title: Case T-396/11: Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/19

         Action brought on 22 July 2011 — ultra air v OHIM — Donaldson Filtration Deutschland (ultrafilter international)
   (Case T-396/11)
   2011/C 298/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ultra air GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH (Haan, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 May 2011, notified on 20 May 2011, in Case R 374/2010-4;

               —

               Reject the objection lodged on 16 March 2010 by Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH against the decision of the Cancellation Division of OHIM of 29 January 2010 in cancellation proceedings No 2880 C;

               —

               Order OHIM and Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH, should it intervene in the present case, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘ultrafilter international’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 11, 37, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 121 839

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Donaldson Filtration Deutschland GmbH

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the application is based on absolute grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the contested word mark is descriptive

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Cancellation Division’s decision was annulled and the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) and (3), 52(1)(a), 56(1)(a), 75(1) and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-34/07: Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/8

         Action brought on 30 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-34/07)
   (2007/C 69/17)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposing Directive 2003/109/EC expired on 23 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 16, 2004, p. 44.


title: Case T-144/00: Action brought on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli against the European Parliament

text:
22.7.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 211/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               — order the European Parliament to pay default interest on
                                                                              the secretarial allowances due but not paid, together with
— annul the decision of the selection board in internal                       such sum as the Court shall think fit in respect of the non-
    competition COM/TA/99 rejecting the application submit-                   material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the
    ted by the applicant;                                                     discriminatory conduct of the European Parliament in
                                                                              relation to her;
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present case, who was a category B                   Pleas in law and main arguments
member of the auxiliary staff from December 1996 and May
1997 and subsequently established as an official, contests the
                                                                          The applicant in the present case is challenging what she
refusal to accept her application to take part in internal
                                                                          regards as a reduction in her remuneration resulting from her
competition COM/TA/99 based on tests for the constitution
                                                                          transfer from the Court of Justice to the defendant institution.
of a reserve list of administrators and principal administrators.
                                                                          She claims that the reduction in question has arisen by virtue
                                                                          of the non-payment, in her new post, of the secretarial
The decision rejecting her application is based on the twofold            allowance. She is also challenging the fact that she has not
grounds that (i), contrary to point II(b) of the notice of                been promoted to grade B4 despite having been told by the
competition, she did not enter the service of the Commission              institution from which she moved that such promotion should
by no later than 1 February 1997 and (ii) that her professional           not present any problem, similar cases having previously
experience, gained in category B, could not be regarded as                arisen in the past.
being at a level equivalent to that required for the duties
performed, as described in point I of that notice.
                                                                          The applicant considers that it is more equitable to apply a
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           non-restrictive interpretation to the notion of remuneration.
                                                                          In her view, it is not appropriate to apply a literal interpretation
— the existence in the present case of a manifest error of                to the wording of Article 46 of the Staff Regulations, the
    assessment and a misuse of powers;                                    decisive factor being the amount received by the official or
                                                                          agent concerned at the end of the month.
— infringement of Articles 5 and 27 of the Staff Regulations;
    and                                                                   She also pleads infringement of Article 62 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
— the illegality of the notice of competition COM/TA/99.
Action brought on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli against
                    the European Parliament                                       Removal from the register of Case T-75/98 (1)
                         (Case T-144/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/53)
                         (2000/C 211/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 22 May 2000, the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the European Parliament was brought before              European Communities (single judge: Mr Vesterdorf) ruled that
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                   Case T-75/98 Arnaldo Lucaccioni v Commission of the
on 26 May 2000 by Daniela Tirelli, residing at Dahlem                     European Communities be removed from the register.
(Luxembourg), represented by Gaston Vogel and Ferdinand
Burg, of the Luxembourg Bar.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of September 1999 reducing her
    remuneration;


title: Case C-534/15: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare — Romania) — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms — Article 1(1) — Article 2(b) — Status of consumer — Assignment of a debt by novation of loan agreements — Contracts providing immovable property as security entered into by individuals not having any professional relationship with the new debtor company)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/11

      Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare — Romania) — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare
      (Case C-534/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms - Article 1(1) - Article 2(b) - Status of consumer - Assignment of a debt by novation of loan agreements - Contracts providing immovable property as security entered into by individuals not having any professional relationship with the new debtor company))
      (2016/C 454/22)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Judecătoria Satu Mare

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș

         Defendant: BRD Groupe Société Générale — Sucursala Judeţeană Satu Mare

         Operative part of the order

      Articles 1(1) and 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that that directive applies to a contract providing immovable property as security concluded between natural persons and a credit institution in order to guarantee the obligations that a commercial company has undertaken with respect to that credit institution for a credit agreement, where those natural persons have acted for purposes which are outside their trade, business or profession and have no functional links with that company, which is for the referring court to determine.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case T-460/09: Action brought on 16 November 2009 — CheapFlights International v OHIM — Cheapflights (Cheapflights)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/58

         Action brought on 16 November 2009 — CheapFlights International v OHIM — Cheapflights (Cheapflights)
   (Case T-460/09)
   2010/C 24/103
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CheapFlights International Ltd (Ballybofey, Ireland) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cheapflights Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 August 2009 in case R 1356/2007-4;

               —

               Dismiss the appeal filed by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division of the defendant of 22 June 2007 in opposition proceedings B 806 531;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, should it decide to become an intervener in this case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “Cheapflights”, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44

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

      Mark or sign cited: Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign “CheapFlights”, for services in classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; Irish trade mark application of the word mark “CHEAPFLIGHTS”, for services in classes 35, 39 and 43; Irish trade mark registration of the word mark “CHEAPFLIGHTS”, for services in classes 38, 41, 42 and 44; Irish trade mark registration of the figurative sign “CheapFlights.ie”, for service in classes 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43; International trade mark registration of the figurative sign “CheapFlights”, for services in classes 35, 38, 39 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Report on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking

text:
               16.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 368/17

         REPORT
   on the annual accounts of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2010, together with the replies of the Joint Undertaking
   2011/C 368/03

      INTRODUCTION

               1.

               The European Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (IMI Joint Undertaking), located in Brussels, was set up in December 2007 (1) for a period of 10 years.

               2.

               The objective of the IMI Joint Undertaking is to significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug development process, with the long-term aim that the pharmaceutical sector produces more effective and safer innovative medicines (2).

               3.

               The Founding Members of the Joint Undertaking are the European Union, represented by the European Commission, and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Any legal entity directly or indirectly supporting research and development in a Member State or in a country associated with the Seventh Framework Programme (3) may apply to become a Member of the IMI Joint Undertaking.

               4.

               The maximum EU contribution to the IMI Joint Undertaking to cover running costs and research activities is 1 billion euro, to be paid from the budget of the Seventh Framework Programme. The EU and EFPIA, as Founding Members, are to contribute equally to the running costs, each with an amount not exceeding 4 % of the total EU contribution. Other Members are to contribute to running costs in proportion to their contribution to research activities. The research companies which are members of EFPIA are to contribute to the funding of research activities through in-kind (4) contributions at least equal to the EU financial contribution (5).

               5.

               The Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously on 16 November 2009.

      STATEMENT OF ASSURANCE

               6.

               Pursuant to the provisions of Article 287(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union the Court has audited the annual accounts (6) of the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking, which comprise the ‘financial statements’ (7) and the ‘reports on the implementation of the budget’ (8) for the financial year ended 31 December 2010 and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying those accounts.

               7.

               This Statement of Assurance is addressed to the European Parliament and to the Council in accordance with Article 185(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (9).

      The Director's responsibility

               8.

               As authorising officer, the Director implements the revenue and expenditure of the budget in accordance with the Joint Undertaking's financial rules, under his own responsibility and within the limits of the authorised appropriations (10). The Director is responsible for putting in place (11) the organisational structure and the internal management and control systems and procedures relevant for drawing up final accounts (12) that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and for ensuring that the transactions underlying those accounts are legal and regular.

      The Court's responsibility

               9.

               The Court's responsibility is to provide, on the basis of its audit, a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking and the legality and regularity of the transactions underlying them.

               10.

               The Court conducted its audit in accordance with the IFAC and ISSAI (13) International Auditing Standards and Codes of Ethics. Those standards require the Court to comply with ethical requirements and to plan and perform the audit so as to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the accounts are free of material misstatement and whether the underlying transactions are legal and regular.

               11.

               The Court's audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence of the amounts and disclosures in the accounts and of the legality and the regularity of the transactions underlying them. The procedures selected, including its assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the accounts or of illegal or irregular transactions, whether due to fraud or error, depend on its audit judgement. In making those risk assessments, internal controls relevant to the entity's preparation and presentation of accounts are considered in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances. The Court's audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of the accounting policies used and the reasonableness of the accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the accounts.

               12.

               The Court considers that the audit evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for the opinions set out below.

         Opinion on the reliability of the accounts

               13.

               In the Court's opinion, the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking fairly present, in all material respects, its financial position as of 31 December 2010, the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of its financial rules.

         Opinion on the legality and the regularity of the transactions underlying the accounts

               14.

               In the Court's opinion, the transactions underlying the annual accounts of the Joint Undertaking for the financial year ended 31 December 2010 are, in all material respects, legal and regular.

               15.

               The comments which follow in paragraphs 16-24 do not call the Court's opinions into question.

      COMMENTS ON THE BUDGETARY AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

         Implementation of the budget

               16.

               The 2010 annual budget and implementation plan were not adopted by the Governing Board until 16 March 2010 (14). The late adoption was due to the Members of the Joint Undertaking taking a long time to establish and agree on the scientific priorities to be included in the annual implementation plan. This delayed the launch of the call for proposals. During the year, the Joint Undertaking launched the third call for proposals (15), finalised the negotiation process for the second call for proposals (16) and started to receive and pay cost claims from the beneficiaries participating in the projects funded under the first call for proposals (17).

               17.

               The final budget included commitment appropriations of 107 million euro and payment appropriations of 29 million euro. Additionally, 3 million euro in commitment appropriations and 78,6 million euro in payment appropriations were carried over from 2009. The utilisation rates for available commitment and payment appropriations were 6 % and 35 % respectively, 98,6 million euro in commitment appropriations were carried over to 2011 and 64 million euro of payment appropriations carried over from 2009 were cancelled at the end of the year. The low implementation of the budget is also reflected in the cash balance, which stood at 71 million euro at the end of the year (65 % of the available payment appropriations in 2010).

         Internal control systems

               18.

               The Joint Undertaking has not completely implemented its internal controls and financial information systems during 2010. In particular, further work is needed in establishing and documenting the accounting procedures and controls relating to the closure of the accounts and the recognition and measurement of the operational expenditure. These are important elements of the Joint Undertaking's system of internal control.

               19.

               Furthermore, at the end of 2010 the underlying business processes had not yet been formalised and had not been validated by the Accounting Officer as required by the Joint Undertaking's financial rules.

               20.

               The limited review of the IT controls showed that the Joint Undertaking has an adequate level of IT governance and practice for its size and mission, but the formalisation of policies and procedures, however, is lagging behind in certain areas (18).

               21.

               The ex-post audit strategy (19) of the Joint Undertaking was adopted by a Governing Board decision on 14 December 2010 and is a key control for assessing the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. This strategy envisages that the audit population (20) will increase progressively as from 2011 when projects relating to several calls will be running in parallel and cost claims for these projects will be submitted.

         Methodology for evaluating contributions in kind

               22.

               The methodology for evaluating contributions in-kind has not yet been approved by the Governing Board (21) as it proved difficult for an agreement to be reached. As a consequence, the EFPIA members were unable to report on the costs incurred during the first reporting period as established in the grant agreements.

      OTHER MATTERS

         Internal audit function and the Commission's Internal Audit Service

               23.

               In its previous report, the Court pointed out the need to clarify the provision in the Statutes of the Joint Undertaking on the role of the Commission's internal auditor. Although the Joint Undertaking's financial rules have not yet been amended to include the provision referring to the powers of the Commission's internal auditor, the Commission and the Joint Undertaking have taken action to ensure that the respective operational roles of the Commission's Internal Audit Service and the Joint Undertaking's internal auditing function are clearly defined.

         Lack of host State agreement

               24.

               As previously reported by the Court, according to the Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking, a host agreement should be concluded between the Joint Undertaking and Belgium concerning office accommodation, privileges and immunities and other support to be provided by Belgium. However, as at the end of 2010, no such agreement had been signed.

      This Report was adopted by Chamber IV, headed by Mr Igors LUDBORŽS, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 25 October 2011.

            For the Court of Auditors

         Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA

            President

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (OJ L 30, 4.2.2008, p. 38).

      (2)  The Annex summarises the Joint Undertaking's competences, activities and available resources. It is presented for information purposes.

      (3)  The Seventh Framework Programme, adopted by Decision No 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, brings all the research-related EU initiatives together under one roof and plays a crucial role in reaching the goals of growth, competitiveness and employment. It is also a key pillar for the European Research Area.

      (4)  According to Article 11(4) of the Annex to the Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking, the in-kind contributions are ‘non-monetary contributions by the research based pharmaceutical companies that are members of EFPIA with resources such as personnel, equipment, consumables, etc.’

      (5)  According to Article 11(5) of the Annex to the Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking, ‘the participating research based pharmaceutical companies that are members of EFPIA shall not be eligible to receive any financial support from the IMI Joint Undertaking for any activity’.

      (6)  These accounts are accompanied by a report on the budgetary and financial management during the year which gives, inter alia, an account of the rate of implementation of the appropriations with summary information on the transfers of appropriations among the various budget items.

      (7)  The financial statements include the balance sheet and the economic outturn account, the cash flow table, the statement of changes in net assets and the annex to the financial statements, which includes a description of the main accounting policies and other explanatory information.

      (8)  The budget implementation reports comprise the budget outturn account and its annex.

      (9)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1.

      (10)  Article 33 of Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002 (OJ L 357, 31.12.2002, p. 72).

      (11)  Article 38 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002.

      (12)  The rules concerning the presentation of the accounts and accounting by EU bodies are laid down in Chapter 1 of Title VII of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2343/2002, as last amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 652/2008 (OJ L 181, 10.7.2008, p. 23), and are integrated as such in the financial rules of the Joint Undertaking.

      (13)  International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions (ISSAI).

      (14)  The budget rule 1/12 was used to make payments until budget adoption.

      (15)  The third call for proposals was launched on 22 October 2010.

      (16)  The second call for proposals was launched on 27 November 2009.

      (17)  The first call for proposals was launched on 30 April 2008 and was managed by the Commission.

      (18)  Namely: (a) incomplete strategic IT planning and monitoring cycle; (b) lack of formal security policies and rules; (c) incomplete IT Risk management; and (d) lack of formal Business Continuity Plan (BCP) and complete and tested Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP).

      (19)  Article 12(4) of the Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking states that ‘the IMI Joint Undertaking shall carry out on-the-spot checks and financial audits among the participants of the Research Activities funded by the IMI Joint Undertaking’.

      (20)  The audit population is represented by cost claims received from project beneficiaries based on eligible costs and from EFPIA members based on in-kind contributions. The value of the cost claims corresponding to 2010 is estimated at 24,6 million euro.

      (21)  Article 11(4) of the Annex to the Council Regulation setting up the Joint Undertaking stipulates that ‘the methodology for evaluating contributions in-kind shall be defined in the internal rules and procedures of the Joint Undertaking, in compliance with its financial rules and based on the rules of participation of the Seventh Framework Programme’.

      ANNEX

         Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (Brussels)

         Competences and activities

                     Areas of Union competence deriving from the Treaty

                     (Extracts from Articles 187 and 188 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

                  Article 187:
                  The Union may set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of Union research, technological development and demonstration programmes.
                  Article 188:
                  The Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the provisions referred to in Article 187.
                  The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall adopt the provisions referred to in Articles 183, 184 and 185. Adoption of the supplementary programmes shall require the agreement of the Member States concerned.

                     Competences of the Joint Undertaking

                     Objectives

                     (Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 setting up the Joint Undertaking)

                  The IMI Joint Undertaking shall contribute to the implementation of the Seventh Framework Programme and in particular the Theme ‘Health’ of the Specific Programme Cooperation implementing the Seventh Framework Programme. It shall have the objective of significantly improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the drug development process with the long-term aim that the pharmaceutical sector produces more effective and safer innovative medicines. In particular it shall:

                              (a)

                              support ‘pre-competitive pharmaceutical research and development’ in the Member States and countries associated with the Seventh Framework Programme via a coordinated approach to overcome the identified research bottlenecks in the drug development process;

                              (b)

                              support the implementation of the research priorities as set out by the Research Agenda of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (hereinafter referred to as ‘Research Activities’), notably by awarding grants following competitive calls for proposals;

                              (c)

                              ensure complementarity with other activities of the Seventh Framework Programme;

                              (d)

                              be a public-private partnership aiming at increasing the research investment in the biopharmaceutical sector in the Members States and countries associated with the Seventh Framework Programme by pooling resources and fostering collaboration between the public and private sectors;

                              (e)

                              promote the involvement of small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) in its activities, in line with the objectives of the Seventh Framework Programme.

                     Tasks

                     (Article 1 of the Annex – Statutes of the Joint Undertaking for the Implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines)

                  The main tasks and activities of the Joint Undertaking for the implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines (hereinafter referred to as ‘IMI Joint Undertaking’) shall be the following:

                              (a)

                              to ensure the establishment and sustainable management of the Joint Technology Initiative on ‘Innovative Medicines’;

                              (b)

                              to define and carry out the annual implementation plan referred to in Article 18 via calls for projects;

                              (c)

                              to regularly review and make any necessary adjustments to the Research Agenda of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines in the light of scientific developments occurring during its implementation;

                              (d)

                              to mobilise the public and private sector resources needed;

                              (e)

                              to establish and develop close and long-term cooperation between the Union, industry and the other stakeholders such as regulatory bodies, patients' organisations, academia and clinical centres, as well as cooperation between industry and academia;

                              (f)

                              to facilitate coordination with national and international activities in this area;

                              (g)

                              to undertake communication and dissemination activities;

                              (h)

                              to communicate and interact with the Member States and the countries associated with the Seventh Framework Programme via a group specifically established for this purpose (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IMI States Representatives Group’);

                              (i)

                              to organise at least an annual meeting (hereinafter referred to as a ‘Stakeholder Forum’) with interest groups to ensure openness and transparency of the Research Activities of the IMI Joint Undertaking with its stakeholders;

                              (j)

                              to notify legal entities that have concluded a grant agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘Grant Agreement’) with the IMI Joint Undertaking of the potential borrowing opportunities from the European Investment Bank, in particular the Risk Sharing Finance Facility set up under the Seventh Framework Programme;

                              (k)

                              to publish information on the projects, including the name of the participants and the amount of the financial contribution of the IMI Joint Undertaking per participant;

                              (l)

                              to ensure the efficiency of the Joint Technology Initiative on ‘Innovative Medicines’;

                              (m)

                              to carry out any other activity needed to achieve the objectives referred to in Article 2 of the Regulation.

                     Governance

                     (Article 4 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 – Statutes of the Joint Undertaking for the Implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines)

                  1 —   The Governing Board

                  2 —   The Executive Director

                  3 —   The Scientific Committee

                  4 —   Two Advisory Bodies

                  The IMI States Representatives Group and the Stakeholder Forum.

                     5 —   Internal audit

                              —

                              the Internal Auditor of the European Commission,

                     (Article 10 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 – Statutes of the Joint Undertaking for the Implementation of the Joint Technology Initiative on Innovative Medicines)

                              —

                              internal audit capability within the IMI JU.

                     (Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008)

                     6 —   External audit

                  The European Court of Auditors.

                     (Article 17(5) of the Statutes annexed to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 and Article 126 of the IMI's financial rules).

                     7 —   Discharge authority

                  The European Parliament, acting on a recommendation from the Council.

                     (Article 11(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 and Article 129 of the IMI's financial rules)

                     Resources available to the Joint Undertaking in 2010

                     Budget

                     (Article 7(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2008 on staff resources)

                  The final budget included commitment appropriations of 107 million euro and payment appropriations of 29 million euro. Additionally, 3 million euro in commitment appropriations and 78,6 million euro in payment appropriations were carried over from 2009.

                     Staff at 31 December 2010

                  29 posts provided for in the establishment plan, of which, 18 posts were occupied.
                  Other staff:

                              —

                              Seconded National Experts: 0,

                              —

                              contract staff: 4,

                              —

                              local staff: 0,

                        total staff employed: 22.
                  Allocated to:

                              —

                              operational activities: 4,

                              —

                              administrative tasks: 7 (1),

                              —

                              mixed tasks: 11.

                     Activities and services provided in 2010

                  Launched or prepared for new calls for proposals, evaluation, negotiation, grant management, ongoing contact, support and guidance to beneficiaries and other participants, communication and organisation of meetings and events with key stakeholders, as well as consultations and support to the Founding Members on the innovative medicine research strategy and associated activities.

                     Source: Information supplied by the IMI JU.

         (1)  The number refers to administrative assistants with administrative tasks.

      REPLIES OF THE JOINT UNDERTAKING

         Implementation of the budget

         Paragraphs 16 and 17

      IMI JU has taken several initiatives to facilitate and expedite the implementation of the budget, including the revision of the Scientific Research Agenda, the launch of the third and fourth calls for proposals, the conclusion of negotiations and the signature of grant agreements for new projects funded under the second call, as well as the receipt and payment of cost claims from the beneficiaries participating in projects funded under the first call. In collaboration with the Founding Members, the Executive Office is also exploring ways of how it can simplify and streamline its call management processes and shorten time lines.

         Internal Control Systems

         Paragraphs 18 and 21

      IMI JU’s internal control system is being further consolidated through the systematic review, strengthening and formalisation of internal processes, including IT policies and procedures. Ex-post audits of first cost claims received from project beneficiaries will also be launched by the end of 2011.
      In parallel, the creation of a new senior management position responsible for Administration and Finance as well as the establishment of the internal control and the internal audit functions further enhances the overall management and oversight of IMI JU’s implementation of the internal control framework.
      The validation of the underlying business processes supporting the accounting system by the Accounting Officer was concluded in June 2011. The implementation of the recommendations resulting from this exercise will lead to further strengthening of internal controls.

         Methodology for evaluating in-kind contributions

         Paragraph 22

      There are ongoing consultations on the methodology to be used for the evaluation of in-kind contributions by member companies of the European Foundation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) in IMI JU projects. Individual reports on the in-kind contributions will be submitted following the approval by the Governing Board of the revised model grant agreement.

         Internal Audit Function and the Commission’s Internal Audit Service

         Paragraph 23

      The roles of the IMI JU’s Internal Audit Manager (IAC) and the Internal Audit Service of the European Commission (IAS) were clarified and formalised through the approval, in March 2011, of the IAS and IAC Audit Charters. A coordinated strategic audit plan for the period 2012-14 is also being prepared to ensure that the impact of planned audits is optimised and any duplication of audit work between the IAS and IAC is minimised.
      The need to further clarify the role of the IAS in IMI JU’s financial rules will be assessed after the finalisation of the ongoing revision of the European Commission’s Framework Financial Regulation.

         Lack of host State Agreement

         Paragraph 24

      There are ongoing proceedings with the Belgian authorities for the signature of the Host Agreement. It is expected to be signed by the end of 2011.


title: Case T-398/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  17 January 2006  — Henkel v OHIM (Community trade mark — Figurative mark — Red and white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absence of distinctive character)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2006 — Henkel v OHIM
   (Case T-398/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative mark - Red and white rectangular tablet with an oval blue centre - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absence of distinctive character)
   (2006/C 74/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant: Henkel KGaA (Dusseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially D. Schennen, subsequently D. Schennen and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 August 2004 (Case R 771/1999-2), in relation to the registration of a figurative mark consisting of the representation of a rectangular tablet
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 22.1.2005.


title: Case F-51/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 — Bermejo Garde v EESC (Staff cases — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Act adversely affecting an official — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Language requirements — Authority competent to adopt a vacancy notice — Bureau of the EESC)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case F-51/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Act adversely affecting an official - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Language requirements - Authority competent to adopt a vacancy notice - Bureau of the EESC)
   2012/C 343/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Lernhart, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of vacancy notice EESC No 43/09 seeking to fill the post of Director of the Directorate of General Affairs and of all the decisions taken on the basis of that vacancy notice. Secondly, application to order the defendant to pay the applicant an amount in respect of damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls vacancy notice No 43/09 published with a view to filling the post of Director of the Directorate of General Affairs of the European Economic and Social Committee;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Bermejo Garde.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010, p. 42.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in Case C-109/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon): CRT France International SA v Directeur Régional des Impôts de Bourgogne (Tax on the supply of CB sets - Charge having equivalent effect - Internal taxation - Applicability of the prohibition thereof to trace with non-member countries)

text:
17.7.1999                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      5. Directive 85/577 precludes the inclusion in a contract of a clause
                                                                                imposing payment by the consumer of a lump sum for damage
                                                                                caused to the trader for the sole reason that the consumer has
                          (Third Chamber)                                         exercised his right of renunciation.
                          of 22 April 1999
                                                                             (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
in Case C-423/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Valencia (Spain):
       Travel Vac SL v Manuel José Antelm Sanchis (1)
(Directive 85/577/EEC — Scope — Time-share contracts —
                       Right of renunciation)                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (1999/C 204/08)                                                               (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                             in Case C-109/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             from the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon): CRT France
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       International SA v Directeur Régional des Impôts de
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                         Bourgogne (1)
In Case C-423/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                (Tax on the supply of CB sets — Charge having equivalent
the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de                       effect — Internal taxation — Applicability of the prohibition
Valencia (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                           thereof to trace with non-member countries)
pending before that court between Travel Vac SL and Manuel
José Antelm Sanchis — on the interpretation of Council                                                   (1999/C 204/09)
Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the
consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from
business premises (OJ 1985 L 372, p. 31) — the Court (Third                                        (Language of the case: French)
Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann (Rappor-
teur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
has given a judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it has ruled:                                     in the European Court Reports)
1. Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect
    the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from                In Case C-109/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    business premises applies to a contract relating to the acquisition      the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Administratif de Dijon (France)
    of a right to use immoveable property on a time-share basis and          for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    to the provision of services whose value is higher than that of the      court between CRT France International SA and Directeur
    right to use the immoveable property.                                    Régional des Impôts de Bourgogne — on the interpretation of
                                                                             Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court
                                                                             (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of Chamber,
2. A contract concluded in a situation in which a tracer has invited         D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
    a consumer to go in person to a specified place at a certain             Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has
    distance from the place where the consumer lives and which is            given a judgment on 22 April 1999 in which it has ruled:
    different from the premises where the tracer usually carries on his
    business and is not clearly identified as premises for sales to the
    public, in order to present to him the products and services he is       Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty preclude a tax borne by
    offering, must be considered to have been concluded during an            manufacturers, importers and persons making supplies in France of
    excursion organised by the tracer away from his business premises        transmitting-receiving sets operating on two-way channels and
    within the meaning of Directive 85/577.                                  imported from Member States, such as the tax governed by Article
                                                                             302 bis (X) of the Code Général des Impôts, and Articles 9, 12 and
3. The consumer can exercise his right of renunciation under Article         113 of the EC Treaty preclude a tax borne by manufacturers,
    5(1) of Directive 85/577 where the contract has been concluded           importers and persons making supplies in France of transmitting-
    in circumstances such as those described in Article 1 of that            receiving sets operating on two-way channels and imported from
    directive, without there being any need to prove that the consumer       non-member countries, such as the tax governed by Article 302 bis
    was influenced or manipulated by the trader.                             (X) of the Code Général des Impôts.
4. Directive 85/577 does not preclude a Member State from                    (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1988.
    adopting rules providing that the notice of renunciation provided
    for by Article 5(1) of the directive is not subject to any condition
    as to form.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 March 2005 in Case C-285/03: Hellenic Republic against Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Arable crops — Financial years 2000 and 2001)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 17 March 2005
   in Case C-285/03: Hellenic Republic against Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Arable crops - Financial years 2000 and 2001)
   (2005/C 155/01)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-285/03, Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalkias) against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Condou-Durande, assisted by N. Korogiannakis) — application for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 1 July 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.


title: Case T-198/05: Action brought on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/41

         Action brought on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-198/05)
   (2005/C 182/78)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 2005 by Mebrom NV, established in Rieme-Ertvelde (Belgium), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Commission to pay to the applicant the amount requested through the present application for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the defendant's failure to establish a system allowing the applicant to import Methyl Bromide in January and February 2005, or any other amount as further established by the applicant in the course of these proceedings or by the Court ex aequo et bono;

               —

               in the alternative, rule on interlocutory judgment that the European Commission is obliged to make reparation for the loss suffered and order the parties to produce to the Court within a reasonable period from the date of the judgment figures as to the amount of the compensation agreed between the parties or, failing agreement, order the parties to produce to the Court within the same period their submissions with detailed figures in support;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay to the applicant a compensatory interest of 8 % per annum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay an interest of 8 %, or any other appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, calculated on the amount payable as from the date of the Court's judgment until actual payment; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant imports Methyl Bromide (MBr) in the EU. Methyl Bromide is a controlled substance within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (1). The applicant states that it can therefore only import Methyl Bromide subject to the presentation of an import licence and the nominal allocation of a 12-month import quota established by the defendant each year.
   With the present action, the applicant claims compensation for damages allegedly suffered as a direct consequence of the defendant's unlawful failure to establish a system in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2037/2000 allowing the applicant to obtain import licences and import quotas for the import of Methyl Bromide in the European Union in January and February 2005.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant breached Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation 2037/2000, which oblige the Commission to allocate licences and quotas for the import of Methyl Bromide in the EU for each 12-month period after 31 December 1999. The applicant submits furthermore a violation of the principles of sound administration and the duty of care, requiring the Commission to act diligently, impartially and in a timely fashion, as well as a violation of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
   The applicant states that the damage suffered by it as a result of the defendant's unlawful conduct consists of the lost profit that the applicant would have made by importing and subsequently selling Methyl Bromide during these two months.

      (1)  OJ L 244, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02, L v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Scope — Harassment — Claim for compensation — Occupational illness)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 March 2005
   in Case T-254/02, L v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Scope - Harassment - Claim for compensation - Occupational illness)
   (2005/C 115/35)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-254/02, L, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by J. Van Rossum, and then by S. Rodrigues and P. Legros, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — APPLICATION for the annulment of the Commission decisions rejecting a request for assistance, access to documents and compensation, and refusing to recognise an occupational illness, and, also, a claim for damages, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; for the Registrar: M. I. Natsinas, administrator, has given a judgment on 9 March 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Cases T-245/00, T-246/00 and T-248/00: Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Abibes and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 355/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.12.2000
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the application.           —     The Commission infringed the principle of the protection
                                                                                of legitimate expectations in seeking to recover premium
                                                                                payments in circumstances where it has accepted that the
                                                                                applicant came into the terms of Article 2(2)(b) and it has
                                                                                altered its position on foot of the Commission’s actions.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92, of 30 June 1992, institut-
                                                                              ing a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture
                                                                              (OJ L 215, of 30 July 1992, p. 96).
                                                                          (2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Counil, of 21 April 1970, on
According to the applicant, the contested decision in the                     the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English
present case, which relates to a Programme for Afforestation                  Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).
partially financed by the European Community, has the effect
of
—     preventing the State from paying the EU premiums
      provided for under Regulation No 2080/92 (1) that were
      suspended by the State from 22 November 1999. As a
      result, the State will pay no EU premiums to which the              Action brought on 14 September 2000 by Abibes and
      applicant would otherwise be entitled from 1 September              Others against Commission of the European Communities
      2000.
                                                                                (Cases T-245/00, T-246/00 and T-248/00)
—     excluding the applicant from the category of persons
      entitled to loss of income premiums pursuant to                                               (2000/C 355/58)
      Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation No 2080/92.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In support of its claims, the applicant makes the following               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
submissions:                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 September 2000 by Abibes
                                                                          and Others, represented by Andrea Bortoluzzi and Chiara
                                                                          Montagner, of the Venice Bar.
—     The contested decision is void since it is based on
      Regulation No 729/70 (2) which, at the date on which the
      decision was taken, had been repealed;                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC;
—     The Commission misinterpreted the provisions of Regu-
      lation No 2080/92 in excluding the applicant from the               —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      provisions of Article 2(2)(b); it is stressed on this point
      that, since the applicant is a ‘private-law legal person’, the
      concept of ‘public entity’ relied upon by the Commission            Pleas in law and main arguments
      has no basis in law:
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
                                                                          Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
—     The contested decision infringes Articles 253 and 295 of            Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
      the Treaty;
                                                                          The applicants claim in particular that there has been a
                                                                          manifest error of assessment of the facts, as well as of
—     The Commission infringed the principles of legal cer-               procedure, in so far as the relief from contributions in question
      tainty, inasmuch as it was under a duty to inform Ireland           are characterised as aid. The applicants also allege infringement
      of any doubts it had concerning eligibility, which it failed        of Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty.
      to do; in fact, no objection was taken to Ireland’s
      programme to the extent that it expected that private
      companies, including the applicant, would be bodies                 (1) Not yet published.
      eligible for loss-of-income premiums and on 27 April
      1994, the Commission approved Ireland’s afforestation
      programme.


14.9.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 219/11
       —     in Artois-Picardie: the coastal waters and, for main-        Removal from the register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00,
             land waters, the hydrographic system between the               C-420/00, C-123/01, C-237/01, C-238/01 and C-15/02 ( 1)
             canalised Aa and the Escaut on the one hand and
             the Belgian border on the other hand, the Scarpe
             downstream from Arras, the Lens Canal downstream                                      (2002/C 219/20)
             from Lens and the whole of the Somme;
       —     in Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse: the River Vistre and
             Thau lake.                                                   By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
—      Lack of more stringent treatment for urban waste water             register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00, C-420/00, C-123/01,
       discharges with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more             C-237/01, C-238/01 et C-15/02 (Referral for a preliminary
       than 10 000: The French authorities had admitted that              ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans
       for 130 agglomerations the equipment for treating urban            Oppitz and Others v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt
       waste water was not, by the deadline of 31 December                Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg.
       1998, in compliance with the requirements of the
       Directive. While those authorities, in their response to
       the reasoned opinion, specify that the discharges of some          (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001, OJ C 28 of
                                                                               27.1.2001, OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ
       of those 130 agglomerations are in fact now subject to
                                                                               C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
       such treatment, only the agglomerations of Vichy, Aix en
       Provence and Mâcon can actually be removed from the
       list of the abovementioned 130 agglomerations. For
       others, the reply states that the necessary equipment will
       only come into service at a future date. That is the case
       for Boulogne-sur-mer (2005), Clermont-Ferrand (2004),
       Saint-Etienne (2005), Mulhouse (2003), Nancy (autumn
       2002), Dijon (2005), Montpellier (2004), Tarare (2003),
       Villefranche sur Saône (2004), Vitrolles (2005) and                        Removal from the register of Case C-128/01 ( 1)
       Auxerre (2004).
       The inadequate identification of sensitive areas has inevi-                                 (2002/C 219/21)
       tably resulted in the obligation in Article 5(2) of the
       Directive not being taken into account in the areas
       concerned.
                                                                          By order of 27 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
( 1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.5.1991 concerning urban           register of Case C-128/01: Commission of the European
     waste water treatment (OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991), p. 40.                Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
Removal from the register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00
                          and C-319/00 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 219/19)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-143/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/22)
By order of 31 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00 and C-319/00 (Referral
for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat
                                                                          By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Salzburg): Neubau Gesellschaft mbH and Others v Grundver-
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslan-
                                                                          register of Case C-143/01: Commission of the European
deskommission des Landes Salzburg.
                                                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000, OJ C 302 of
     21.10.2000.                                                          (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/20

         Removal from the register of Case C-382/04 (1)

   (2005/C 45/46)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 18 November 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-382/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.

      (1)  OJ C 262 23.10.2004.


title: Joined Cases T-91/12 and T-280/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Flying Holding and Others v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of non-scheduled passenger transport services by air and chartered air-taxi service — Rejection of the application — Article 94(b) of the Financial Regulation — Rights of the defence — Article 134(5) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation — Action for annulment — Letter in response to a question from the applicants — Act not amenable to review — Award decision — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissible — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/35

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Flying Holding and Others v Commission
      (Joined Cases T-91/12 and T-280/12) (1)

      ((Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of non-scheduled passenger transport services by air and chartered air-taxi service - Rejection of the application - Article 94(b) of the Financial Regulation - Rights of the defence - Article 134(5) of the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation - Action for annulment - Letter in response to a question from the applicants - Act not amenable to review - Award decision - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissible - Non-contractual liability))
      (2014/C 395/41)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Flying Holding NV (Wilrijk, Belgium), Flying Group Lux SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), and Flying Service NV (Deurne, Belgium) (represented by: C. Doutrelepont and V. Chapoulaud, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by S. Delaude and D. Calciu, acting as Agents, and subsequently by S. Delaude, assisted by V. Vanden Acker, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action for annulment of (i) the decisions contained in the letters from the Commission of 15 December 2011 and 17 January 2012 rejecting the application submitted by the applicants in the context of a restricted tendering procedure concerning the provision of non-scheduled passenger transport services by air and chartered air-taxi service (OJ 2011/S 192-312059) and (ii) the Commission’s decision of 28 February 2012 awarding the contract to another company, on the one hand, and a claim for damages on the other.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the actions;

                  2.

                  Orders Flying Holding NV, Flying Group Lux SA and Flying Service NV to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: Case T-192/10: Order of the General Court of 18 November 2010 — Ferracci v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/57

         Order of the General Court of 18 November 2010 — Ferracci v Commission
   (Case T-192/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/105
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-226/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Commission v McCarron Poultry (Arbitration clause — Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) — Contract relating to ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’ — Termination of the contract — Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced — Default interest — Procedure by default)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 May 2016 — Commission v McCarron Poultry
   (Case T-226/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (1998-2002) - Contract relating to ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’ - Termination of the contract - Reimbursement of part of the amount advanced - Default interest - Procedure by default))
   (2016/C 243/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, subsequently by F. Moro, acting as Agents, and by R. van der Hout, lawyer)

      Defendant: McCarron Poultry Ltd (Killacorn Emyvale, Ireland)

      Re:

   Action under Article 272 TFEU seeking an order that the defendant reimburse part of the amount advanced by the Commission under contract NNE5/1999/20229, together with default interest.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders McCarron Poultry Ltd to repay to the Commission the sum of EUR 900 662,25, plus accrued default interest calculated at the rate of 2,50 % per annum from 1 December 2010 until the date of full payment of the debt;

               2.

               Orders McCarron Poultry to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Action brought on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-184/97)

text:
12 . 7 . 97               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 212/ 15
                 — with respect to the competent institution of               1.    In view of the fact that the tassa di concessione
                     the Member State in which the second                           governative ( administrative charge ) for entering
                     activity is pursued ?                                          companies in the Register of Companies is unlawful in
                 — with respect to the person employing a                           so far as it infringes Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
                     worker pursuing an activity in two                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising
                     Member States ?                                                of capital ( 1 ), is the application to claims for
                                                                                reimbursement of the three-year limitation period laid
             2 . If so, until when ?                                                down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                                                                compatible with Community law, or does it constitute
       ( b ) Does Form E 101 have retroactive effect in so far                      failure to apply Directive 69/335/EEC, having regard
             as the periods to which it relates have already                        to the fact that 'so long as a Directive has not been
             come to an end at the time when the form is
                                                                                properly transposed into national law, individuals are
             issued or produced ?                                                   unable to ascertain the full extent of their rights'?
(') Official Journal , English Special Edition 1971 II, p. 416 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 .                                     2 . In the absence of a specific provision in Presidential
                                                                                Decree 331 /93 governing the limitation period for the
                                                                                reimbursement of undue payments, do the combined
                                                                                provisions of Articles 2934 and 2946 of the Civil
                                                                                Code apply, having regard to the fact that the payment
                                                                                in question is not due ( Article 2033 of the Civil
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                             Code )?
Nederlanden of 7 May 1997, in the case of A. J. van der
           Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien                    3 . Independently of Questions 1 and 2, do the time limits
                             ( Case C-181/97)                                       laid down by Article 13 of Presidential Decree 641 /72
                                 ( 97/C 212/25 )
                                                                                and Article 2946 of the Civil Code, respectively, start
                                                                                to run from the date of payment or, having regard to
                                                                                the principle referred to above that ' so long as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive has not been properly transposed into
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad                                    national law, individuals are unable to ascertain the
 der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                             full extent of their rights', from the date of publication
 7 May 1997, received at the Court Registry on 9 May                                 of Presidential Decree 331 /93 in the Gazzetta Ufficiale
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. J. van der                         della Repubblica Italiana ?
 Kooy against the Staatssecretaris van Financien on the
 following question:                                                           (') Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 II, p. 412.
 In the light of Articles 132 ( 1 ) and 227 of the EC Treaty,
 is Article 7 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the sixth Directive to be interpreted
 as meaning that the importation into the Netherlands of a
 ship which was previously in free circulation in the
 Netherlands Antilles is to be regarded as the entry into the
 Community of a product which does not fulfil the                             Action brought on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
 conditions of Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty ?                            European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
                                                                                Case C-184/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/27)
  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
  Brescia, Terza Sezione Civile, by order of that court of                     brought before the Court of Justice of the European
  16 November           1996 in the case of Società Palazzo                    Communities on 9 May 1997 by the Commission of the
  Piacentini Srl against Amministrazione Finanziaria dello                     European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen,
                                        Stato
                                                                               Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                               ( Case C-l 82/97)                               in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                   ( 97/C 212/26 )
                                                                               of the Commission's Legal Service, C 254 Wagner Centre,
                                                                               Kirchberg.
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
  European Communities by order of the Tribunale ( District
   Court ), Terza Sezione Civile (Third Civil Division),
   Brescia , of 16 November 1996 , received at the Court                        1 . declare that, by failing to establish programmes, in
   Registry on 12 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the                           accordance with Article 7 of Council Directive 76/464/
   case of Societa Piacentini Sri against Amministrazione                             EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
   dello Stato ( State Finance Administration ) on the                                dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
   following questions :                                                              environment of the Community ( 1 ), with quality
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/ 16             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         12 . 7. 97
       objectives designed to reduce pollution by the                         (i)      the complainant          was     employed   by     the
       substances in List II of the Annex to the Directive, the                        Respondent;
       Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under the EC Treaty;                                       ( ii ) during her employment, the complainant brought
                                                                                a claim of sex discrimination against the
                                                                                Respondent which was compromised;
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
       costs of the proceedings.                                              ( iii ) following the end of her employment, the
                                                                                complainant has made efforts to find full-time
                                                                                work, but has been unsuccessful ;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                              ( iv ) the Respondent has caused or contributed to the
It is evident from the wording of Article 7 ( 1 ) of the                               complainant's difficulties in finding work by
Directive, in conjunction with Article 1 thereof, that                                 refusing to provide references to potential
Member States were required to establish programmes                                    employers when requested to do so;
with quality objectives designed to reduce water pollution
within a specified period. The German Federal                                 ( v ) the employer's decision to refuse to provide
                                                                                references   was    taken    after the  end   of    the
Government, on the other hand, wrongly argues that most
of the substances in question were covered by overall                                  complainant's employment;
parameters, and attempts to demonstrate the equivalence
and/or advantages of these national rules vis-a-vis the                        (vi ) the reason, or a principle reason, for the
emission norms for individual substances. Likewise, the                                employer's decision to refuse to provide a
                                                                                reference to the complainant was that she had
existence of general programmes for water purification, as
                                                                                previously brought a claim of sex discrimination
cited by the German Federal Government (2 ), cannot be
                                                                                against the Respondent.
regarded as constituting an adequate implementation of
Article 7 .
                                                                         2.    Does         Council    Directive     76/207/EEC     on     the
                                                                               implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
O OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p . 23 .
( 2 ) Inter alia, the Elbe Action Programme of the 'International
                                                                               men and women as regards access to employment,
      Commission for the Protection of the Elbe ' ( IKSE ) and the             vocational training and promotion, and working
      IKSE's operational plan to the year 2000, the Rhine Action               conditions, require Member States to introduce into
      Programme of the ' International Commission for the                      their national legal systems such measures as are
      Protection of the Rhine ' ( ISKR), and the action programme              necessary to enable persons to pursue a claim by
      anticipating the Danube Convention .                                     judicial process where the circumstances set out under
                                                                               point 1 apply, save that:
                                                                               (i)      the Respondent's decision to refuse to provide a
                                                                                reference was taken before the termination of the
                                                                                complainant's employment; but
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment                            ( ii ) the actual refusal or refusals to provide a
 Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 20 November                                 reference took place after the termination of the
 1996, in the case of Mrs B. J. Coote against Granada                                   complainant's employment.
                             Hospitality Ltd
                           ( Case C-185 /97 )                             (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
                              97/C 212/28 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Employment                       Action brought on 15 May 1997 by the Commission of
 Appeal Tribunal of 20 November 1996, which was                           the European Communities against the Federal Republic
 received at the Court Registry on 12 May 1997, for a                                                    of Germany
 preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs B. J. Coote against
 Granada Hospitality Ltd, on the following questions:                                                ( Case C-l 86/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/29 )
  1 . Does Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February
        1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
        treatment for men and women as regards access to                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
        employment, vocational training and promotion, and                Communities on 15 May 1997 by the Commission of the
        working conditions (^, require Member States to                   European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
        introduce into their national legal systems such                  Borchardt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
        measures as are necessary to enable a complainant to               address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
        pursue a claim by judicial process where the following             Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre
        circumstances apply:                                               C 254, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-144/02: Action brought on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, John G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren, Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George Grant and Edward Junger against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 169/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission’s decision dated 22 January 2001;
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                         —     order the Commission to compensate the applicants for
                                                                               their loss of earnings and other benefits caused by the
The Community trade          Verbal mark ‘BIO-CANISAN’ —
                                                                               breaches of Community law;
mark concerned:              Application No 353 896, relating
                             to goods in classes 5 and 31
                             (veterinary preparations and food-          —     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
                             stuffs for animals)
Proprietor of the right to   VETO-Centre                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                 The applicants all worked in the JET Project as employees or
proceedings:                                                             contractors to UK registered companies. According to the
                                                                         applicants, however, they should have been recruited by the
Trade mark or sign           French trade marks No 1582968               Commission as temporary agents since they were part of the
asserted by way of oppo-     ‘biocanina ’(word and device),              JET Project Team.
sition in the opposition     relating to goods in classes 5 and
proceedings:                 31, and No 1350892 ‘BIOCANI-
                             NA’), relating to goods in class 5          The applicants claim that the failure of the Commission to
                                                                         recruit the applicants as temporary agents was contrary the
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the application                  JET statutes and constitutes an act ultra vires. According to the
sition Division:                                                         applicants, the JET statutes did not provide for the possibility
                                                                         of engaging staff who were working in the JET Project Team
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal                     through external contractors.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:            Infringement of Article 43(2),              Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission dis-
                             third sentence, and Article 8(1)(b)         criminated against them since this resulted in the applicants
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.                being treated in a less favourable manner then those employed
                                                                         by the Commission who were fulfilling substantially similar
                                                                         roles in the JET Project.
Action brought on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, John
G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David                    Action brought on 15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,                against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George                               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Grant and Edward Junger against the Commission of the
                   European Communities                                                           (Case T-156/02)
                        (Case T-144/02)                                                           (2002/C 169/75)
                        (2002/C 169/74)                                  (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle,                  15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation, Torrance (USA),
John G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David               represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer.
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George Grant
and Edward Junger, represented by Mr Daniel Beard of                     Frieslands Brands B.V., Leeuwarden (the Netherlands) was an
Monckton Chambers, London (United Kingdom).                              additional party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.