title: Case F-33/16: Action brought on 27 June 2016 — ZZ v Court of Justice

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/48

         Action brought on 27 June 2016 — ZZ v Court of Justice
   (Case F-33/16)
   (2016/C 296/61)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and an application for compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 17 July 2015 to dismiss the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision of 16 March 2016 rejecting the complaint of 16 October 2015;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation in respect of the material harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on equitable principles at EUR 60 000, by way of reparation for the applicant’s non-material harm;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case F-142/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/77

         Action brought on 16 November 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-142/12)
   2013/C 26/161
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Cambier and A. Paternostre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the Commission on the application for recognition of occupational disease, which the applicant brought under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, conferring on him a partial permanent invalidity rate of 20 % and establishing the date of stabilisation as 25 February 2010 and the compensation for his material and non-material damage.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the Commission liable for infringement of the principle that action must be taken within a reasonable period and for various faults that it, or its bodies, committed during the investigation of the application for recognition of occupational disease brought by the applicant on the basis of the Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, in so doing;

               —

               annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 11 January and 7 August 2012;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant and to his family an amount of EUR 100 000 to make good the non-material damage caused specifically to the applicant independently of his illness;

               —

               declare the Commission liable for various faults, committed by it and its bodies, which contributed to the appearance, maintenance and deterioration of the applicant’s state of health and order it, consequently, to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 798 650 to compensate him for his material loss and EUR 145 850 in respect of non-material damage and miscellaneous expenditure; that overall amount may be reduced by EUR 268 679,44, which has already been paid to the applicant under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay interest at the rate of 12 % on all the abovementioned amounts, from the month of November 2004, the date on which the applicant’s application on the basis of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations could have been resolved;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-307/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Duties Tribunal, London): Peter d'Ambrumenil, Dispute Resolution Services Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions)

text:
C 7/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
1.    Declares that, by failing to transpose Articles 5(1) to (4),          of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola,
      11(1), (2) and (3) and 19(2) and (3) of Directive 90/220/             Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
      EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      environment of genetically modified organisms, as amended by          20 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
      Commission Directive 97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapting
      to technical progress for the second time Directive 90/220, the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that       1.   Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
      directive.                                                                 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.                                added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that the exemption from VAT under that provision
                                                                                applies to medical services consisting of:
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                —     conducting medical examinations of individuals for
                                                                                employers or insurance companies,
(1) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
                                                                                —     the taking of blood or other bodily samples to test for the
                                                                                presence of viruses, infections or other diseases on behalf
                                                                                of employers or insurers, or
                                                                                —     certification of medical fitness, for example, as to fitness
                                                                                to travel,
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           where those services are intended principally to protect the
                                                                                health of the person concerned.
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                   2.   The said exemption does not apply to the following services,
                                                                                performed in the exercise of the medical profession:
                      of 20 November 2003
                                                                                —     giving certificates as to a person’s medical condition for
                                                                                purposes such as entitlement to a war pension,
in Case C-307/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Duties Tribunal, London): Peter d’Ambrumenil,
                                                                                —     medical examinations conducted with a view to the
Dispute Resolution Services Ltd v Commissioners of
                                                                                preparation of an expert medical report regarding issues of
                      Customs and Excise (1)
                                                                                liability and the quantification of damages for individuals
                                                                                contemplating personal injury litigation,
(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided
 in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions)                     —     the preparation of medical reports following examinations
                                                                                referred to in the previous indent and medical reports
                                                                                based on medical notes without conducting a medical
                            (2004/C 7/15)                                              examination,
                    (Language of the case: English)                              —     medical examinations conducted with a view to the
                                                                                preparation of expert medical reports regarding pro-
                                                                                fessional medical negligence for individuals contemplating
                                                                                litigation,
In Case C-307/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                       —     the preparation of medical reports following examinations
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (United Kingdom),                            referred to in the previous indent and medical reports
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                        based on medical notes without conducting a medical
tribunal between Peter d’Ambrumenil, Dispute Resolution                                examination.
Services Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on
the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(c) of Sixth Council Direc-
tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                      (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), acting for the President


title: Case T-580/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark NICORONO — Earlier Community word mark NICORETTE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/73

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — McNeil v OHIM — Alkalon (NICORONO)
   (Case T-580/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark NICORONO - Earlier Community word mark NICORETTE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/161
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: McNeil AB (Helsingborg, Sweden) (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor, and G. Tritton, Barrister)

      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: Alkalon ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between McNeil AB and Alkalon ApS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 August 2011 (Case R 1582/2010-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-542/15: Action brought on 19 September 2015 — Hongrie v Commission

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/35

         Action brought on 19 September 2015 — Hongrie v Commission
   (Case T-542/15)
   (2015/C 406/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: D. Bonhage and F. Quast, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision C(2015) 4979 final of 14 July 2015 on the suspension of part of the interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund for expenditure in the programs Transport, Central Hungary, West Pannon, South Great Plain, Central Transdanubia, North Hungary, North Great Plain and South Transdanubia — CCI 2007HU161PO007, CCI 2007HU161PO003, CCI 2007HU161PO004, CCI 2007HU161PO005, CCI 2007HU161PO006, CCI 2007HU161PO009, CCI 2007HU161PO011, CCI 2007HU161PO001;

               —

               order the European Commission to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging non-compliance of the Decision C(2015) 4979 final on suspension of interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund and the Cohesion Fund with Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ L 210, p. 25):

                           —

                           according to the applicant, the contested decision infringes Article 92 of Regulation (EC) 1083/2006 as the expenditure concerned is not linked to a serious irregularity;

                           —

                           the applicant further puts forward that the Hungarian authorities implemented the operational programmes in compliance with EU law. According to the applicant, the beneficiaries procured the works and services for the implementation of the programmes in accordance with the Public Procurement Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114);

                           —

                           finally, according to the applicant, availability of an asphalt mixing plant in a specified maximum distance to the site at bid submission was a proportionate technical suitability criterion in the procurement of the road construction works.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of defence:

                           —

                           according to the applicant, the contested decision infringes the right of defence of Hungary, as the Commission did not take into account material matters of law and of fact which Hungary brought to its attention prior to the contested decision;

                           —

                           furthermore, so the applicant claims, had it not been for this irregularity, the outcome of the procedure had been different and therefore, the infringement of the right of defence has to lead to the annulment of the contested decision.


title: Case T-424/12: Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Gaumina UAB v European Institute for Gender Equality

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/9

         Action brought on 26 September 2012 — Gaumina UAB v European Institute for Gender Equality
   (Case T-424/12)
   2012/C 373/15
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gaumina UAB (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: Saulius Aviža, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Institute for Gender Equality

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Institute for Gender Equality of 26 July 2012 to reject the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13;

               —

               oblige the European Institute for Gender Equality to continue the procurement process and evaluate the tender of Gaumina UAB in tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, concerning infringement of the principle of transparency and the groundless nature of the decision

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that, in carrying out tender procedure No EIGE/2012/ADM/13 concerning services devoted to communication activities, under Regulation No 1605/2002, (1) Regulation No 2342/2002, (2) Regulation No 1922/2006 (3) and the terms of the call for tenders, the European Institute for Gender Equality infringed the requirements to inform a participant of the reasons and grounds for rejection of his tender (Article 100(2) of Regulation No 1605/2002) and the principle of transparency (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002), and, relying on subjective and abstract criteria for evaluating the technical offers, it rejected the applicant’s tender and did not indicate the reasons for such a decision, or the number of points that was awarded, even after an additional request for information.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the incorrect evaluation of the applicant’s tender and the groundless nature of the decision to reject the tender

                           —

                           In the applicant’s submission, the European Institute for Gender Equality evaluated its technical offer wrongly and infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination (Article 89(1) of Regulation No 1605/2002) when it rejected its tender because the technical part thereof was accorded an insufficient number of points, although the tender met the requirements of the terms of the call for tenders and the contract’s objectives and goals. The fact that the tender was evaluated wrongly is also corroborated by the fact that the defendant did not present any grounds and explanations concerning the individual points awarded for the evaluation criteria of the technical offers and information as to how many points were awarded to the technical offer overall.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1922/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on establishing a European Institute for Gender Equality (OJ 2006 L 403, p. 9).


title: Case C-202/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Innoweb B.V. v Wegener ICT Media B.V., Wegener Mediaventions B.V.

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 30 April 2012 — Innoweb B.V. v Wegener ICT Media B.V., Wegener Mediaventions B.V.
   (Case C-202/12)
   2012/C 243/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands)

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicant: Innoweb B.V.
   Defendant:

               Wegener ICT Media B.V.,

               Wegener Mediaventions B.V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7(1) of the Directive (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the whole or a qualitatively or quantitatively substantial part of the contents of a database offered on a website (on line) is re-utilised (made available) by a third party if that third party makes it possible for the public to search the whole contents of the database or a substantial part thereof in real time with the aid of a dedicated meta search engine provided by that third party, by means of a query entered by a user in “translated” form into the search engine of the website on which the database is offered?

               2.

               If not, is the situation different if, after receiving the results of the query, the third party sends to or displays for each user a very small part of the contents of the database in the format of his own website?

               3.

               Is it relevant to the answers to Questions 1 and 2 that the third party undertakes those activities continuously and, with the aid of its search engine, carries out daily a total of 100 000 queries received from users in “translated” form and makes available the results thereof to various users in a manner such as that described above?

               4.

               Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the repeated and systematic re-utilisation of insubstantial parts of the contents of the database which conflicts with normal exploitation or unreasonably prejudices the legitimate interests of the maker of the database is not permissible, or is it sufficient for there to be repeated or systematic re-utilisation?

               5.

               If repeated and systematic re-utilisation is a requirement,

                           (a)

                           what does ‘systematic’ mean?

                           (b)

                           Is re-utilisation systematic when an automated system is used?

                           (c)

                           Is it relevant that a dedicated meta search engine is used in the manner described above?

               6.

               Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition for which it provides does not apply if a third party repeatedly makes available to individual users of a meta search engine belonging to that third party only insubstantial parts of the contents of the database in response to each query?

               7.

               If so, does that also apply if the cumulative effect of the repeated re-utilisation of those insubstantial parts is that a substantial part of the contents of the database is made available to the individual users together?

               8.

               Is Article 7(5) of the Directive to be interpreted as meaning that, if conduct which has not been approved and which is such that, as a result of the cumulative effect of re-utilisation, the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a protected database is made available to the public, the requirements of that provision are satisfied, or must it also be claimed and proved that those acts conflict with the normal exploitation of the database or unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the maker of the database?

               9.

               Is it assumed that the investment of the maker of the database is seriously prejudiced in the event of the aforementioned conduct?

      (1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.


title: Case C-482/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 October 2010 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Decision 2008/633/JHA — Access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by the European Police Office (Europol) for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences — Development of provisions of the Schengen acquis — Exclusion of the United Kingdom from the procedure for adopting the decision — Validity)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 October 2010 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-482/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Decision 2008/633/JHA - Access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by the European Police Office (Europol) for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences - Development of provisions of the Schengen acquis - Exclusion of the United Kingdom from the procedure for adopting the decision - Validity)
   2010/C 346/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson and I. Rao, Agents and by T. Ward, barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J. Schutte and R. Szostak, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, Agent), European Commission (represented by M. Wilderspin and B.D. Simon, Agents)

      Re:

   Article 35(6) EU — Annulment of Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008 concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious criminal offences (OJ 2008 L 218, p. 129) — Exclusion of the United Kingdom from the procedure for adopting that decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirement

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Case T-402/03: Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Georgios Katalagarianakis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.2.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 35/17
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Georgios                             Action brought on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria
Katalagarianakis against the Commission of the European                          Sison against the Council of the European Union
                           Communities
                                                                                (Case T-405/03)
                         (Case T-402/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/28)
                          (2004/C 35/27)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 Communities on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria Sison,
European Communities on 11 December 2003 by Georgios                       Utrecht, (Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte,
Katalagarianakis, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by           H. Schultz and D. Gurses, lawyers.
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     join the present case to the joined cases T-110/03 and
                                                                                T-150/03
—     annul the contested decision inasmuch as it fixes the
      classification at recruitment of the applicant at the first          —     annul, on the bases of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
      step of Grade A 6, reviews and fixes 1 April 2000 as the                   of 2 October 2003 (36/C/02/03): Reply adopted by
      date for his classification in Grade A 5 and restricts the                 the council on 2 October 2003 to the confirmatory
      pecuniary effects of its decision to 5 October 1995;                       application by Mr Jan Fermon (2/03) made to the Council
                                                                                by telefax on 5 Septemer 2003 registered by the General
                                                                                Secretariat of the Council on 8 September 2003, pursuant
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                      to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for
                                                                                access to documents
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs
Pleas in law and main arguments
Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases                   Pleas in law and main arguments
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered,
pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, the classifi-
cation of officials who had appealed in terms of Article 91 of             The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
the Staff Regulations. Following that procedure, the Com-                  Cases T-47/03 (1), T-110/03 (2) and T-150/03 (3) Sison/Council
mission took the contested decision concerning the applicant.              of the European Union, pursues the annulment of the defend-
                                                                           ants Decision not to allow him access to all documents
                                                                           that were the basis of the Council Decision 2003/480/EC,
In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first of all,        implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001
infringement of Article 62 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch               on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons
as the remuneration carried by that grade is payable by the                and entities with a view to combatting terrorism and repealing
mere fact of appointment and that that right may not be                    Decision 2002/974/CE (4).
waived. The applicant alleges, next, infringement of
Article 233(1) of the EC Treaty in that the Commission did not
take all the necessary measures to implement the judgments of              The grounds and main arguments are similar to those submit-
the Court of Justice of 11 January 2001 in C-389/98 P and                  ted in the abovementioned Cases, T-110/03 and T-150/03.
C-459/98 P. The applicant claims, furthermore, that the
defendant infringed Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations and
is in breach of the principle of equal treatment. Finally, the             (1 ) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 41.
applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(3) and Article 45 of           (2 ) OJ C 146, 21.6.2003, p. 39.
the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle that officials           (3 ) OJ C 213, 6.9.2003, p. 36.
should have reasonable career prospects.                                   (4 ) OJ L 160, 28.6.2003, p. 81.


title: Case T-318/00: Action brought on 10 October 2000 by Freistaat Thüringen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/38               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
In support of its arguments, the applicant puts forward the              Pleas in law and main arguments
following pleas in law:
—     Inadequate and contradictory statement of reasons.
                                                                         The contested decision of the Commission concerns a number
                                                                         of alleged cases of aid received by various undertakings in
—     Misuse of powers and infringement of Council Regulation
                                                                         connection with the establishment and operation of a CD
      (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control
                                                                         factory in Albrechts, Thuringia. In the decision the Com-
      of concentrations between undertakings (1).
                                                                         mission finds that part of that aid was misused. It states that
                                                                         that wrong use constitutes an abuse of aid, which is therefore
The applicants point out in that regard that the contested               incompatible with the EC Treaty. In Article 2 of the contested
decision relies on a number of statements of principle and of            decision the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to recover
fact which are arbitrary, or in any event unfounded. In                  the aid from more precisely specified recipients.
particular, the defendant appears to have confused the appli-
cation of the rules of competition with structural intervention
on the basis of economic policy which fall beyond its powers,
thus losing sight of the fact that the recent significant oil price      The applicant considers that it is directly and immediately
rises are in fact the result of factors altogether beyond the            concerned by the decision. On the basis of the German rules
control of undertakings.                                                 of national law, the contested decision is to be implemented
                                                                         by the applicant, in so far as undertakings established in
                                                                         Thuringia are concerned. Furthermore, the contested decision
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1.                                                 largely concerns alleged aid distributed by the Thuringian
                                                                         authorities. Moreover, the order to recover the aid relates to
                                                                         undertakings which are indirectly owned by the applicant.
                                                                         The applicant complains that the Commission partly incor-
                                                                         rectly classified the measures in question as State aid. Moreover,
                                                                         the undertakings established in Thuringia were incorrectly
Action brought on 10 October 2000 by Freistaat Thüring-                  identified as recipients of aid for the purposes of recovery.
en against the Commission of the European Communities                    CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH received no benefit from
                                                                         State resources. The applicant’s other undertakings were also
                          (Case T-318/00)                                ultimately deprived of the finance as a result of fraudulent
                                                                         dealings. This applies to Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co.
                                                                         Beteiligungs KG, Pilz Albrechts GmbH, CDA Compact Disc
                         (2000/C 355/80)                                 Albrechts GmbH and hence finally also Logistik Center
                                                                         Albrechts GmbH. Consequently, the Commission could extend
                                                                         the instruction to recover the aid only to those undertakings
                   (Language of the case: German)                        which actually received a benefit.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               In this context the applicant puts forward the following pleas
European Communities on 10 October 2000 by Freistaat                     in law in particular:
Thüringen (State of Thuringia), represented by Dr Michael
Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer,
Brussels.                                                                —     Breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Errors in establishing the facts
—     annul the contested decision;
      in the alternative:                                                —     Defective statement of reasons
      —    annul Article 1(1) of the contested decision in so far
           as aid to Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs             —     Infringement of the requirement of precision and the
           KG and Pilz Albrechts GmbH is thereby declared                      principle of proportionality
           incompatible with the common market;
      —    annul Articles 1(2) and 2(3) of the contested                 —     Unlawfulness of the instruction to recover the aid
           decision;
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to                —     Manifestly incorrect assessment of the individual elements
      pay the costs.                                                           of aid
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 355/39
—     Errors in the assessment of the legal consequences to be          The present action is for compensation for the damage which
      derived from the wrongful use of the aid granted                  the applicant has suffered, or has yet to suffer in the future, as
                                                                        a result of those penal tariffs.
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC in conjunction with
      Article 88(2) EC                                                  In the applicant’s submission, by issuing Regulation (EC)
                                                                        No 1637/98 (1) and Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 (2) otherwise
                                                                        than in conformity with the WTO and by not adapting the
                                                                        Community organisation of the market in bananas, the
                                                                        defendants have infringed the law of the World Trade Organis-
                                                                        ation. Those infringements must be taken into account in
                                                                        Community law. That follows, first, from the fact that the
                                                                        reformed organisation of the market in bananas is intended to
                                                                        transpose WTO law, and, secondly, from the very nature of
Action brought on 12 October 2000 by CD Cartondruck                     WTO law and the compulsory disputes resolution mechanism
GmbH & Co. KG against the Council of the European                       itself. The applicant further maintains that the defendants’
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                    conduct infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations, the right to engage freely in economic activity,
                                                                        the right to property and the prohibition of discrimination.
                        (Case T-320/00)                                 The applicant maintains that, in relation to all those infringe-
                                                                        ments, the Commission and the Council acted negligently.
                        (2000/C 355/81)                                 Finally, in the alternative, the applicant also makes a claim for
                                                                        compensation in respect of lawful Community conduct.
                  (Language of the case: German)                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the
                                                                            market in bananas (OJ 1998 L 210, p. 28).
An action against the Council of the European Union and                 (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
the Commission of the European Communities was brought                      laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities              Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
on 12 October 2000 by CD Cartondruck GmbH & Co. KG,                         the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
Obersulm (Germany), represented by H.-J. Niemeyer and
W. Berg, Rechtsanwälte, Brussels.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendants jointly and severally to pay
      the applicant damages of DEM 1 693 727,75 (EUR
      865 989,22) plus 8 % interest from 13 July 2000;                  Action brought on 16 October 2000 by CDA Datenträger
                                                                        Albrechts GmbH against the Commission of the European
—     declare the defendants jointly and severally liable for the                                 Communities
      damage which the applicant will suffer subsequently to
      the bringing of its action by virtue of the fact that the                                  (Case T-324/00)
      competent authorities of the United States of America
      levy higher duties on the applicant’s products than those
      which they would have been entitled to levy if, through                                    (2000/C 355/82)
      the organisation of the market in bananas, the Council
      had not infringed the law of the World Trade Organis-
      ation;                                                                               (Language of the case: German)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 16 October 2000 by CDA Daten-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         träger Albrechts GmbH, of Albrechts, Germany, represented
                                                                        by Dr Thomas Schmidt-Kötters, Rechtsanwalt, of Hengeler
                                                                        Mueller Weitzel Wirtz, Düsseldorf, Germany.
The applicant manufactures printed and processed collapsible
cardboard cartons for proprietary products, largely intended
for the US market. As a result of the trade dispute between the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Community and the USA as to the compatibility of
the EC organisation of the market in bananas with the law of            —      annul Articles 1 and 2 of the Commission’s decision of
the World Trade Organisation, the USA imposed penal tariffs,                   21 June 2000 on aid by Germany to CDA Compact Disc
which also affect the products of the applicant.                               Albrechts GmbH, Thuringia;


title: Action brought on 24 May 1997 by Albert Verleysen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-162/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 228/23
Action brought on 24 May 1997 by Albert Verleysen                      — declare that the applicant is entitled to a review of his
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       initial classification as from his appointment on
                        ( Case T-162/97 )                                   1 November 1992 pursuant to Article 31 ( 2 ) and
                                                                            Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, and to
                           ( 97/C 228/54 )                                  readjustment of his career,
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay all the costs of these
                                                                            proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 1997                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
by Albert Verleysen, residing at Denderleuuw ( Belgium),
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                relied upon in Case T-16/97 (').
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 August 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that he be reclassified
     in the higher grade of his career bracket in accordance           Action brought on 28 May 1997 by Kyriakos Skrikas
     with Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   against the European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-167/97 )
— annul the Commission's decision of 3 February 1997
     rejecting the administrative complaint made by the                                           ( 97/C 228/56 )
     applicant against the first of the contested decisions,                            (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Communities on 28 May 1997 by Kyriakos Skrikas,
                                                                       residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
Case T-16/97 I 1 ).                                                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
                                                                       of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.
O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       — annul the decision not to promote the applicant to
                                                                             grade C 3 in the course of the 1996 promotions
                                                                             procedure,
Action brought on 26 May 1997 by Carlos Gomez de la
Cruz Talegon against Commission of the European                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                             Communities
                         ( Case T-165/97)                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 97/C 228/55 )
                                                                        In the context of the 1996 promotions procedure, the
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)                        appointing authority considered 28 potential promotions
                                                                        from grade C 4 to grade C 3 amongst a total of 186
 An action against the Commission of the European                       officials eligible for promotion, including the applicant.
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 1997                    The applicant, who was not promoted, maintains that the
 by Carlos Gomez de la Cruz Talegon, residing at                        adoption of the contested decision infringed Article 45 of
 Luxembourg, represented by Victor Gomez de la Cruz, of                 the Staff Regulations and breached the principle of
 the Malaga Bar, with an address for service in                         equality of treatment and non-discrimination and the
 Luxembourg c/o Consuelo Perez Anaya, 24 Marguerite de                  applicant's legitimate rights and interests, in particular his
 Brabant .                                                              interest in being promoted to grade C 3 following his
                                                                        reassignment to the 'Minutes' Division of the Parliament's
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Directorate-General 1 .
 — annul the decision adopted by the Commission                         According to the applicant, the contested decision was
      ( appointing authority) on 30 July 1996 not to                    adopted in breach of the rules governing the promotions
      reclassify the applicant and the decision of the                  procedure . He claims that it is vitiated by a manifest error
      Commission of 3 February 1997 rejecting the                       committed in the course of consideration of the merits of
      complaint made by the applicant against that refusal,             those eligible for promotion to grade C 3 , that it is totally


title: Case T-635/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Figurative Community trade mark URB — Application for the earlier national mark URB, earlier national collective word mark URB, earlier national collective figurative mark URB and earlier international figurative marks URB — Absolute ground for refusal — No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark — Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 — No infringement of Articles 22(3) and 72(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA v OHIM — Adiguzel (URB)
   (Case T-635/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Figurative Community trade mark URB - Application for the earlier national mark URB, earlier national collective word mark URB, earlier national collective figurative mark URB and earlier international figurative marks URB - Absolute ground for refusal - No bad faith on the part of the proprietor of the Community trade mark - Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - No authorisation by the proprietor of the earlier marks - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 - No infringement of Articles 22(3) and 72(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA (Suceava, Romania) (represented by: I. Burdusel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Harun Adiguzel (Diosd, Hungary) (represented by: G. Bozocea, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2014 (Case R 1974/2013-4) concerning invalidity proceedings between Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA and Mr Harun Adiguzel.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Urb Rulmenti Suceava SA to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders Mr Harun Adiguzel to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case F-135/15: Action brought on 23 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/37

         Action brought on 23 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-135/15)
   (2016/C 007/50)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: B. Sahki, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AST/130/14 not to admit the applicant to the assessment stage, on the ground that he did not have the required level of studies and professional experience of a minimum of six years related to the nature of the work.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of 16 June 2014 [of] the President of the Competition selection board of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO), following the application of 1 April 2014;

               —

               Annul the review decision of 4 December 2014 [of] the President of the EPSO competition selection board, following the request for review of 16 June 2014;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2015 rejecting the claim of 3 March 2015, R/10/15;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-161/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/94/EC — Failure to communicate implementing measures)

text:
C 184/16                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 2.8.2003
by failing to implement correctly:                                            Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou): Application for a declaration
                                                                              that, by failing to draw up or, in any event, to communicate to
—     Article 1, Article 6(1) to (4) and Article 12(1)(d) of                  the Commission within the prescribed period (by 16 September
      Directive 92/43, and                                                    1999) the plans, outlines and summaries required under
—     Article 2, Article 4(1) and (4) and Article 6 of Directive              Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/59/EC of
      79/409,                                                                 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphe-
                                                                              nyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive
Article 23 of Directive 92/43 and Article 18 of Directive 79/                 and the EC Treaty, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
409, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, Presi-                  C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola
dent, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.                    (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann                            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann,                          2003, in which it:
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2003, in                 1.    Declares that, by failing to draw up, within the prescribed
which it:                                                                           period, summaries of inventories of equipment with PCB
                                                                                volumes of more than 5 dm3, plans for the decontamination
1.    Declares that by failing to implement in national law:                        and/or disposal of inventoried equipment and the PCBs
                                                                                contained therein, and outlines for the collection and subsequent
      Article 3(3), Article 10, Article 11 and Article 12(4) of                     disposal of equipment which is not subject to inventory, in
      Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conser-                     accordance with Articles 4(1) and 11 of Council Directive 96/
      vation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and                   59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlori-
                                                                                nated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the
      —     Article 7 and Article 8 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC                 Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
            of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and                  directive.
      —     by failing to implement correctly:
      Article 1, Article 6(1) to (4) and Article 12(1)(d) of Directive        2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      92/43, and
      —     Article 2, Article 4(1) and (4) and Article 6 of Directive        (1) OJ C 118 of 18.05.2002.
            79/409,
      —     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
            under the EC Treaty;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 19 June 2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                   in Case C-161/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                                nities v French Republic (1)
                             of 5 June 2003
in Case C-83/02: Commission of the European Commu-                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                    nities v Hellenic Republic (1)                            1999/94/EC — Failure to communicate implementing
                                                                                measures)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste
management — Articles 4(1) and 11 of Directive 96/59/EC                                                  (2003/C 184/31)
on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlori-
                    nated terphenyls (PCB/PCT))
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                            (2003/C 184/30)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-161/02, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-83/02, Commission of the European Communities                       (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda) v French Republic
(Agents: H. Støvlbæk and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic                        (Agents: G. de Bergues and E. Puisais): Application for a
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 184/17
declaration that, by failing to communicate measures trans-                   under that directive, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
posing into national law the provisions of Directive 1999/94/                 J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                           F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of                   on 5 June 2003, in which it:
the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16) or,
at any rate, by not informing the Commission fully thereof, the               1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                     comply with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament
President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward,                         and of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,                    the laws of the Member States relating to the noise emission in
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on                      the environment by equipment for use outdoors, the Hellenic
19 June 2003, in which it:                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1)
                                                                                of that directive;
1.    Declares that, by failing to communicate to the Commission of
      the European Communities the national implementing measures             2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      required by Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the
      availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2            (1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
      emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              Action brought on 9 May 2003 by Portuguese Republic
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                                         against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-190/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/33)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                              nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                           (Third Chamber)                                    Communities on 9 May 2003 by the Portuguese Republic,
                                                                              represented by L. Fernandes, acting as Agent, and C. Botelho
                            of 5 June 2003                                    Moniz and E. Maia Cadete, lawyers, with an address for service
                                                                              in Luxembourg.
in Case C-352/02: Commission of the European Commu-
                    nities v Hellenic Republic (1)                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     annul the decision of the Director-General of the Directo-
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to                       rate General for Agriculture of the European Commission,
transpose Directive 2000/14/EC — Noise emission in the                              reference No AGR 05697, of 19 February 2003, with
                              environment)                                          regard to ‘Clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section
                                                                                accounts pursuant to Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
                            (2003/C 184/32)                                         No 729/70 (1) and Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 1258/1999 (2) — Inquiry AP/2000/10 into premia for
                                                                                beef, pursuant to Regulations (EEC) No 3508/92 (3) (EEC)
                      (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                No 3887/92 (4) and (EEC) No 3886/92 (5) — Conciliation
                                                                                Procedure No 02/PT/202’;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)                            —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
In Case C-352/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent:                        Pleas in law and main arguments
N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
adopt or by failing to notify to the Commission the laws,                     —     Lack of competence of the Commission inasmuch as it
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                       infringed Article 4 of its Rules of Procedure: The Director-
with Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of                         General of the Directorate General for Agriculture does
the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws                          not have powers to adopt a measure such as the
of the Member States relating to the noise emission in the                          contested decision and he did not rely on any delegation
environment by equipment for use outdoors (OJ 2000 L 162,                           of powers enabling him so to do. Accordingly, he clearly
p. 1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                   acted ultra vires.


title: Case T-252/08: Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2009 — Tipik v Commission

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/38

         Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 November 2009 — Tipik v Commission
   (Case T-252/08) (1)

   2010/C 11/72

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case C-49/10: Action brought on 29 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/22

         Action brought on 29 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-49/10)
   2010/C 80/37
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and B. Rous Svete)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

               —

               a declaration that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC (1) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific Community legislation, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (‘the IPPC Directive’);

               —

               an order that the Republic of Slovenia should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   On the basis of the answer given by the Republic of Slovenia to the reasoned opinion, the European Commission finds that a great many installations in Slovenia still operate without valid permits, which amounts to infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8.


title: Case T-170/03: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — British American Tobacco (Investments) v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/65

      Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — British American Tobacco (Investments) v Commission
      (Case T-170/03) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/116)
      Language of the case: English
      The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.


title: Case C-493/13: Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/48

         Action brought on 12 September 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-493/13)
   2013/C 344/84
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, L. Nicolae and L. Naaber-Kivisoo, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to ensure, in the case of the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium, effective structural separation of the regulatory function from activities associated with ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium (Ministry of the Economy and Communications) is included in the scope of the concept of ‘national regulatory authority’ defined in Article 2(g) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and the provisions of Article 3 of the Framework Directive apply to it, especially in connection with the structural separation referred to in Article 3(2).
   The Commission submits that in addition to regulatory tasks the Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium of the Republic of Estonia also carries out activity associated with the ownership or control of undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services. Effective structural separation of the two functions is not ensured, which is contrary to the requirements of Article 3(2) of the Framework Directive.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.


title: Case T-128/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — HTTS v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/76

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — HTTS v Council
   (Case T-128/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 225/170
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: J. Kienzle and M. Schlingmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Bishop, Z. Kupčová and F. Naert and subsequently by: Bishop and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant (Case T-182/12: Federal Republic of Germany (represented initially by: J. Möller, T. Henze and N. Graf Vitzthum and subsequently by: J. Möller and T. Henze, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   In Case T-128/12, application for annulment of Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22), in that it listed the applicant’s name on new grounds in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 1) in so far as the applicants’ names have been listed on new grounds in Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) and, in Case T-182/12, application for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name has been maintained in the list of persons and entities and bodies whose assets have been frozen.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-128/12 and T-182/12 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Rules that, in Case T-128/12, there is no further need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 54/2012 of 23 January 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH;

               3.

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it has entered the name of HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping in Annex II to Decision 2010/413;

               4.

               Annuls Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 in so far as it concerns HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping;

               5.

               Upholds the effects of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Decision 2012/35, as regards HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping, since its entry into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union until the annulment in part of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               6.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping and to bear its own costs;

               7.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Case F-111/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 October 2013 — Nardone v Commission (Civil Service — Former official — Exposure to asbestos and to other substances — Occupational disease — Accident — Article 73 of the Staff Regulations — Medical Committee — Reasons — Action for damages — Length of the proceedings)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/31

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 2 October 2013 — Nardone v Commission
   (Case F-111/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Former official - Exposure to asbestos and to other substances - Occupational disease - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Medical Committee - Reasons - Action for damages - Length of the proceedings)
   2013/C 336/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Albert Nardone (Piétrain, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to accept the findings of the Medical Committee ruling on the applicant’s level of disability and the occupational origin of his disease.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Mr Nardone default interest for the period between 1 March 2006 and 15 July 2010 on the amount of EUR 8 448,51 at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations and applicable to the period in question, increased by two points, and the sum of EUR 3 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Nardone;

               4.

               Orders Mr Nardone to bear three quarters of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012, p. 35.


title: Case T-120/09: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v Commission (State aid — Subsidy provided for by German law for insolvent companies — Complaint for alleged breach of Community law — Rejection of the complaint — Adoption of a later decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/30

         Order of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v Commission
   (Case T-120/09) (1)

   (State aid - Subsidy provided for by German law for insolvent companies - Complaint for alleged breach of Community law - Rejection of the complaint - Adoption of a later decision - No need to adjudicate)
   2010/C 301/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Phoenix-Reisen GmbH (Bonn, Germany) and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Gerharz and A. Funke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by J. Möller and B. Klein, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 13 February 2009 in which it states its intention not to take action against the Federal Republic of Germany for alleged State aid paid by means of insolvency benefit payments.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for joinder of the present case with case T-58/10 lodged by the applicants.

               3.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Action brought on 26 May 1997 by the Netherlands Antilles against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-163/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97          I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/31
Action brought on 21 May 1997 by Luis Manuel Chaves                    the President of the Office has failed to observe the basic
Fonseca Ferrao against the Office for the Harmonization                formalities which should precede the adoption of such a
                      of the Internal Market                           measure .
                          ( Case T-159/97 )
                                                                       Lastly, the expediency of the contested decision, to which
                            ( 97/C 212/61
                                                                       the exercise of the powers conferred by Article 119 (2 ) ( a )
                (Language of the case: French)                         of the Regulation is subject, has not been justified as
                                                                       regards the hierarchical subordination of members of the
An action against the Office for the Harmonization of the              Boards of Appeal to the chairmen thereof and of those
Internal Market was brought before the Court of First                  chairmen to the Vice-President for Legal Affairs, with the
Instance of the European Communities on 21 May 1997                    result that the contested decision is vitiated by a failure to
by Luis Manuel Chaves Fonseca Ferrao, residing at                      comply with essential procedural requirements, since it is
Alicante ( Spain ), represented by Roland Assa , of the                not supported by a statement of reasons .
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 1 Rue Jean-Pierre                 (') C)J No L 11 , 14 . 1 . 1994, p . 1 .
Brasseur.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— review, pursuant to Article 179 of the Treaty and
     Article 91 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations, the legality of        Action brought on 26 May 1997 by the Netherlands
     Decision ADM-97-3 of 21 February 1997 of the                      Antilles against the Commission of the European
     President of the Office for the Harmonization of the                  Communities and the Council of the European Union
     Internal Market, in particular Article 2 thereof,                                            ( Case T-163/97 )
— declare the said decision, in particular Article 2                                                ( 97/C 212/62 )
     thereof, null and void, inasmuch as it establishes a
     twofold structure of hierarchical subordination                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
     between the members and chairmen of the Boards of
     Appeal and between those chairmen and the Office's                An action against the Commission of the European
     Vice-President for Legal Affairs,                                 Communities and the Council of the European Union was
                                                                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
— order the Office for the Harmonization of the Internal               Communities on 26 May 1997 by the Netherlands
     Market ( trade marks and designs ) to pay the costs .             Antilles, represented by P. V. F. Bos and M. M. Slotboom,
                                                                       of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11
                                                                       Rue Goethe .
The applicant, a member of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for the Harmonization of the Internal Market                The applicant claims that the Court should:
(trade marks and designs ), contests the abovementioned
decision, maintaining that the hierarchical subordination              — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 764/97 of
of the members of the Boards of Appeal to the Vice                         23 April 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
President for Legal Affairs, for which Article 2 of the                     respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
contested decision provides, is incompatible with the                       countries and territories ('),
independent status conferred on them by Article 131 of
Council Regulation ( EC ) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993                 — order the Community to pay fair and reasonable
on the Community trade mark ('the Regulation') ( ] ). That                  compensation, to be determined by the Court, with
structure of subordination between the members and
                                                                            interest thereon from 22 May 1997 until payment is
chairmen of the Boards of Appeal , and between those                        made in full , and
chairmen and the Vice-President for Legal Affairs, affects
the internal institutional equilibrium resulting from the
                                                                       — order the         Commission,          the Council  and/or the
devision of powers between the different decision-making
authorities .                                                               Community, as appropriate, to pay the costs of the
                                                                            case .
Consequently, the contested decision is vitiated by the fact
that it infringes the Regulation, in particular Articles 112           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and 131 thereof, the rules adopted for its implementation
and the general principles of law applying in the matter.              Infringement of the Treaty or of specific regulations
                                                                       implementing it and/or breach of general principles of
Furthermore, Article 119 of the Regulation does not                    Community law, in particular:
confer on the President of the Office the power to alter
the status of the members of the Boards of Appeal in a                  1 . misuse of powers: the Commission is using its powers
way which is inconsistent with their independence and                       under Article 109 of the OCT Decision to circumvent
their collegiate status . By adopting the contested decision                implementation of the review procedure in the OCT
without consulting the members of the Board, and by                         Decision ( Article 240 of the OCT Decision, in
allowing only three days for the submission of comments,                    conjunction with Article 136 of the EC Treaty );
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/32            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 7 . 97
2 . breachof the principle of legal certainty: the safeguard          — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
     measures is not sufficiently clear and precise for
     individuals to be able to ascertain their rights and
     duties;                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
3 . infringement of Article 133 ( 1 ) of the Treaty: customs          The applicants, who are officials of the Court of Auditors,
     duties on imports of goods from the OCT and charges              contest the fact that the arrangements for termination of
     having equivalent effect are to be completely                    service introduced by Council Regulation ( EC, Euratom,
     abolished;                                                       ECSC ) No 2688/95 H following the accession to the
                                                                      European Union of Austria, Finland and Sweden, in order
4 . infringement of Articles 132 ( 1 ) and 134 of the EC              to make it easier for nationals of those three new Member
     Treaty, in conjunction with Article 102 of the OCT               States to gain entry to the European civil service, are in
     Decision ;                                                       fact reserved exclusively for officials of the European
                                                                      Parliament.
5 . infringement of Article 7 ( 5 ) of the (WTO ) Agreement
     on Safeguards, together with Article 228 ( 7) of the EC
     Treaty;                                                          In support of their claims, they assert that Regulation ( EC,
                                                                      Euratom, ECSC ) No 2688/95 , cited above, is illegal . In
6 . infringement of Article 109 ( 1 ) of the OCT Decision;            their view, that regulation was adopted :
7. infringement of Article 109 ( 2 ) of the OCT Decision;             — in breach of Article 24 of the Treaty of 8 April 1965
                                                                           establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission
8 . breach of essential procedural requirements : failure to               of the European Communities (the 'Merger Treaty')
     comply with the rules of procedure of the Advisory                    and of the principle of a single European civil service,
     Committee on Safeguard Measures for the OCT;                          enshrined in Article C of the Treaty on European
                                                                           Union,
9 . infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
(') OJ No L 112 , 29 . 4 . 1997, p . 3 .                              — in disregard of the obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                           reasons, as laid down in Article 190 of the Treaty, of
                                                                           the requirement that the Staff Regulations Committee
                                                                           be consulted pursuant to Article 10 of the Staff
                                                                           Regulations of officials, and of Community legislative
                                                                           procedure . The applicants point out in that regard
Action brought on 26 May 1997 by Silvio Busacca and                        that, for the purposes of its enactment on the basis of
others against the Court of Auditors of the European                       Article 24 of the Merger Treaty, it was necessary for
                             Communities                                   the regulation in issue to be adopted by the Council
                                                                           acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the
                          ( Case T-164/97)                                 Commission. However, under Article 189a of the
                             97/C 212/63                                   Treaty, the Council can adopt an act constituting an
                                                                           amendment to the Commission's proposal only if it
                (Language of the case: French)                             acts unanimously. In addition to the fact that the text
                                                                           finally adopted is substantially different from the
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European                    proposal submitted for consultation purposes to the
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                         institutions, the Council adopted that text on the basis
Instance of the European Communities on 26 May 1997                        of a qualified majority, whilst nevertheless referring, in
 by Silvio Busacca, residing in Luxembourg, Carlo Degli                    the preamble to the regulation, to the initial proposal
Abbati, residing in Luxembourg, Pamela Rattigan, residing                  made by the Commission,
 at Mamer ( Luxembourg ), Gisela Tremont, residing at
 Schrassig ( Luxembourg ) and Cecile Vandam, residing at
                                                                      — in breach of the principle of non-discrimination or
 Bousval ( Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden
 and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                           equality. As regards this point, the applicants consider
                                                                           that, as a result of the regulation in issue, officials in
 service in Luxembourg at the#offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                            institutions other than the European Parliament are
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                            being discriminated against, both in fact and in law,
                                                                            by comparison with officials of the Parliament. That
 The applicants claims that the Court should :                              discrimination appears all the more flagrant having
                                                                            regard to the fact that, in order to benefit from the
 — annul the decision taken by the appointing authority                     effects of Regulation ( EC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 2688/
      in respect of each of the applicants on 16 September                  95 , all that any of the applicants need do is to procure
      1996 , rejecting their requests lodged on 22 August                   a transfer to the European Parliament.
      1996, 29 August 1996, 22 August 1996, 23 August
      1996 and 28 August 1996 respectively, and annul, in
      so far as may be necessary, the decision dated                   Lastly, the applicants consider that a regulation vitiated by
      28 February 1997 expressly rejecting the complaints              all the defects indicated above cannot have been adopted
      submitted by each of the applicants,                             for the purposes for which Community legislative powers