title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-38/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Hunting periods)

text:
21.4.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 118/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           transposition measures relating to the whole of its territory and
                                                                                by failing correctly to implement the aforesaid provision, the
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                        French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                directive;
                         of 7 December 2000                                  2.   Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
in Case C-38/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v French Republic (1)                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
                           Hunting periods)
                            (2001/C 118/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             of 7 December 2000
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-69/99: Commission of the European Communi-
In Case C-38/99: Commission of the European Communities                      ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French                                                  Ireland (1)
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — appli-
cation for a declaration that, by failing correctly to transpose
Article 7 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103 p. 1), by                      Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pol-
omitting to communicate all the transposition measures                       lution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources —
relating to the whole of its territory and by failing correctly to           Identification of waters affected by pollution — Specifying
implement the aforesaid provision, the French Republic has                                        of surface freshwaters)
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                                                 (2001/C 118/02)
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000,                                    (Language of the case: English)
in which it:
                                                                             In Case C-69/99: Commission of the European Communities
1.    Declares that, by failing correctly to transpose Article 7(4) of       (Agent: R. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and
      Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the                    Northern Ireland (Agents: M. Ewing and D. Wyatt, QC) —
      conservation of wild birds, by omitting to communicate all the         application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the


title: Case C-646/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Galați (Romania) lodged on 5 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Brăila v E.S.

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Galați (Romania) lodged on 5 December 2013 — Casa Județeană de Pensii Brăila v E.S.
   (Case C-646/13)
   2014/C 39/22
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Galați

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Brăila

      Respondent: E.S.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) be interpreted as excluding the application of a bilateral convention on social security which was entered into prior to application of that regulation and does not appear in Annex II to that regulation, under circumstances in which the rules applicable under that bilateral convention prove to be more favourable for the insured person than would be the case under the rules based on that regulation?

               2.

               When an assessment is made as to whether the bilateral convention is more favourable, does Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 require the view to be taken that it is necessary to remain within the legal interpretation of the bilateral convention or is it also necessary to include the specific detailed arrangements for application (regarding the quantum of the pension which can be granted by each State, the payment of which is determined by reference to the application/exclusion of application of the convention by the regulation)?

               3.

               In the event of a negative answer to the first question (to the effect that application of the bilateral convention on social security is not excluded), is it possible to regard as more favourable, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, legal rules on the basis of which a State signatory to the convention on social security recognises a shorter contributory period than that actually completed, and that State pays a pension of a greater amount than that to which entitlement would arise if the entire contributory period in the joint-signatory State were to be recognised?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


title: Case T-127/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Sesma Merino v OHIM (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Appraisal — Staff report — Objectives 2011-2012 — Measure adversely affecting a person — Admissibility)

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2015 — Sesma Merino v OHIM
   (Case T-127/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Appraisal - Staff report - Objectives 2011-2012 - Measure adversely affecting a person - Admissibility))
   (2016/C 027/52)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Alvaro Sesma Merino (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Saba and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 in Sesma Merino v OHIM (F-125/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:192) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Alvaro Sesma Merino to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case C-375/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 June 2017 — Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli
   (Case C-375/17)
   (2017/C 330/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Stanley International Betting Ltd, Stanleybet Malta Ltd

      Respondents: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Dogane e dei Monopoli

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules, such as those laid down by Article 1(653) of the 2015 Stability Law and the relevant implementing legislation, that provide for an exclusive mono-concessionaire model for management of the Lotto, but not for other games, prediction games and betting?

               2.

               Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, (1) and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding a concession notice that stipulates a much higher basic contract value unjustified in relation to the requirements concerning economic and financial standing and technical and organisational ability, as set out in paragraphs 5.3, 5.4, 11. 12.4 and 15.3 of the concession documents for the award of the Lotto concession?

               3.

               Must EU law — in particular, the right of establishment, the freedom to provide services and Directive 2014/23/EU, and the principles of non-discrimination, transparency, freedom of competition, proportionality and consistency too — be interpreted as precluding rules that impose a de facto choice between being awarded a new concession and continuing to exercise the freedom to provide various betting services on a cross-border basis, a choice of the kind that results from Article 30 of the model contract, the effect being that the decision to participate in the tender for the award of the new concession would involve abandoning the cross-border activity, even though the legality of that activity has on several occasions been recognised by the Court of Justice?

      (1)  Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 14 July 1998 in Case C-125/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Alkmaar): A. G. R. Regeling v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid (Social policy - Directive 80/987/EEC - Guarantee institutions' obligation to pay - Outstanding claims)

text:
26.9.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 299/5
     measures such as designs, symbols or pictograms. The                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     placing in the shop of a supplementary sign adjacent
     to the product in question is not sufficient to ensure                                  (Fifth Chamber)
     that the ultimate consumer is informed and protected.
                                                                                of 14 July 1998
(1) OJ C 26, 25.1.1997.                                              in Case C-125/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(2) OJ L 33, 8.12.1979, p. 1.                                        the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Alkmaar): A. G. R.
                                                                     Regeling v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
                                                                                Metaalnijverheid (1)
                                                                     (Social policy Ð Directive 80/987/EEC Ð Guarantee
                                                                         institutions' obligation to pay Ð Outstanding claims)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           (98/C 299/08)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 14 July 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
in Case C-389/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Aher-Waggon GmbH v.
               Federal Republic of Germany (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect Ð Directives on noise
emissions from aircraft Ð Stricter domestic limits Ð                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Barrier to the importation of an aircraft Ð Environmental                       published in the European Court Reports)
                           protection)
                         (98/C 299/07)
                                                                     In Case C-125/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
               (Language of the case: German)                        of the EC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank te
                                                                     Alkmaar (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between A. G. R.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Regeling and Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Metaalnijverheid, on the interpretation of Article 4 of
                                                                     Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
In Case C-389/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           to the protection of employees in the event of the
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht                   insolvency of their employer (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
(Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in           Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
the proceedings pending before that court between Aher-              Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-
Waggon GmbH and the Federal Republic of Germany, on                  P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; Advocate General: G.
the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty Ð the              Cosmas; Administrator, L. Hewlett, for the Registrar, has
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      given a judgment on 14 July 1998, the operative part of
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.            which is as follows.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G.
Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 July 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 On a proper construction of Article 4(2) of Council
                                                                     Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the
                                                                     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
Article 30 of the EC Treaty does not preclude national               to the protection of employees in the event of the
legislation which makes the first registration in national           insolvency of their employer, where a worker has,
territory of aircraft previously registered in another               simultaneously, claims against his employer in respect of
Member State conditional upon compliance with stricter               periods of employment before the reference period laid
noise standards than those laid down by Council Directive            down in that provision and claims relating to the reference
80/51/EEC of 20 December 1979 on the limitation of                   period itself, payments of wages made by the employer
noise emissions from subsonic aircraft, as amended by                during the latter period must be set in priority against
Council Directive 83/206/EEC of 21 April 1983, while                 earlier claims.
exempting from those standards aircraft which obtained
registration in national territory before that Directive was
implemented.                                                         (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 283, 20.10.1980, p. 23.
(1) OJ C 26, 8.2.1997.


title: Case T-285/05: Action brought on 19 July 2005 by Bernd Lippert against the European Parliament

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/34

         Action brought on 19 July 2005 by Bernd Lippert against the European Parliament
   (Case T-285/05)
   (2005/C 229/72)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 July 2005 by Bernd Lippert, residing in Helmsange (Luxembourg), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities insofar as it fixes his grade on recruitment by application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those raised in Case T-130/05, Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission. (1)

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.


title: Case C-483/07 P: Appeal brought on 5 November 2007 by Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 August 2007 in Case T-46/06 Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/7

         Appeal brought on 5 November 2007 by Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 28 August 2007 in Case T-46/06 Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-483/07 P)
   (2008/C 8/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co KG (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               1.

               Set aside the order of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 28 August 2007 and

               2.

               Annul the respondent's decision to reserve the Domain galileo.eu;

               3.

               Order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance;

               4.

               Only in the alternative to the orders sought under points 2 and 3 above, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant contends in this appeal that there has been an infringement of Community law (second sentence of Article 58(1) of the Court Statute), namely the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC. According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance committed such a legal infringement by dismissing its action as inadmissible on the basis that the appellant was not ‘individually concerned’ by the contested decision of the respondent to reserve the domain galileo.eu for itself. The appellant regards itself as individually concerned within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice by the decision of the Commission to reserve the Domain galileo.eu for itself, on the ground of its rights in respect of the German word mark Galileo, on the ground of its legal standing in the registration procedure conferred on it by Commission Regulation 874/2004 and on the basis that the Domain galileo.eu is a marketable economic asset and can only be allocated once.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 May 2003 in Case T-80/01: Barbara Diehl-Leistner against Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competitions — Oral test — Exclusion from the list of successful candidates — Knowledge of languages of the members of the selection board — Equal treatment)

text:
C 171/22                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             19.7.2003
                                                           COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 May 2003
                       of 26 February 2003
                                                                             in Case T-23/01: Eugène Émile Marie Kimman against
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
in Case T-184/00: Zisis Khristou Drouvis v Commission
                of the European Communities ( 1)                             (Officials — Annual leave — Posting to a third country —
                                                                                Objection of illegality)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/32)
(Officials — Pensions — Weighting — Legality of
Article 82(1), second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations —                                        (Language of the case: French)
Principle of equal treatment — Principles of freedom of
movement for workers and freedom of establishment within
                          the Community)
                                                                             In Case T-23/01: Eugène Émile Marie Kimman, official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                             Overijse (Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an
                          (2003/C 171/31)                                    address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities (Agents: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and
                                                                             F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                           decision of 25 May 2000 by which the Commission reduced
                                                                             the applicant’s annual leave for 2000 by one day — the Court
                                                                             of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
                                                                             President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen,
                                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on
In Case T-184/00 Zisis Khristou Drouvis, a former official of                7 May 2003 in which it:
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Maroussi, Attica (Greece), represented by I. Stamoulis, lawyer,              1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission of 25 May 2000 in so
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the                              far as it reduces the applicant’s annual leave for 2000 by one
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                          day;
and P. Anestis), supported by the Council of the European                    2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Union (Agents: D. Zahariou and A. Pilette) — application
seeking the amendment of the Commission’s decision, notified
to the applicant on 30 November 1999, determining his                        (1 ) OJ C 95, 24. 3. 2001.
pension and applying the weighting for Greece, so that the
weighting applied is the same as that on pensions paid to
pensioners residing in the United Kingdom or, in the alterna-
tive, the same as that on pensions paid to pensioners residing
in Belgium — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                                of 20 May 2003
26 February 2003, in which it:
                                                                             in Case T-80/01: Barbara Diehl-Leistner against Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
1.     Dismisses the application.
                                                                             (Officials — Open competitions — Oral test — Exclusion
2.     Orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.                   from the list of successful candidates — Knowledge of
                                                                             languages of the members of the selection board — Equal
                                                                                treatment)
3.     Orders the Council to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 171/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ No C 335 of 25.11.00.
                                                                             In Case T-80/01: Barbara Diehl-Leistner, residing in Luxem-
                                                                             bourg, represented by L. Thielen, lawyer, against Commission
 ---pagebreak--- 19.7.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 171/23
 of the European Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
B. Wägenbaur) — application for annulment of the decision
of 17 April 2000 of the selection board for Open Competition                                          of 10 April 2003
COM/A/12/98 not to include the applicant on the list of
successful candidates in that competition — the Court of First
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,                 in Case T-186/01, Nicole Robert v European Parliament (1)
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar; has given a judgment on                        (Officials — Actions — Deadlines — Inadmissibility)
20 May 2003 in which it:
                                                                                (2003/C 171/35)
1.     Dismisses the application;
2.     Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                              (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 186, 30. 6. 2001.
                                                                            In Case T-186/01: Nicole Robert, an official of the European
                                                                            Parliament, resident in Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by
                                                                            A. Lorang, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                            against European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and
                                                                            D. Moore) — application for annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Parliament not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1 in the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                promotion year 1999 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and
                            of 8 May 2003                                   P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
                                                                            the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in
in Case T-82/01: VOF Josanne and Others v Commission                        which it:
                of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            1.     Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
(Inland waterway transport — Community fleet capacity —
Conditions for putting new vessels into service (‘old-for-new’              2.     Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.
                        rule) — Exemption)
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.01.
                           (2003/C 171/34)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-82/01, VOF Josanne, established in Papendrecht
(Netherlands), Pieter van Wijnen, resident in Papendrecht,                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Adrianus Jacobus van Wijnen, resident in Papendrecht, Anigje
Veen, resident in Meerkerk (Netherlands), represented by J. van                                       of 22 May 2003
Dam and Y. Ooykaas, lawyers, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: H. van Vliet and W. Wils): Application
for the annulment of Commission Decision SG (2001) D/                       in Case T-249/01: Marc Boixader Rivas against European
286100 of 9 February 2001 refusing the applicants’ request                                              Parliament (1)
for the exemption of the vessel Josanne from the scope of
Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a                   (Officials — Competitions — Notice — Conditions for
Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway                  admission — Licenciatura degree or equivalent — Degree in
transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1), the Court of First Instance                 technical engineering — Knowledge of a second official
(Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi              language — Evidence — Action for annulment — Decision
and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Registrar, has given a                  of the selection board — Objection of illegality of the notice
judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                         of competition
1.     Dismisses the application;                                                                     (2003/C 171/36)
2.     Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of
       the Commission.                                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-249/01: Marc Boixader Rivas, technical engineer, of
                                                                            Spanish nationality, residing in Madrid, represented by


title: Case F-81/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/42

         Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-81/15)
   (2015/C 262/57)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   A declaration of the unlawfulness of Article 45 of and Annex I to the Staff Regulations of Officials and the annulment of the decisions of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grade AST 10 in promotion year 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Principally, declare the unlawfulness of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and that of Annex I thereto, together with the transitional measures relating thereto;

               —

               Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 14 November 2014 not to include the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grade AST 10 in promotion year 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 14 November 2014 not to include the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grade AST 10 in promotion year 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-63/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2012 — Oil Turbo Compressor Co. v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 October 2012 — Oil Turbo Compressor Co. v Council
   (Case T-63/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based)
   2012/C 379/41
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock) (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and Z. Kupčová)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP OJ 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), to the extent that it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP OJ 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran in so far as it concerns Oil Turbo Compressor Co. (Private Joint Stock);

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Oil Turbo Compressor.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 31.3.2012.


title: Case F-20/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  — Patrizia de Luca v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/31

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 — Patrizia de Luca v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-20/06)
   (2006/C 108/57)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Patrizia de Luca (Brussels) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers,)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials is unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 February 2005 appointing the applicant to an administrator's post in the Directorate-General ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’, Directorate ‘Civil Justice, Rights and Citizenship’, Unit ‘Civil Justice’, inasmuch as it fixes her classification at Grade A*9, step 2, and annul the taking effect of her seniority in step on 1 February 2005;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Grade A6 official (subsequently A*10), was appointed, after Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 (1) of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities came into force, to an administrator's post, as a candidate successful in Competition COM/A/11/01, the notice for which had been published in 2001. Pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, she was classified in Grade A*9.
   First of all, the applicant claims that the contested decision amounts to downgrading, in disregard of the framework of lawfulness constituted by the notice of competition in which she was successful and also her reasonable career prospects. In addition, she alleges breach of Articles 4, 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations and also of the principles of good administration and proportionality.
   According to the applicant, that decision is also contrary to the principle of equal treatment and the principle of non-discrimination. In the first place, grading of candidates successful in that competition or in competitions at the same level has been fixed at different levels depending on whether recruitment took place before or after Regulation No 723/2004 entered into force. In the second place, when the applicant's seniority in step was fixed no regard was had to the seniority that she had acquired as a Grade A*10 official, contrary to the rules applicable, especially in relation to the appointment of a member of the temporary staff as an official.
   Finally, the applicant invokes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as she might expect to be appointed to the grade indicated in the notice of competition.

      (1)  OJ L 124, 27 April 2004, p. 1.


title: Case C-325/12: Action brought on 10 July 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/22

         Action brought on 10 July 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-325/12)
   2012/C 287/41
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2009/136/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws, or, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive 2009/136/EC;

               —

               in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, order the Portuguese Republic to pay a penalty in the amount of EUR 22 014,72 per day, starting from the day the Court delivers its judgment, for having failed to communicate all the measures adopted to transpose Directive 2009/136/EC;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese State has failed to adopt all the measures necessary to transpose Directive 2009/136/EC or, in any event, to communicate such measures to the Commission.
   The Portuguese State attempted to transpose Directive 2009/136/EC into national law only in so far as it amends Directive 2002/22/EC. The part of Directive 2009/136/EC which amended Directive 2002/58/EC (Privacy and Electronic Communications) still needed transposing.
   Pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, the Commission may request the Court, when bringing an action for failure to act under Article 258 TFEU, to order, in its judgment finding that the Member State has failed to comply with its obligation to notify the Commission of measures transposing a directive adopted under a legislative procedure, the Member State at issue to pay a lump sum or a penalty payment
   Pursuant to the Communication from the Commission on the implementation of Article 260(3) TFEU, (2) a periodic penalty payment proposed by the Commission is calculated in accordance with the method set out in the Communication regarding reform of the implementation of Article 228 of the EC Treaty.
   Consequently, the calculation of the fine is based on the severity of the infringement, the duration of the infringement and the need to ensure the deterrent effect of the sanction.
   The Commission proposes that the coefficient for severity be set at 8, taking account of the importance of the provisions of European Union law which have been infringed and the consequences of the infringement in terms of general and particular interests.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 337, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ 2011 C 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-69/09: Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe v Commission (Annulment action — ERDF — Decision reducing the financial assistance and ordering the partial repayment of the sums paid — Regional body — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/30

         Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe v Commission
   (Case T-69/09) (1)

   (Annulment action - ERDF - Decision reducing the financial assistance and ordering the partial repayment of the sums paid - Regional body - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 328/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe (Netherlands) (represented by: C. Dekker and E. Belhadj, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and W. Roels, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 8355 of 11 December 2008 on the reduction of the aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) within the framework of the single programming document for the Groningen-Drenthe region coming under objective 2 — No 97.07.13.003 — granted in accordance with Commission Decision C(1997) 1362 of 26 May 1997.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Provincie Groningen and Provincie Drenthe are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case T-88/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Z v Court of Justice (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal — Application for the recusal of a judge — Reassignment — Interests of the service — Rule that the grade must correspond with the post — Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations — Disciplinary proceedings — Rights of the defence)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 June 2015 — Z v Court of Justice
   (Case T-88/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal - Application for the recusal of a judge - Reassignment - Interests of the service - Rule that the grade must correspond with the post - Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations - Disciplinary proceedings - Rights of the defence))
   (2015/C 262/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Z (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: A. Placco, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 December 2012 in Z v Court of Justice (F-88/09 and F-48/10, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:171), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) in Z v Court of Justice (F 88/09 and F 48/10, ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:171), in so far as it rejected as ineffective the plea in law, raised in Case F-48/10, alleging lack of competence on the part of the Complaints Committee and illegality of Article 4 of the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 4 May 2004 concerning the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union on the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the appeal in Case F-48/10 in so far as it was based on the ground of appeal alleging lack of competence on the part of the Complaints Committee and illegality of Article 4 of the decision of the Court of Justice of 4 May 2004 concerning the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the appointing authority and by the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union on the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment;

               4.

               As regards the costs incurred in the present appeal proceedings, orders Z to bear three quarters of his own costs and three quarters of the costs incurred by the Court of Justice, and orders the Court of Justice to bear one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by Z.

      (1)  OJ C 233, 10.8.2013.


title: Action brought on 5 December 1997 by AZ Com SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-302/97)

text:
C 94/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                        an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.
2. The applicant shall bear the entire costs.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                        awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                        drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH
                                                                   Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        tender.
                      (Case T-293/97)
                         (98/C 94/62)
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   The applicant states that it submitted a tender on
An action against the Commission of the European                   14 October 1996 in response to the call for tenders No 95/
Communities was lodged at the Registry of the Court of             22/IXC1 (OJ C 142, 14.5.1996, p. 31) for the conclusion
Justice on 19 November 1997 by Elta GmbH, whose                    of a framework contract for the provision of training
registered office is at Dreiech (Federal Republic of               services intended for the Commission's drivers, by letter of
Germany); pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of         7 December 1997 it was informed by the Commission that
the EC Statute of the Court of Justice it was transmitted          its tender had not been successful. According to its
to the Registry of the Court of First Instance. The                information, the contract was awarded to Jesco Auto
applicant is represented by Günther Breit, Rechtsanwalt,           Training School, which had already obtained a similar
with an address for service at 33 Mercatorstraûe,                  contract with the Commission as from 1992.
Frankfurt am Main.
                                                                   The applicant maintains that the procedure for awarding
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        the public contract was not in conformity with the
                                                                   applicable rules, in particular Articles 50 to 58 of the
Ð annul Commission Decision of 19 February 1997,                   Commission's financial Regulation of 21 December 1977
    addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany, holding          applicable to the general budget of the European
    the remission of import duties amounting to DEM                Communities, Articles 126 to 129 of the Commission's
    113 875, 49 owed by the applicant to be unjustified            Financial Regulation of 9 December 1993 laying down
                                                                   detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions
                                                                   of the Financial Regulation and Council Directive 92/50/
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
                                                                   procedures for the award of public contracts.
The pleas in law and the main arguments are analogous to
those relied on in Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97,
T-191/97, T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/           It claims in this regard that:
97, T-218/97 (1), T-279/97 and T-280/97.
                                                                   Ð the Commission awarded the public contract in the
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, pp. 17 to 25.
                                                                        belief that it was in the framework of a closed
                                                                        procedure whereas the call for tenders, as
                                                                        communicated to the tenderers, was undeniably open
                                                                        and did not entail any pre-selection of tenders,
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by AZ Com SA                     Ð the opinion of the Advisory Committee for Public
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   Contracts did not appear to have been sought,
                                                                        although the value of the contract exceeded the
                      (Case T-302/97)
                                                                        threshold beyond which that opinion must be sought,
                         (98/C 94/63)
                                                                   Ð the matching of tenders had not been carried out
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        lawfully,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Ð it had not been notified of any reasoned decision for
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                      the award of the public contract, from which it
1997 by AZ Com SA, established in Luxembourg,                           follows that the statement of reasons for the decision
represented by Luc Van Damme, of the Brussels Bar, with                 to award the contract was inadequate,
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/25
Ð the public contract appears to have been awarded                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    after 14 April 1997, the date on which the deadline
    for valid tenders expired, without the tenderers having
    been asked to confirm whether or not their price                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    remained the same, and                                               damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
                                                                         application,
Ð subject to an examination of the administrative file at
    a later stage, it must be considered to have been
    established that the successful tender is not in                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
    conformity with the whole of the obligations set out in              applicant's costs.
    the special contract documents, which necessarily
    vitiates the decision to accept that tender.                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
                                                                     arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect
                                                                     to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by SPRL Ecole de                   producer, has not been compensated for the absence of
Maîtrise Automobile against the Commission of the                    quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-303/97)
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the
                         (98/C 94/64)                                applicant are similar to those raised in Cases T-195/94
                                                                     and T-202/94 Quiller and Heusmann v. Council and
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Commission (1) and T-10/96 Lay v. Council and
An action against the Commission of the European                     Commission (2).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                   In relation to the five-year limitation period under
1997 by SPRL Ecole de Maîtrise Automobile, established               Article 43 of the Protocol on the (EC) Statute the Court of
in Luxembourg, represented by Luc Van Damme, of the                  Justice, the applicant contends that it only began to run
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           from the date when that Court held that the non-
the Chambers of Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.                  allocation of quota to the SLOM III group was illegal.
                                                                     Alternatively, the failure to provide for a SLOM III quota
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     constituted a continuing breach up to the date of its
                                                                     introduction in 1993 and the Council and the Commission
Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                     were therefore guilty of a continuing breach of the
    awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                     applicant's legitimate expectations from the end of the
    drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
                                                                     non-marketing scheme until that date.
Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
    tender.                                                          (1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994, p. 16, and
                                                                         OJ C 218, 6.8.1994, p. 22.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (2) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996, p. 23.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those relied upon in Case T-302/97.
                                                                     Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull
                                                                     against the Council of the European Union and the
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon                         Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union and the                                           (Case T-305/97)
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-304/97)                                                        (98/C 94/66)
                         (98/C 94/65)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union and              An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                       the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon,                  Communities on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull,
represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs                  represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs
Dawson & Co, of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London                  Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London
WC2A 3RZ.                                                            WC2A 3RZ.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-266/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State — Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway — External competence of the Community — Article 10 EC — Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-266/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Negotiation, conclusion, ratification and implementation of bilateral agreements by a Member State - Transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway - External competence of the Community - Article 10 EC - Regulations (EEC) No 3921/91 and (EC) No 1356/96)
   (2005/C 182/12)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-266/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Schmidt and W. Wils) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 18 June 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and arranging for the entry into force of

                           —

                           the agreement between the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Government of the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic on inland waterway transport, signed in Luxembourg on 30 December 1992;

                           —

                           the agreement between the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Government of Romania on inland waterway transport, signed in Bucharest on 10 November 1993; and

                           —

                           the agreement between the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Government of the Republic of Poland on inland waterway transport, signed in Luxembourg on 9 March 1994,

                     without having cooperated or consulted with the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 EC;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.


title: Case C-50/02: Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
6.4.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 84/53
Terza Sezione (Rome District Court, Third Employment                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Chamber) of 24 January 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 8 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza            —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
Sociale [National Social Welfare Institution]) on the following                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
questions:                                                                        Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
                                                                                adapting for the second time to technical progress
                                                                                Council Directive 96/49/EC (2) on the approximation of
                                                                                the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport
Is a provision of national law, which provides, without any                       of dangerous goods by rail or in any event by not
time-limit and thus, in breach of the principle of legal certainty,               notifying the same to the Commission, the Italian Repub-
for the recovery of an undue payment arising from the                             lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
application of Community legislation, compatible with the
objectives of Council Regulations No 1408/71 (1) and
574/72 (2)?                                                                 —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Are the Community provisions cited in (1) to be interpreted as
precluding the application of a provision of national law which             Pleas in law and main arguments
does not lay down time-limits for the recovery of undue
payments arising from the belated or improper application of
the relevant Community provisions?
                                                                            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), which
                                                                            provides that a directive is to be binding as to the result to be
                                                                            achieved on each Member State to which it is addressed,
Is it possible, given that the transitional rules for the application       implies an obligation that the Member States comply with the
of the social security regulations provide for a time-limit of              time-limits for transposition prescribed by directives. In the
two years in which to claim, with retrospective effect, the                 present case the prescribed period expired on 1 July 1999
rights conferred by those regulations, to apply a contrario the             without the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
same time-limit of two years from notification of recovery of               necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
undue payment in cases of reduction of rights previously                    Commission’s claim.
conferred, except where more favourable time-limits are laid
down by national law, and provided that the person concerned
is not guilty of improper conduct?
                                                                            (1) OJ 1999 L 169, p. 58.
                                                                            (2) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 25.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-18/99 (1)
Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission                                                   (2002/C 84/94)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                           (Case C-50/02)
                                                                            By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                           (2002/C 84/93)                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-18/99:
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities v Aiolika Parka
                                                                            Siteias AE.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February                 (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius and R. Amorosi, acting as
Agents.


title: Case T-119/03: Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
21.6.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
      Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 577/2002-1, and
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of 27 January 2003 of the Second
—     Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the                Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 578/2002-1, and
      costs arising from the proceedings and from Case 577/
      2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.
                                                                          —     Order the applicant, as well as any intervener, to pay the
                                                                                costs arising from the proceedings and from Case 578/
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 2001-1 before the First Board of Appeal of OHIM.
Applicant for Com-            The applicant.
munity trade mark:
Community trade mark          Figurative mark ‘NLJEANS’ —
sought:                       Application No 816.454 for
                              goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
                              and 25.                                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Proprietor of mark or         Naulover S.A.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                       Applicant for Com-           The applicant.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
Mark or sign cited in         Community figurative mark
opposition:                   No 13417, consisting in an N
                              superposed on an L, both in
                              English characters.                         Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘NLACTIVE’ —
                                                                          sought:                      Application No 816.629 for
Decision of the Oppo-         Refusal of the opposition.                                               goods within Classes 3, 14, 18
sition Division:                                                                                and 25.
Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                       Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                          Proprietor of mark or        Naulover S.A.
                              ance of the opposition.
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-
Pleas in law:                 Incorrect       application       of        sition proceedings:
                              Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                              No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                              fusion).                                    Mark or sign cited in        Community          trade      mark
                                                                          opposition:                  No 13417, consisting in an N
                                                                                superposed on an L, both in
                                                                                English characters.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the opposition.
Action brought on 4 April 2003 by New Look Limited                        sition Division:
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                          Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the
                        (Case T-119/03)
                                                                          Appeal:                      Opposition Division and accept-
                                                                                ance of the opposition.
                        (2003/C 146/74)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Pleas in law:                Incorrect       application      of
                                                                                Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/494 (likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 April 2003 by New Look Limited, with its official address
in Weymouth (Dorset), United Kingdom, represented by
R. Ballester and G. Marín, lawyers, of the firm Marks & Clerk.


title: Case C-270/08: Order of the President of the Court of 28 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/18

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Hungary
   (Case C-270/08) (1)

   (2009/C 6/36)

      Language of the case: Hungarian

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

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-107/02: Action brought on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
13.7.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/33
2.    That suspension is subject to the following conditions: first, the     The applicant claims that the conduct of the Parliament is not
      applicant shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First            covered by the legislation promulgated and that it has been
      Instance and at the Commission, by 5 August 2002, an                   prompted by considerations which are not germane to the
      interim report on its financial situation to 1 July 2002; second,      matter. The Parliament found in 1998 that the applicant had a
      the applicant shall repay to the BvS a first instalment of the         residence in Germany, and the applicant sent, together with
      contested aid in the sum of 256 000 euros by 31 December               the annual declaration, a confirmation of registration issued
      2002 and shall lodge at the Registry of the Court of First             by the local authority for his place of residence. He claims to
      Instance and at the Commission, within one week of making              have proved to the administration that he has only one
      the payment, written proof of the said part repayment of the           German residence and a corresponding centre of vital interests,
      contested aid; third, the applicant shall lodge at the Registry of     and that there is thus no valid reason entitling the adminis-
      the Court of First Instance and at the Commission, by                  tration to demand further proof. The administrative practice
      31 January 2003, a report on its financial situation to                of the Parliament is neither lawful nor reasonable; moreover,
      31 December 2002.                                                      it does not accord with the duties of mutual cooperation.
3.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                             Action brought on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn, Inc.
                                                                             against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf
Yorck von Wartenburg against the European Parliament
    and the Commission of the European Communities                                                   (Case T-107/02)
                           (Case T-82/02)                                                            (2002/C 169/60)
                          (2002/C 169/59)                                                      (Language of the case: English)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             European Communities on 5 April 2002 by BetzDearborn,
An action against the European Parliament and the Com-                       Inc., represented by Mr Geert Glas of Allen & Overy, Brussels
mission of the European Communities was brought before the                   (Belgium).
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
18 March 2002 by Wolf-Dieter Graf Yorck von Wartenburg,
of Wittibreut (Germany), represented by H.-H. Heyland, lawyer,               A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                   was Atofina Chemicals, Inc.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     by way of modification to the European Parliament’s                    —     annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17
      decision of 28 May 2001, order the appointing authority                      January 2002 in case R 1003/2000-1 to the extent that
      to apply to the applicant’s emoluments as a former                           it annuls the Decision nr 2004/2000 of the Opposition
      servant of the Communities, with effect from December                        Division of 7 September 2000; remit the case to the
      2000, the weighting for the Federal Republic of Germany,                     Opposition Division for further prosecution; order each
      to pay over the amounts not paid since then and to make                      party to bear their own costs incurred in connection with
      corresponding payments in future for as long as the                          the appeal;
      applicant maintains his residence in Germany.
                                                                             —     order the Office to pay all costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff of the                 Applicant for the Com-        BetzDearborn, Inc.
European Parliament who has been retired since 1998, is                      munity trade mark:
contesting the Parliament’s decision not to apply any weighting
to the applicant’s retirement pension since 1 December 2001                  The Community trade           The word mark ‘BIOMATE’ for
in the absence of proof that he actually resides in Germany.                 mark concerned:               certain goods in class 1
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.7.2002
Proprietor of the right to   Elf Atochem North America, Inc.             The applicant claims that the Court should:
the trade mark or sign       now called Atofina Chemicals Inc.
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                 —     annul or, alternatively, substantially reduce the fine
proceedings:                                                                   imposed on the applicant pursuant to Commission
                                                                               Decision C(2001)4573 final corr. of 20 December 2001
                                                                               relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
Trade mark or sign           The national and international                    Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/
asserted by way of oppo-     figurative marks ‘Biomet’ and the                 E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper);
sition in the opposition     national word mark ‘Biomet’ for
proceedings:                 certain goods in classes 1 and 5
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal and
                                                                               other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the opposition of
sition Division:             Atofina Chemicals Inc.
Decision of the Board of     Partial annulment of the Oppo-
Appeal:                      sition Division’s decision.                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Grounds of claim:            Violation of Article 17(2) of Com-
                             mission       Regulation       2868/        In the contested Decision, the Commission found that the
                             95 (1)since a translation into the          applicant and ten other manufacturers of carbonless paper had
                             language of the procedure of the            infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of
                             evidence submitted was not filed            the EEA Agreement by participating in a complex of agree-
                             in due time.                                ments and concerted practices by which they fixed price
                                                                         increases, allocated sales quotas and fixed market shares and
                                                                         set up machinery to monitor the implementation of the
                                                                         restrictive agreements.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
    1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ L 303 of 15.12.1995, p. 1).                 The applicant submits that the Commission erred in respect of
                                                                         each of the stages of its calculation of the applicant’s fine:
                                                                         —     it imposed an amount for ‘gravity’ (EUR 70 million) that
                                                                               was disproportionately high;
                                                                         —     it increased this amount by 100 % for ‘deterrence’ for no
                                                                               good reason;
                                                                         —     it imposed a further increase of 50 % for ‘leadership’
Action brought on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins                                which was entirely disproportionate to the role played by
Appleton Limited against the Commission of the Euro-                           the applicant; and
                      pean Communities
                                                                         —     it granted an insufficient reduction for cooperation.
                        (Case T-118/02)
                                                                         In addition, the applicant alleges that the Commission failed
                        (2002/C 169/61)                                  to take account of the economic difficulties of the carbonless
                                                                         paper market as an attenuating circumstance to reduce the
                                                                         level of the fine; it breached the applicant’s rights of defence;
                  (Language of the case: English)                        and it made a series of mistakes of a kind that it ought not to
                                                                         have made in a decision imposing a EUR 185 million fine.
                                                                         The applicant submits that the combination of these errors
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                resulted in almost 60 % of the total of the fines handed down
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               being imposed on the applicant alone, which is clearly out of
European Communities on 16 April 2002 by Arjo Wiggins                    proportion to the applicant’s market share.
Appleton Limited, represented by Mr François Brunet, Mr John
Temple Lang and Mr Jacob Grierson of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen
& Hamilton, Paris (France).


title: Case T-419/09: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Cybergun v OHIM — Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark AK 47 — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Cybergun v OHIM — Umarex Sportwaffen (AK 47)
   (Case T-419/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark AK 47 - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 145/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cybergun SA (Bondoufle, France) (represented by: S. Guyot, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG (Arnsberg, Germany) (represented by: M.-H. Hoffmann, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2009 (Case R 1101/2007-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Umarex Sportwaffen GmbH & Co. KG and Cybergun SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Cybergun SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case T-322/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  16 March 2006  — Telefon & Buch v OHIM (Community trade mark — Admissibility of the action — Unforeseeable circumstances — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word mark WEISSE SEITEN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2006 — Telefon & Buch v OHIM
   (Case T-322/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Admissibility of the action - Unforeseeable circumstances - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Word mark WEISSE SEITEN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2006/C 108/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant: Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: H. Zeiner and M. Baldares del Barco, lawyers)

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

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Herold Business Data GmbH & Co.KG (Mödling, Austria) (represented by: A. Lensing-Kramer, C. von Nussbaum and U.Reese, lawyers)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2003 (Joined Cases R 580/2001-1 and R 592/2001-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Herold Business Data AG and Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH,
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 6, of 8.1.2005


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case C-214/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 88/609/EEC — Air pollution — Large combustion plants)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 8 July 2004
   in Case C-214/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 88/609/EEC - Air pollution - Large combustion plants)
   (2004/C 217/13)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-214/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.C. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana) v Republic of Austria (Agents: H. Dossi and E. Riedl) — application for a declaration that, by failing to transpose correctly Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ 1988 L 336, p. 1), in the version resulting from Council Directive 94/66/EC of 15 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 337, p. 83), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that amended directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(6), (8), (9) and (10), Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annexes III to VII, and Article 9(2) and (3) of Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants, in the version resulting from Council Directive 94/66/EC of 15 December 1994,

                           —

                           by having adopted, in Paragraph 22(1) of the Luftreinhalteverordnung für Kesselanlagen (regulation on the abatement of air pollution from steam boiler installations), on the conservation of air quality in the presence of boiler installations, a definition of ‘multi-fuel firing unit’ which departs from that set out in Article 2(8) of the Directive,

                           —

                           by failing to transpose in the relevant national legal provisions, the Luftreinhaltegesetz für Kesselanlagen (law on the abatement of air pollution from steam boiler installations) and the Luftreinhalteverordnung für Kesselanlagen, the definitions of ‘new plant’ and ‘existing plant’ as set out in Article 2(9) and (10) of the Directive,

                           —

                           by failing fully to incorporate in the relevant legislation on the conservation of air quality the emission limit values for sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and dust laid down in Article 4(1) and in Annexes III to VII, in particular by diverging from the definition of ‘fuel’ laid down in Article 2(6) of the Directive, and

                           —

                           by failing correctly to transpose Article 9(2) and (3) of the Directive in the Luftreinhaltegesetz für Kesselanlagen and the Luftreinhalteverordnung für Kesselanlagen, concerning methods for calculating emission limit values for combustion plants equipped with multi-firing units using distillation and conversion residues from crude-oil refining for own consumption, alone or with other fuels;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case T-328/05: Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Apple Computer/OHIM

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/28

         Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Apple Computer/OHIM
   (Case T-328/05)
   (2005/C 281/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Apple Computer, Inc. (Cupertino, USA) [represented by: P. Rawlinson, S. Jones, J. Rutter, solicitors]

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TKS-Teknosoft S.A. (Treplex, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No. R 416/2004-4;

               —

               Annulment of the Decision of the Opposition Division No. 851/2004; and

               —

               Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark QUARTZ for goods in class 9 (application No 1 421 130)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: TKS-Teknosoft S.A.

      Mark or sign cited: Figurative Community trade mark QUARTZ for goods in classes 9 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion amongst the relevant public between the two conflicting trade marks. The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal erred in finding similarity between the relevant goods and failed to assess the likelihood of confusion by reference to the relevant consumers thereby giving the opponent TKS-Teknosoft S.A. a trade mark monopoly.


title: Case T-71/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 April 2010 — Xeda International v European Commission (Application for interim measures — Directive 91/414/EEC — Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/40

         Order of the President of the General Court of 30 April 2010 — Xeda International v European Commission
   (Case T-71/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Directive 91/414/EEC - Decision concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Directive 91/414 - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
   2010/C 179/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Parpala, acting as Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79) pending judgment in the main proceedings.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.