subparagraph of Article 2(3) of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that it may be relied on by an individual as against the competent national authority in the context of proceedings before a national court which seek to have set aside the application of national legal rules which are at variance with that provision.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.


title: Case F-21/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — da Silva v Commission (Officials — Appointment in grade — Post of director advertised before 1 May 2004 — Amendment of the Staff Regulations — Article 2 and Article 5(5) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Classification by grade pursuant to new less-favourable provisions — Principle that all officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/42

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2007 — da Silva v Commission
   (Case F-21/06) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment in grade - Post of director advertised before 1 May 2004 - Amendment of the Staff Regulations - Article 2 and Article 5(5) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Classification by grade pursuant to new less-favourable provisions - Principle that all officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects)
   (2007/C 183/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: João da Silva (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, H. Kraemer and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Party intervening in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Sulce, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision of 18 May 2005 appointing the applicant as a Director and fixing his grade at A*14 instead of the A2 indicated in the vacancy notice published in 2003, and secondly, the reinstatement of the applicant at grade A*15 (ex A2) and restoration of his career prospects with retrospective effect
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 18 May 2005, inasmuch as it classifies Mr da Silva as a director in grade A*14, step 2;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay Mr da Silva's costs;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 31.


title: Case T-69/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — IRO v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Legal basis — Investigation of the case — Definition of the market — Infringement of Article 65 CS — Fines — Extenuating circumstances — Proportionality)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — IRO v Commission
   (Case T-69/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Legal basis - Investigation of the case - Definition of the market - Infringement of Article 65 CS - Fines - Extenuating circumstances - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 034/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA (IRO) (Odolo, Italy) (represented by: A. Giardina and P. Tomassi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, subsequently by R. Sauer, R. Striani and T. Vecchi, acting as Agents, assisted by P. Manzini, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), as amended and supplemented by Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, in which the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 3,58 million on the applicant for infringement of Article 65(1) CS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Industrie Riunite Odolesi SpA (IRO) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-572/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH v Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — Article 5(3) — Concept of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Article 5(2)(b) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Reproduction for private use — Fair compensation — Non-payment — Whether included in the scope of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/18

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH v Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl
      (Case C-572/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Article 5(3) - Concept of ‘tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Article 5(2)(b) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Reproduction for private use - Fair compensation - Non-payment - Whether included in the scope of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001))
      (2016/C 211/21)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Oberster Gerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Austro-Mechana Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung mechanisch-musikalischer Urheberrechte GmbH

         Defendants: Amazon EU Sàrl, Amazon Services Europe Sàrl, Amazon.de GmbH, Amazon Logistik GmbH, Amazon Media Sàrl

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 5(3) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that a claim seeking to obtain payment of remuneration due by virtue of a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, implementing the ‘fair compensation’ system provided for in Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, falls within ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation.

         (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case C-467/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2016 — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) lodged on 22 August 2016 — Brigitte Schlömp v Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall
   (Case C-467/16)
   (2016/C 428/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Stuttgart

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brigitte Schlömp

      Defendant: Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall

      Question referred

   Is an arbitration authority under Swiss law also covered by the term ‘court’ within the scope of Articles 27 and 30 of the Lugano Convention (1) of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the 2007 Lugano Convention’)?

      (1)  2009/430/EC: Council Decision of 27 November 2008 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Declarations, OJ 2009 L 147, p. 1.


title: Case C-409/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2010 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen v Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 16 August 2010 — Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen v Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH
   (Case C-409/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen

      Respondent: Afasia Knits Deutschland GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Article 32 of Protocol 1 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation to the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, (1) if the European Commission essentially takes it upon itself to undertake the subsequent verification of proofs of origin in the exporting country, albeit with the assistance of the authorities of that country, and does it constitute a result of this verification within the meaning of that article if the results of the verification so obtained by the Commission are recorded in a report that is co-signed by a representative of the government of the exporting country?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, can the person liable for the duty in a case such as the action in the main proceedings — in which the exporting country has declared proofs of preferential origin issued during a particular period to be invalid because the origin of the goods could not be confirmed by subsequent verification even though it could not be ruled out that some export goods satisfied the origin requirements — rely on the protection of legitimate expectations on the basis of the second and third subparagraphs of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (2) and claim that the preference certificates presented in his case may have been correct and were therefore based on a correct account of the facts provided by the exporter?

      (1)  2000/483/EC: Partnership agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 (OJ 2000 L 317, p. 3)

      (2)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1


title: Order of the President of the Court of 12 November 2013 in Case E-22/13 — Íslandsbanki hf. v Gunnar V. Engilbertsson (Withdrawal of a request for an advisory opinion)

text:
               20.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/14

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

   of 12 November 2013
   in Case E-22/13
   Íslandsbanki hf. v Gunnar V. Engilbertsson
   (Withdrawal of a request for an advisory opinion)
   2014/C 81/15
   REQUEST from Hæstiréttur Íslands (the Supreme Court of Iceland) requesting the EFTA Court to give an advisory opinion pursuant to Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice,
   the President of the Court gave order on 12 November 2013, the operative part of which orders:
   Case E-22/13 to be removed from the Register.


title: Case T-576/10: Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/29

         Action brought on 14 December 2010 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission
   (Case T-576/10)
   2011/C 55/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trefilerías Quijano, S.A. (Los Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel);

               —

               in the alternative, annul, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 2 of the decision of the European Commission of 30 September 2010 amending the decision of 30 June 2010 (C(2010) 4837 final in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel) insofar as it entails an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination in not having extended to TQ the additional period for payment of the fine, and fails to state reasons; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-575/10 Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías v Commission.


title: Case C-416/04 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  11 May 2006  — The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Articles 8(1)(b), 15(3) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for Community word mark VITAFRUIT — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark VITAFRUT — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Proof of consent of the proprietor for the use of the earlier trade mark — Similarity of goods)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 May 2006 — The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-416/04 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Articles 8(1)(b), 15(3) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Application for Community word mark VITAFRUIT - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark VITAFRUT - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Proof of consent of the proprietor for the use of the earlier trade mark - Similarity of goods)
   (2006/C 165/13)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: The Sunrider Corp. (represented by: A. Kockläuner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents,)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case T-203/02 Sunrider v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the applicant for registration of the word mark ‘VITAFRUIT’ for products in classes 5, 29 and 32 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 8 April 2002 in Case R 1046/2000-1 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division refusing in part to register that mark in the opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘VITAFRUT’ for certain products in classes 30 and 32
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders The Sunrider Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 04.12.2004.


title: Case T-164/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Wauthier and Deveen v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Reports procedure — Career development review — 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise — Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 May 2007 — Wauthier and Deveen v Commission
   (Case T-164/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Reports procedure - Career development review - 2001/2002 Appraisal exercise - Action manifestly inadmissible and manifestly devoid of any legal basis)
   (2007/C 170/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Patricia Wauthier (Tubize, Belgium) and Viviane Deveen (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, and subsequently by F. Frabetti alone)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, principally, of the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise in relation to the applicants; and, alternatively, of the applicants' career development reviews for that exercise.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and, for the rest, as manifestly devoid of any legal basis.

               2.

               The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.


title: Case T-118/09: Action brought on 20 March 2009 — La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM — Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/44

         Action brought on 20 March 2009 — La Sonrisa de Carmen and Bloom Clothes v OHIM — Heldmann (BLOOMCLOTHES)
   (Case T-118/09)
   2009/C 141/94
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: La Sonrisa de Carmen SL (Vigo, Spain), Bloom Clothes SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: S. Mígel Pereira, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Harald Heldmann (Hamburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 8 January 2009 in Case R 695/2008-2 and order the registration of the mixed mark BLOOMCLOTHES as a Community trade mark in classes 25 and 35.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: La Sonrisa de Carmen SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Mixed mark consisting of the term ‘BLOOMCLOTHES’ with the figurative element of a toadstool (Application No 5 077 128) for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Harald Heldmann.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘BLOOM’ (German trade mark No 30 439 990) for goods in class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1), as replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-235/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Gerard Minihane against the Commission of the European Communities

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


title: Case T-253/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2004 — KONGRA-GEL and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2004 — KONGRA-GEL and Others v Council
   (Case T-253/04) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons)
   (2008/C 142/41)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: KONGRA-GEL and the nine other applicants whose names are shown in the annex to the judgment (represented by M. Muller QC, E. Grieves and C. Vine, Barristers, and J.G. Pierce, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by E. Finnegan and D. Canga Fano, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by R. Caudwell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, Agents, and S. Lee, Barrister)
   Re:
   First, the partial annulment of Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC (OJ 2004 L 99, p. 28), and of Regulation No 2580/2001 (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70), and, secondly, damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2004/306/EC of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC in so far as it concerns KONGRA-GEL;

               2.

                  Orders the Council to bear, in addition to its own costs, all the costs incurred by the applicants;

               3.

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case F-46/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — AD v Commission (No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/29

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 June 2011 — AD v Commission
   (Case F-46/10) (1)

   (No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 138/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AD (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to grant the applicant the household allowance on the ground that the applicant and his partner have access to legal marriage in a Member State

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11/09/2010, p. 41.