title: Case T-2/00: Action brought on 10 January 2000 by "N" against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.3.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 10 January 2000 by ‘N’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
— hold that the Commission and/or the European Investment                                         (Case T-2/00)
    Bank have been guilty of manifest negligence in failing for
    15 years or more to require the local authorities and the
    bank SOCREDO to apply and make known association                                             (2000/C 79/82)
    decisions of the Council and comply with Community law
    applicable in French Polynesia, and that that failure has
    caused the applicant’s present legal difficulties;                                     (Language of the case: French)
— in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    sum of FRF 25 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    he has had to incur to protect his interests.                      European Communities on 10 January 2000 by ‘N’, domiciled
                                                                       in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas and Jean-Louis
                                                                       Dupont, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Tecqmenne, 3 Rue des
                                                                       Capucins.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission and the          — annul the Commission’s decision of 15 March 1999
European Investment Bank (EIB) are liable to compensate him                refusing to accept liability under Article 73 of the Staff
for the damage, imminent and foreseeable, which, he claims,                Regulations and Article 2 of the Rules on coverage of the
he is going to sustain owing to the failure of those institutions          risk of work-related accidents and illness in respect of the
to require the local authorities of French Polynesia and the               accident which he declared on 6 February 1996;
development bank SOCREDO to comply with Community
law and to apply and make known Council Decisions                      — so far as necessary, annul the implied decisions refusing
86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 and 91/482/EEC of 25 July                       the applicant’s administrative claims of 10 and 15 June
1991 on the association of the overseas countries and                      1999 against that decision;
territories with the European Economic Community.
                                                                       — order the defendant to reimburse him with the medical
                                                                           fees he paid in implementation of the decision of 15 March
The applicant claims that, had the Commission and the EIB:                 1999;
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay him an amount of damages to
— properly carried out their monitoring and supervision                    be decided by the Court in compensation for non-material
    duties,                                                                damage suffered by him;
                                                                       — and order the defendant to pay the costs.
— exercised their power to bring proceedings before the
    Court of Justice, where appropriate,
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
— applied the provisions of the association decisions which
    make expressly evident the legal situation of ‘partnership’,       The applicant challenges the Commission’s refusal to treat his
                                                                       infection with the human immunodeficiency (HIV) virus as an
                                                                       accident for the purposes of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       and Article 2 of the Rules on coverage of the risk of
— informed investors of the aim and purpose of those                   work-related accidents and illness. He relies on a breach of
    decisions, and informed the local people of their legal            Article 2 of those Rules against that decision, and argues as
    position vis-à-vis the Community and of their rights,              follows:
                                                                       (a) Error in law as to the nature of the injurious event and of
since 1984, the legal problems he has encountered because of
                                                                           the causal link between that event and the fact giving rise
the inveterate failure of the local authorities to observe the
                                                                           to it. It is clear that the requirements of Article 2 of the
primacy of Community law would never have arisen.
                                                                           Rules are met where there is evidence not of the specific
                                                                           fact which caused the injurious event but rather of
                                                                           the injurious event itself, including the fact that it was
                                                                           extraneous to the victim’s body and sudden, violent or
                                                                           abnormal. In this case, the opinion of the medical com-
                                                                           mittee, on which the contested decision is based, itself
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/40               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
    identifies the sudden, violent or abnormal event extraneous          31 January 1997 removing him from his post and ordered the
    to the applicant’s body, namely infection with the HIV               EIB to pay arrears of his remuneration which he should have
    virus in 1995. The committee’s views on the evidence of              received since his dismissal. The EIB appealed that judgment
    the precise cause of the infection are beyond its com-               of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Justice but it
    petence since that is a legal issue.                                 did not consider it relevant to make an application for interim
                                                                         measures, as it could have done, seeking a stay of execution of
(b) Error of law as to the criteria applied to the accident. The         the judgment in question.
    medical committee and the administration took the view
    that the concept of an accident within the meaning of
    Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the             The EIB did not however uphold any request for a stay of
    Rules required that the event should not be the result of a          execution of the judgment submitted to it by the applicant; it
    freely assumed risk or be unforeseeable, in other words,             moreover made it very clear in its appeal that it did not
    that there should not be any fault or intention associated           consider itself at all required to enforce the judgment of the
    therewith, even though the wording of Article 2 of the               Court of First Instance. The EIB therefore arrogated to itself a
    Rules defining the term accident contains no such con-               power which the law does not provide for, namely, that of
    ditions; they are, rather, included in Articles 4 and 7 on           deciding the appropriateness of complying with a judgment of
    the circumstances in which cover is excluded.                        the court without however taking account of other interests,
                                                                         in particular the harm suffered by the applicant.
(c) Manifest error of appraisal, in that all the conditions for an
    accident provided for in Article 2 of the Rules were met.
                                                                         The applicant argues that failure to comply with the judgment
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance constitutes, on the part of the
                                                                         EIB, a serious failure to fulfil its oblations and misuse of powers
                                                                         and that that conduct by the EIB is causing him extremely
                                                                         serious and irreversible non-material damage inasmuch as it is
                                                                         such as to cast doubts on his professional ability and standing.
Action brought on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                         (Case T-11/00)
                         (2000/C 79/83)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angioli
                                                                         and Others v Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-18/00)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                     (2000/C 79/84)
on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem, residing in Schouweil-
er (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) represented by Michel Karp
and Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar, 84 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Bank to pay him by way of reparation for                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    non-material damage caused by its failure to comply                  European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angi-
    with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  oli, Claudia Delloye-Lemoine, Ann Perks, Geneviève Courtay
    28 September 1999 or, in the alternative, its refusal to             and Claude Gaspart, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric
    comply with it, the sum of EUR 20 000 or any other                   Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    greater amount which this Court might deem equitable;                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim.
— order the Bank to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the decisions of Roger Fry, head of unit at DG IX,
                                                                              addressed to Ms Courtay 23 March, Ms Delloye on 18 May
The applicant points out that, in its judgment of 28 September                and the other applicants on 31 May 1999 terminating
1999 in Case T-140/97, the Court of First Instance annulled                   their contracts on 30 June 1999 and annulling the renewal
the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of                         date of each applicant’s contract, namely 30 June 1999;


title: Case C-283/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in ASML Netherlands BV v SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH
   (Case C-283/05)
   (2005/C 229/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 14 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ASML Netherlands BV and SEMIS Semiconductor Industry Services GmbH on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the phrase ‘… unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so’ in Article 34(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the ‘possibility’ of such a challenge is in any event dependent on the due service on the defendant in accordance with the applicable law on service of an office copy of an appealable default judgment delivered in a Member State?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Would the service of an office copy of the order on the application for a declaration of enforceability in Austria of the default judgement of the regional court in 's-Hertogenbosch of 16 July 2004 … and for an execution order following the foreign order for execution declared enforceable necessarily already have put the defendant and judg- ment debtor (= the defendant in the original proceedings) on notice not only of the existence of that judgment but also of the availability of a legal remedy under the legal order of the State in which the judgment was delivered, so that it would be aware as a result of the possibility of challenging the judgment which is a prior condition for the applicability of the exception to the bar to recognition under Article 34(2) of the Regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case T-75/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (!) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (!)
   (Case T-75/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 282/81
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt-Hollburg, W. Möllering, A. Löhde, H. Leo, A. Witte, T. Frank, A. Theil, H.-P. Rühland, B. Willers and T. Rein, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2007 (Case R 1134/2007-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JOOP! GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 27 February 1997 in Case C-220/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Antonius van den Boogaard v. Paula Laumen (Brussels Convention - Interpretation of Article 1, second paragraph - Definition of rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship - Definition of matters relating to maintenance)

text:
No C 108/8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5 . 4. 97
     of the Member States relating to restrictions on the                   prohibits not only the actual entry of commercial
     marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and                  traffic into the territorial sea of the Federal Republic
     preparations (asbestos), the Kingdom of Belgium has                    of Yugoslavia but also conduct occurring in
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 (1 ) of               international waters which gives good reason to
     Directive 91 /659/EEC;                                                 believe that the vessel concerned is on course for that
                                                                            territorial sea for the purposes of commercial traffic.
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       2 . A domestic provision which, in the event of an
0 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                            ascertained breach of any of the prohibitions laid
                                                                            down in Article 1 of the Regulation, prescribes
                                                                            confiscation of the cargo carried by one of the means
                                                                            of transport indicated in the second paragraph of
                                                                            Article 10 of the Regulation is compatible with the
                                                                            Regulation, in particular with Article 1 0 thereof.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                     of 27 February 1997
in Case C-177/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Consiglio di Stato): Ebony Maritime SA and Loten
Navigation Co. Ltd v. Prefetto della Provincia di Brindisi
                          and Others ( 1 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia —
Conduct in international waters — Confiscation of a                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                      vessel and its cargo)                                                  of 27 February 1997
                          ( 97/C 108/13 )                              in Case C-220/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam ): Antonius
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                    van den Boogaard v. Paula Laumen (*)
                                                                       (Brussels Convention — Interpretation of Article 1, second
                                                                       paragraph — Definition of rights in property arising out
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          of a matrimonial relationship — Definition of matters
          published in the European Court Reports)                                         relating to maintenance)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/14)
In Case C- 177/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Consiglio di Stato ( Italy ) for a
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Ebony Maritime SA and Loten Navigation
Co. Ltd, and Prefetto della Provincia di Brindisi and                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Others — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) (c) and (d )                   published in the European Court Reports)
and Article 10 of Council Regulation ( EEC) No 990/93 of
26 April 1993 concerning trade between the European                    In Case C-220/95 : reference to the Court under the
Economic Community and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro) ( OJ No L 102, 28 . 4 .
                                                                       Protocol of 3 June 1971 , on the interpretation by the
1993 , p. 14 ) and of Article 1 ( c ) and ( d ) and Article 10 of      Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968
Decision 93/235/ECSC of the representatives of the                     on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
Governments of the Member States meeting within the                    and Commercial Matters, by the Arondissementsrechtbank
                                                                       te Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) for a
Council, of 26 April 1993 , concerning trade between the
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
European Coal and Steel Community and the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) ( OJ No               court between Antonius van den Boogaard and Paula
L 102, 28 . 4. 1993 , p. 17) — the Court, composed of:                 Laumen — on the interpretation of the second paragraph
                                                                       of   Article   1   of the      aforementioned  Convention     of
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, Presidents, G. F. Mancini, J. L.
Murray and L. Sevon (Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.                   27 September 1968 , as amended by the Convention of
                                                                       9 October 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of
Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
                                                                       Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm and M.
                                                                       Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304 , 30. 10. 1978 ,
Wathelet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                 p. 77) and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
judgment on 27 February 1997, the operative part of                    accession of the Hellenic Republic ( OJ No L 388, 31 . 12 .
which is as follows :                                                   1982 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                       J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber, C.
                                                                       Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann
1 . Article 1 (1 ) (c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC)             ( Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H.
     No 990/93 of 26 April 1993 concerning trade between               von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
     the European Economic Community and the Federal                   given a judgment on 27 February 1997, in which it has
     Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)                    ruled :
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97          FENI                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 108/9
A decision rendered in divorce proceedings ordering                    Article 9 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
payment of a lump sum and transfer of ownership in                     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
certain property by one party to his or her former spouse              Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
must be regarded as relating to maintenance and therefore              system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
as falling within the scope of the Convention of                       must be interpreted as meaning that the place where the
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement                  services principally and habitually carried out by a
of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as                       veterinary surgeon should be deemed to be supplied is the
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the                     place where the supplier has established his business or
accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the                   has a fixed establishment from which the services are
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                   supplied or, in the absence of such a place of business or
and by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the                        fixed establishment, the place where he has his permanent
accession of the Hellenic Republic, if its purpose is to               address or usually resides.
ensure the former spouse 's maintenance. The fact that in
its decision the court of origin disregarded a marriage                ( l ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
contract is of no account in this regard.
(') OJ No C 208, 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       Action brought on 4 February 1997 by the Federal
                                                                       Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-44/97)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/ 16
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 6 March 1997                                An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
in Case C-167/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              the European Communities on 4 February 1997 by the
the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch): Maatschap M. J. M.
                                                                       Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Roder
Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J. Scheres c.s. v. Inspecteur
                                                                       and Bernd Kloke, of the Federal Economics Ministry.
       der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Roermond ( ')
 (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 9 — Supply of veterinary               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                services)
                            ( 97IC 108/15 )                            — annul          Commission            Decision   96/70 1 /EC    of
                                                                              20 November 1996 (*) amending Decision 96/311/
                                                                              EC (2 ) on the clearance of the accounts presented by
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                                the Member States in respect of the expenditure for
                                                                              1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                              Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF )
                                                                              and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 in so
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               far as the sum of DM 19 591 000 for the 'public
           published in the European Court Reports)                           storage of beef' is imposed on the Federal Republic of
                                                                              Germany by Article 2 thereof, rather than assumed by
                                                                              the EAGGF,
 In Case C-167/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Gerechtshof (Regional Court of               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 Appeal ), ' s-Hertogenbosch, for a preliminary ruling in the
 proceedings pending before that court between Maatschap                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 M. J. M. Linthorst, K. G. P. Pouwels and J. Scheres c.s. v.
 Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Roermond
 — on the interpretation of Article 9 of the Sixth Council               The Commission objected that, in the buying-in, storage
 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                              and sale of intervention beef, the German authorities did
  harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating                not carry out suitable and adequate inspections, and that,
  to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                  in particular, no documentary evidence was provided that
  uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145, 13 . 6 . 1977,              all prescribed entry inspections were carried out by
  p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.                officials  of the     Bundesanstalt fur      Landwirtschaftliche
  Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N.                  Marktordnung (Federal Office for the Organization of
  Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,                Agricultural Markets). It also complained that inventory
  Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General, L. Hewlett,                      controls were not carried out in accordance with Articles 3
  Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                    and 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 618/90 . However, the
  6 March 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :               Commission was unable sufficiently to demonstrate, either


title: Case C-368/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/35/EC — Remedying of environmental damage — Polluter pays principle))

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-368/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/35/EC - Remedying of environmental damage - ‘Polluter pays’ principle))
   2009/C 153/31
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and I. Dimitriou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-421/08 P: Appeal brought on 24 September 2008 by Calebus SA against the judgment delivered on 14 July 2008 in Case T-366/06 Calebus SA v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/5

         Appeal brought on 24 September 2008 by Calebus SA against the judgment delivered on 14 July 2008 in Case T-366/06 Calebus SA v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-421/08 P)
   (2009/C 55/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Calebus SA (represented by: R. Bocanegra Sierra, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought
   Take note of the fact that the appeal was lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 declaring inadmissible the action brought by Calebus SA in Case T-366/06, allow the appeal and, after completion of all the legal formalities, give a judgment upholding the appeal, setting aside the judgment under appeal, declaring the action admissible and uphold its claims.
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is brought against the order of 14 July 2008 of the Court of First Instance declaring inadmissible the action brought in Case T-366/06 by Calebus SA against Decision 2006/613/EC (1) of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region as regards the inclusion of the farm ‘Las Cuerdas’ as the SCI ‘ES61110006 Ramblas de Gergal, Tabernas y Sur de Sierra Alhamilla’, which appears on that list.
   In the appeal, the appellant takes the view that the order under appeal is vitiated by an error of law when it states that the action is inadmissible because the appellant company has no direct interest in the annulment of the decision. Contrary to the findings in the order, Decision 2006/613 requires Member States, in any event, per se and automatically to make sites classified as Sites of Community Importance (SCI), including the farm ‘Las Cuerdas’, to a protection scheme which necessarily limits the uses to which it may be put, reducing their profitability and sale value. The Member States have discretion to determine the specific content of those measures, but not to decide whether or not to submit the farms to measures of that type, so that the existence of that discretion is not contrary to the direct effect of the decision on the legal status of the appellant undertaking.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1.


title: Case T-100/03: Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Maison de l'Europe Avignon-Méditerranée against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/46               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Maison de l’Europe                     —     that the Commission, by encouraging the expansion of
Avignon-Méditerranée against the Commission of the                              actions and by making late payment (one and a half
                    European Communities                                        years) of the amounts granted, in particular to the MEAM,
                                                                                undermined the position of the latter. Consequently, by
                                                                                adopting the contested decision, the defendant appears
                         (Case T-100/03)                                        to have avoided discussion which, doubtless, would have
                                                                                shown it to be partially responsible for MEAM’s alleged
                                                                                shortcomings; such a discussion is nevertheless essential
                        (2003/C 112/85)                                         and must precede any decision to terminate the activities
                                                                                of an IPE.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant also alleges failure to provide a statement of
                                                                          reasons.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                (1 ) Not yet published.
European Communities on 14 March 2003 by Maison de
l’Europe Avignon-Méditerranée (MEAM), established in
Avignon (France), represented by François Martineau, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of 24 January 2003 of the Commission             Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Centro Informativo
      of the European Communities terminating the agreement               per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promozione degli
      on the setting up of an Info-Point Europe (IPE) in                  investimenti in Sicilia — CIS — in liquidation against the
      Avignon, signed on 23 October 2000;                                          Commission of the European Communities
—     order the defendant to pay the ‘recoverable costs’ in their
                                                                                (Case T-102/03)
      entirety.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/86)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant association in the present case is the same one
as in Case T-43/03 Maison de l’Europe Avignon-Méditer-                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ranée (1). The present action is directed against the termination
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
by the Commission of the agreement entered into with the                  European Communities on 14 March 2003 by Centro
applicant on the setting-up of an Info-Point Europe (IPE).
                                                                          Informativo per la collaborazione tra le imprese e la promo-
                                                                          zione degli investimenti in Sicilia — CIS — in liquidation,
                                                                          represented by Andrea Scuderi and Giorgia Motta, lawyers.
The termination at issue of the agreement in question is
based cumulatively on an alleged ‘loss of confidence’ by the
Commission in the applicant and on certain provisions of the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
new financial regulation.
                                                                          —     annul the contested decision
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     error of law in the present case, inasmuch as the grounds
      for the conduct at issue were not among those which
      could validly justify its adoption under the applicable
      provisions. Neither the agreement in question, Annex I              Pleas in law and main arguments
      thereto on the statutes of the IPE, nor the new financial
      regulation provide for termination of an agreement on
      the setting-up of an IPE in the event that the Commission           The present application has been brought against the decision
      loses confidence in the other party.                                of the Commission of 15 November 2002 C(2002) 4155


title: Case C-351/09: Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/45

         Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-351/09)
   2009/C 267/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, K. Xuereb, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, the Republic of Malta,

                           (a)

                           having failed to establish monitoring programmes for inland surface waters and make them operational in accordance with the first two paragraphs of Article 8 of Directive 2000/60/EC (1)

                           (b)

                           having also failed to fulfil the obligation to submit summary reports of the monitoring programmes for inland surface waters in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 15 of that Directive,

                     is in breach of Articles 8 and 15 of the said Directive;

               —

               Order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to Article 15(2) of the Directive, the latest date for submission of summary reports on monitoring programmes was 22 March 2007. Further, the obligation to submit the summary report regarding monitoring programmes for inland waters is independent from any obligation to submit the 1st Water Catchment Management Plan. To date, the summary report regarding monitoring programmes for inland surface waters has not been forthcoming. As a result, the Commission is of the opinion that the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil obligations that it has under the second paragraph of Article 15 of the Directive.
   In addition, on the basis of the above information provided by the Republic Malta, and by the lack of information concerning the summary report due by the Republic of Malta regarding monitoring programmes for inland surface waters, the Commission consequently takes the view that the Republic of Malta has failed, to date, to establish monitoring programmes for inland surface waters and make them operational in accordance with the first two paragraphs of Article 8 of the Directive. These programmes are essential in order to establish a coherent and comprehensive overview of water status within each river basin district (2).

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy
   OJ L 327, p. 1

      (2)  Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC


title: Case T-187/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Sonova Holding v OHIM (Flex) (Community trade mark — Community word mark FLEX — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — Sonova Holding v OHIM (Flex)
   (Case T-187/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Community word mark FLEX - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sonova Holding AG (Stäfa, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Hawkes, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 December 2013 (Case R 357/2013-2), relating to an application for registration of the word sign FLEX as a community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sonova Holding AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-382/14: Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Juergen Schneider, Erika Schneider v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-382/14) (1)

   (2015/C 056/15)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case T-455/09: Action brought on 7 November 2009 — Jiménez Sarmiento v OHIM — Robin and Others (Q)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/57

         Action brought on 7 November 2009 — Jiménez Sarmiento v OHIM — Robin and Others (Q)
   (Case T-455/09)
   2010/C 24/102
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Vicente J. Jiménez Sarmiento (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Ma García-Cabrerizo del Santo, lawyer)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Michel Robin (Lasnes, Belgium), Daniel Falzone (Waterloo, Belgium), Maxime Monseur (Tamines, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, pursuant to Rule 70 implementing the Regulation on the Community trade mark, it is accepted that the period of four months for the submission of a written statement setting out the grounds of the administrative appeal which gives rise to this action expired on 16 May 2009, and consequently the submission made on 18 May 2009, that day being a Saturday, must be held to comply with the law.

               —

               Alternatively, and in the event that the above claim is not accepted by the Court, declare that it is accepted that the applicant made an excusable error when calculating that period.

               —

               If either of the above two claims is upheld, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the case R0312/2009-4 dated 7 September 2009, declare that the written statement setting out the grounds for the administrative proceedings concerned was submitted in time, and order the Board of Appeal of OHIM to undertake an assessment of the substance of the case.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Michel Robin, Daniel Falzone and Maxime Monseur.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of the letter Q angled and with the lower part in bold (registration number 4 804 266) for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark containing the word element ‘quadrata’ (No 1 770 312) for goods in Class 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition as being inadmissible.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal as being inadmissible.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Rule 70 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing the Regulation on the Community trade mark, departure by the defendant in the contested decision from its consistent practice, in circumstances of excusable error on the part of the applicant.


title: Case T-465/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/33

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-465/15)
   (2015/C 337/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-169/09: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2010 — Vidieffe v OHIM — Ellis International Group (GOTHA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark GOTHA — Earlier Community figurative mark gotcha — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2010 — Vidieffe v OHIM — Ellis International Group (GOTHA)
   (Case T-169/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark GOTHA - Earlier Community figurative mark gotcha - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 30/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Vidieffe Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: M. Lamandini, D. De Pasquale and M. Pappalardo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd (Nassau, Bahamas)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Perry Ellis International Group Holdings, Ltd and Vidieffe Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 February 2009 (Case R 657/2008-1), in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division, inasmuch as that decision rejected the opposition, first, in respect of ‘[leather and imitations of leather] goods (not included in other classes); trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks’ in Class 18 and, second, in respect of all the goods in Class 25.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Vidieffe Srl.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case T-116/11: Action brought on 21 February 2011 — EMA v Commission

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/16

         Action brought on 21 February 2011 — EMA v Commission
   (Case T-116/11)
   2011/C 120/38
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Medical Association (EMA) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Franchi, L. Picciano and N. di Castelnuovo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the action is admissible and well founded as to the substance;

         Principally:

               —

               find and declare that the EMA correctly complied with its contractual obligations under contracts 507760 DICOEMS and 507126 COCOON and is therefore entitled to reimbursement of expenditure incurred in the performance of those contracts as set out in FORMs C which were sent to the Commission, including FORM C relating to period IV under the COCOON contract;

               —

               find and declare that the Commission’s decision to terminate those contracts, contained in the letter of 5 November 2010, is unlawful;

               —

               accordingly, declare that there is no basis for the Commission’s claim for reimbursement of the sum of EUR 164 080,10 and, consequently, annul, withdraw — including by the issue of a corresponding credit note — the debit note of 13 December 2010 by which the Commission sought repayment of the above sum or, in any event, declare that that claim was unlawful;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the remaining sums due to EMA claimed in FORMs C forwarded to the Commission, amounting to EUR 250 999,16;

         In the alternative:

               —

               establish the liability of the Commission on the ground of unjust enrichment and wrongful act;

               —

               as a consequence, order the Commission to pay compensation for the financial loss and non-material damage suffered by the applicant, to be quantified in the course of the proceedings;

         in any event
      , order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, brought under Article 272 TFEU and based on the arbitration clause in Article 13 of the DICOEMS and COCOON contracts, the applicant disputes the lawfulness of the Commission’s decision of 5 November 2010 to terminate, following an audit carried out by the Commission’s services, the two contracts concluded with the applicant as part of the Sixth Framework Programme for Research and Development. The applicant therefore disputes the lawfulness of the debit note issued by the Commission on 13 December 2010 in the light of the audit report seeking the recovery of sums paid by the Commission to the applicant for implementing two projects in which the applicant was involved.
   The applicant relies on five pleas in support of its action.

               1.

               First plea, relating to the enforceability of the debt claimed by the Commission and the eligibility of all the costs it declared to the Commission.

                           —

                           In particular, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Articles 19, 20, 21 and 25 of the General Contractual Conditions regarding the definition of eligible costs, and infringed the principle of non-discrimination with regard to the interpretation of accounting rules for non-profit-making organisations to be applied in accounting verification procedures.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging that the Commission was in breach of the duty of genuine cooperation and good faith in performance of the contract in that it failed to comply fully with its own contractual obligations.

                           —

                           In particular, the applicant maintains that the Commission was in breach of its duty to monitor the satisfactory implementation of the projects from the point of view of financial control as provided for in Article II(3)(4)(a) of the General Contractual Conditions.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging that, in the overall light of the omissions on its part, the Commission infringed the principle of sound administration and the principle of proportionality, on account of the disproportionate nature of the measure it adopted — the termination of the contract — when considered in the light of the alleged failure to comply with certain accounting obligations which, even if they were to be proven to exist, would not give rise to a right to reimbursement of almost all of the advances agreed to.

               4.

               Fourth ground, alleging that the Commission infringed the rights of the defence as a result of its conduct during the accounting verification procedure.

                           —

                           In particular, the applicant complains that it was not granted the right to be heard during the verification and audit stage and maintains the Commission failed to take account of a series of additional documents forwarded to it on 19 August 2009.

               5.

               Fifth ground, put forward in the alternative, alleging non-contractual liability on the part of the Commission on the basis of Articles 268 and 340 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant alleges, first, unjust enrichment to the Commission’s benefit, on the ground that the final results of the DICOEMS and COCOON projects were made available to it without it having to bear all of the costs of those projects.

                           —

                           Second, the applicant claims compensation for damage arising from a wrongful act on the part of the Commission, which circulated a letter that was defamatory in content and seriously prejudicial to the applicant’s reputation.


title: Case T-269/03: Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Socratec — Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 251/12              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            18.10.2003
Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’ Bank Cards                   disproportionate, since the Commission's investigation of the
Group against the Commission of the European                            notification by the Group was still in progress and there has
                          Communities                                   been a long and constant tradition of cooperation by the
                                                                        Group with the Commission's services.
                        (Case T-266/03)
                        (2003/C 251/24)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (1) First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ,
An action against the Commission of the European                            English Special Edition, 1959-1962, p. 87).
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 25 July 2003 by the ‘CB’
Bank Cards Group, whose registered office is in Paris, repre-
sented by Alain Georges and Javier Ruiz Calzado, lawyers.
                                                                        Action brought on 30 July 2003 by Socratec — Satellite
                                                                        Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-269/03)
—     annul the Commission's Decision C(2003) 1524/9 of                                           (2003/C 251/25)
      7 May 2003, ordering the CB Bank Cards Group and
      its subsidiaries to submit to an investigation under                                  (Language of the case: German)
      Article 14(3) of Council Regulation No 17 (1);
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
—     order the removal from the file of all documents seized           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
      and other evidence brought to the knowledge of the                of the European Communities on 30 July 2003 by Socratec —
      Commission during the investigation, and their return             Satellite Navigation Consulting, Research & Technology-
      to the Group;                                                     GmbH, Regensburg (Germany), represented by M. Adolf and
                                                                        M. Lüken, lawyers.
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
      the Group in connection with the present action for               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      annulment.
                                                                        —      annul the Commission's Decision of 30 April 2003 (Case
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                COMP/M.2903);
In support of its action, the applicant pleads, first, infringe-        —      in the alternative, annul the Commission's Decision of
ment of the duty to state reasons for the contested decision. As               30 April 2003 (Case COMP/M.2903) in so far as the
the Commission failed to state the presumptions it wished to                   decision allows the participating undertakings
verify, the applicant found itself unable to grasp the scope of                DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom AG and
its duty of cooperation while at the same time preserving its                  Cofiroute SA to provide telematic services by means of
defence rights. It was also unable to discover whether the                     the toll system commissioned by the Federal Republic of
investigation ordered concerned certain measures already                       Germany;
notified to the Commission or other practices. The applicant
also makes a second plea, alleging infringement of the
principle of proportionality. It first argues that the infringe-
ment of the duty to state reasons, alleged in its first plea, has
prevented either the competent national authorities or the              —      in the further alternative, order the Commission to
Court of First Instance itself from reviewing the proportional-                require DaimlerChrysler Services AG, Deutsche Telekom
ity of the investigation ordered. In the alternative, it argues                AG and Cofiroute SA to postpone completion of the
that recourse to an investigation under Article 14(3) is                       notified joint venture Toll Collect GmbH until the condi-
 ---pagebreak--- 18.10.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 251/13
      tions in Article 2 of the Commission's Decision COMP/              Dolores Fernández Gómez, residing in Brussels, represented by
      M.2903 have been met;                                              Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas and main arguments
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 May
The applicant is a German undertaking which is active, in                      2003 rejecting the applicant's request that the employ-
particular, in the area of telematic services for commercial                   ment contract be renewed;
vehicles. It is challenging the Commission's decision of
30 April 2003, by which the Commission found the acquisi-
tion of joint control over the newly formed joint venture, Toll
Collect GmbH, by DaimlerChrysler AG, Deutsche Telekom AG                 —     in the alternative, annul the reference to the Rule against
and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes SA                     Overlapping contained in administrative notice of
(Cofiroute) compatible with the common market and with the                     14 November 1996 entitled New Policy under Article 2
EEA Agreement.                                                                 (a) of the CEOS;
The applicant submits that the Commission approved the
notified concentration following, above all, its acceptance of           —     in the alternative, order the defendant to make good the
the commitments proposed by DaimlerChrysler Services AG                        damage suffered as a result of the unjustified refusal to
and Deutsche Telekom AG and that in doing so it wrongly                        extend the applicant's contract of employment amount-
assessed the effects of the concentration on the market for                    ing, subject to all necessary reservations, to
telematic services even in the light of the commitments.                       EUR 101 328,60, together with default interest;
Furthermore, the Commission wrongly accepted that the com-
mitments were adequate to solve and wholly eliminate the
competition problem.
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant also submits that the Commission's definition of
the relevant geographic market was wrong and that its defini-            Pleas in law and main arguments
tion of the relevant product market was incomplete.
                                                                         The applicant worked for the Commission as a national expert
Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its          on secondment from 1 December 1997 to 30 November
rights of defence so far as the proposed commitments are                 2000. She was then engaged as a member of the temporary
concerned.                                                               staff from 1 December 2000 to 15 February 2001. Since
                                                                         16 February 2001 she has been covered by a 3-year contract
                                                                         which may be extended by a further year. That contract expires
                                                                         on 30 November 2003 and the applicant requested that it be
                                                                         extended by a year.
                                                                         The applicant states that the request was rejected by the
Action brought on 4 August 2003 by María Dolores                         Commission on the basis of the consistent practice of taking
Fernández Gómez against Commission of the European                       account of the length of service as national expert on second-
                          Communities                                    ment when applying the anti-overlap rule. According to that
                                                                         rule, non-official staff at the Commission must not serve for a
                        (Case T-272/03)                                  total in excess of 6 years.
                        (2003/C 251/26)
                                                                         In support of her application, the applicant alleges, first, infrin-
                                                                         gement of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the European Communities, in particular Article 8 thereof,
                                                                         infringement of other staff rules of the institutions and error
                                                                         of law. According to the applicant, the Commission was not
An action against the Commission of the European                         entitled to take into account the period during which she had
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance               worked as a national expert on secondment when calculating
of the European Communities on 4 August 2003 by María                    her total time at the Commission.


title: Case C-210/07: Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-210/07) (1)

   (2008/C 64/48)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case T-667/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission (EAGGF — ‘Guarantee’ Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Verification of small parcels — Lack of evidence of serious and reasonable doubt — Extrapolation of on-site inspection results)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-667/14) (1)

   ((EAGGF - ‘Guarantee’ Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Verification of small parcels - Lack of evidence of serious and reasonable doubt - Extrapolation of on-site inspection results))
   (2016/C 098/53)
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: The Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rous Demiri and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission implementing decision 2014/459/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2014 L 205, p. 62), insofar as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission implementing decision 2014/459/EU of 9 July 2014 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the ‘Guarantee’ Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), insofar as it excludes from European Union financing, so far as concerns the Republic of Slovenia, the sum of EUR 85 780,08 for the financial year 2010, of EUR 115 956,46 for the financial year 2011 and of EUR 131 269,23 for the financial year 2012;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs, and to pay nine-tenths of those incurred by the Republic of Slovenia;

               4.

               Orders the Republic of Slovenia to bear one-tenth of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case F-43/07: Action brought on 9 May 2007 — Korjus v Court of Justice

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/44

         Action brought on 9 May 2007 — Korjus v Court of Justice
   (Case F-43/07)
   (2007/C 155/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Nina Korjus (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Ortlinghaus, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the decision appointing the applicant, in so far as it fixes her grade under Article 13(1) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               restructure the applicant's career (including valuation of her experience in the grade as thus corrected, her rights to advancement to a higher step and her pension rights), on the basis of the grade at which she would have been appointed on the basis of the competition notice in pursuance of which she was placed on the list of suitable candidates, either to the grade mentioned on that competition notice or to the grade corresponding to its equivalent according to the classification in the new Staff Regulations, as from the date of the decision to appoint her;

               —

               award the applicant interest for late payment on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank on all sums corresponding to the difference between the salary corresponding to her classification in the decision to appoint her and the classification to which she ought to have been entitled, until the date on which the decision to classify her in her proper grade is taken.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   As a successful candidate in competition CJ/LA/32 (1), the notice for which was published before 1 May 2004, the applicant was recruited before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (2). Pursuant to the provisions of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) as amended by the above regulation, she was classified in grade AD7 instead of the grades LA7 or LA6 set out in the competition notice.
   In her application, the applicant relies on, inter alia, infringement of Article 5(5) of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of equal treatment, proportionality, sound administration and the protection of legitimate expectations and of Article 31(1) of the Staff Regulations, in so far as, first, she was recruited at a grade lower than that referred to in the competition notice and, secondly, the classification of successful candidates in the same competition was set at different levels depending on whether they were recruited before or after the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004.
   In addition, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, in so far as the Committee referred to by that provision was not consulted on the issue of the classification of successful candidates in the competitions, the notices for which referred to the old career structure.

      (1)  OJ C 221 A, 3.8.1999, p. 7.

      (2)  OJ L 124, 27.4.2004, p. 1.


title: Case T-512/15: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Sun Cali v EUIPO — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark SUN CALI — Earlier national figurative mark CaLi co — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Representation before the Board of Appeal — Real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Union — Legal persons with economic connections — Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Sun Cali v EUIPO — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe (SUN CALI)
   (Case T-512/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark SUN CALI - Earlier national figurative mark CaLi co - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Representation before the Board of Appeal - Real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the European Union - Legal persons with economic connections - Article 92(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 410/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Cali, Inc. (Denver, Colorado, United States) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Zaera Cuadrado, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 June 2015 (Joined Cases R 1260/2014-5 and R 1281/2014-5), relating to invalidity proceedings between Abercrombie & Fitch Europe and Sun Cali.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Sun Cali, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.


title: Case T-337/09: Action brought on 24 August 2009 — Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia v Commission

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/32

         Action brought on 24 August 2009 — Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia v Commission
   (Case T-337/09)
   2009/C 256/58
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: E. Navarro Varona, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul, under Articles 230 and 231 EC, the Commission decision of 15 June 2009 partly denying access to information requested by the applicant by means of its initial application of 23 October 2008 and its confirmatory application of 19 January 2009.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the decision of the Commission of the European Communities partly refusing access to certain documents drawn up by the consultants ECORYS Nederland BV for the preparation of the report titled ‘Study of regulatory restrictions in the field of pharmacies’ of 22 June 2007 for the defendant’s Directorate General Internal Market and Services.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 4(2) and Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. (1)

   The applicant claims that the contested decision:

               —

               does not contain an adequate statement of reasons.

               —

               errs in its assessment of the exception relating to the commercial interests of a legal person, including intellectual property.

               —

               contains a manifest error of reasoning, by not taking into account that there is an overriding public interest.

               —

               Fails to comply with the prescribed periods for replying to the confirmatory application for access to the documents.

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 31.5.2001, p. 43


title: Case C-439/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — citiworks AG v Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Dresden (Germany) lodged on 24 October 2006 — citiworks AG v Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde
   (Case C-439/06)
   (2006/C 326/73)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Dresden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: citiworks AG

      Defendant: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit as regulatory authority for the Land

      Additional parties: 1. Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH, 2. Bundesnetzagentur.
   Question referred
   Is the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the Gesetz über die Elektrizitäts- und Gasversorgung (Law on electricity and gas supply or ‘EnWG’) compatible with Article 20(1) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and the Council (1) inasmuch as in accordance with the conditions laid down in the first point of Paragraph 110(1) of the EnWG a so-called ‘operation network’ is exempted from the general provisions on system access (Paragraphs 20 to 28a of the EnWG) even where such system access would not impose an unreasonable burden?

      (1)  OJ L 176, p. 37.


title: Case F-94/15 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2015 — Wolff v EEAS (Civil Service — Interim measures — Application for a suspension of operation — Elections to the Staff Committee — Urgency — Absence — Balance of the interests at stake)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/54

         Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 15 July 2015 — Wolff v EEAS
   (Case F-94/15 R)
   ((Civil Service - Interim measures - Application for a suspension of operation - Elections to the Staff Committee - Urgency - Absence - Balance of the interests at stake))
   (2015/C 279/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Oren Wolff (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: G.-J. Van Hegelsom, S. Marquardt and E. Chaboureau, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s challenge to the results of the elections to the Staff Committee of the EEAS.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Mr Wolff’s application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-59/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Employment in a non-Member State — Reassignment of post and post holder — Duty to respect the rights of the defence — Scope — Burden of proof)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 December 2007 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-59/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Employment in a non-Member State - Reassignment of post and post holder - Duty to respect the rights of the defence - Scope - Burden of proof)
   (2008/C 22/12)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: L. Garofalo, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Curral and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, A. Dal Ferro, avvocato)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission by which that Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission decision reassigning the appellant's post at the delegation of the Commission in Luanda (Angola) to the Commission's headquarters in Brussels and a claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 November 2005 in Case T-236/02 Marcuccio v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-286/01: Action brought on 22 November 2001 by Johannes Priesemann against the European Central Bank

text:
C 31/14                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.2.2002
—     order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the           The Applicant submits that there is no justification for the
      Applicant in the present proceedings;                           failure of the Commission to act within a reasonable time.
                                                                      The preliminary investigation of the Commission has taken
                                                                      63 months for the first complaint and 16 months for
—     take further action as the Court may deem appropriate.          the second complaint. Moreover, the formal investigation
                                                                      procedure has already taken two years. Consequently, Deutsche
                                                                      Post has been able to profit from illegal state aid without any
                                                                      interference from the Commission for an extremely long
                                                                      period. As a result of this the competitive position of the
                                                                      Applicant as a competitor of Deutsche Post has been seriously
                                                                      affected.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999, p. 30.
                                                                      (2) OJ C 174, 19.6.1999, p. 14.
On 7 July 1994, the Applicant, a company in the United Parcel         (3) Published in the OJ C 306, 23.10.1999, p. 25.
Services Group (UPS), which distributes parcels throughout
the world, lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging
ongoing state aid arising from, among other things, the
covering of losses and cross-subsidisation of the parcel service
by monopoly revenues from Deutsche Post’s letter post
activities; by the same letter a complaint was also filed under
Article 82 of the EC Treaty. On 2 October 1998, the
Commission informed the Applicant that it would examine               Action brought on 22 November 2001 by Johannes
the position and the behaviour of Deutsche Post AG under                     Priesemann against the European Central Bank
Article 82 of the Treaty and would not begin, at least for the
time being, a procedure under Article 88. The Applicant
lodged an Application asking the Court of First Instance to                                    (Case T-286/01)
annul this ‘decision’ (Case T-182/98) (1).
                                                                                (2002/C 31/28)
On 8 June 1998, the Applicant filed another complaint,                                   (Language of the case: German)
alleging that state aid was involved in the use of monopoly
revenues for the financing of the acquisition of shares of DHL
International. On 21 December 1998 it sent a letter to the
Commission asking it to take a position on its complaint              An action against the European Central Bank was brought
within two months. The period of two months expired without           before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
the Commission having taken a decision or defined its position        on 22 November 2001 by Johannes Priesemann, residing in
and accordingly the Applicant initiated proceedings under             Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by Norbert Pflüger,
Article 232 of the Treaty (Case T-98/99) (2).                         Rechtsanwalt.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
By letter of 17 August 1999, the Commission notified the
Federal Republic of Germany of its decision to initiate the           —     set aside the decision of the European Central Bank to
procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty (3). The                 refuse the education allowance for the benefit of his three
Application in Case T-182/98 was dismissed as inadmissible                  children, and, if necessary, set aside the decisions of the
(Order of the Fourth Chamber of 30 September 1999) and                      defendant in the preliminary proceedings;
Case T-98/99 was removed from the register (Order of the
President of the Fourth Chamber of 29 October 1999).                  —     order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.
On 5 June 2001, given that the Commission had not taken a             Pleas in law and main arguments
position as to the compatibility with the Common Market of
the measures that are the subject of the two complaints, the
Applicant asked it to define its position and/or take the             The applicant, an employee of the European Central Bank,
measures requested in each of the complaints. The time period         applied for an education allowance to send his three children
of two months within the meaning of Article 232 EC Treaty             to an international school. The defendant refused the appli-
expired on 5 August 2001 without the Commission having                cation on the ground that the applicant did not fulfil the
defined its position with regard to the Applicant’s complaints.       conditions for the allowance, not being already entitled to the
Therefore the Applicant has lodged the present Application.           expatriation allowance.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.2.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 31/15
In support of his claim, the applicant argues that the contested          —     order the Commission to pay to the applicant any amount
decision infringes the principle of equal treatment and thus                    which the Court may deem appropriate by way of
also Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment. The                            compensation for the damage which the applicant has
applicant maintains that, by comparison with the group of                       suffered;
employees entitled to expatriation allowance under Article 17
of the Conditions of Employment, he is being discriminated                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
against, and that that discrimination is not justified.
The applicant argues that the position is not affected by the             Pleas in law and main arguments
fact that Article 19 of the Conditions of Employment is only a
‘temporary solution’ pending the establishment of a European
School in the Frankfurt am Main area. In this phase also, he              The present application seeks a declaration that, by terminating
maintains, he cannot be treated differently from the employees            the Thermie contract, signed on 22 December 1994 bearing
entitled to expatriation allowance.                                       number BM 1007/1994 IT/DE/UL/PO, for the construction of
                                                                          a thermal power station in Italy, fuelled by plant-based biomass
                                                                          based on a fluidised bed air gasifier on a combined cycle, the
                                                                          Commission acted unlawfully. 40 % of the cost of the contract
The applicant finds it incomprehensible that the education                was originally financed by Community contributions. The
allowance is linked to the existence of a right to expatriation           applicant company, which was coordinating the project,
allowance under Article 17 of the Conditions of Employment.               consisted of five of the seven original parties to the contract in
He argues that the purpose of the education allowance is to               question.
enable all-day schooling to take place, and that it is designed
not to benefit the employee but to support the dependent
child by making a contribution to its maintenance costs.                  The decision to terminate was adopted after a number of
                                                                          problems regarding performance of the contract, in particular
                                                                          with regard to the failure of Lurgi Energie, one of the
                                                                          contractors, to contribute technological support which led the
                                                                          defendant to the conclusion that it would be impossible to
                                                                          complete the programme of work of the project within the
                                                                          agreed time limit.
                                                                          In support of its application the applicant puts forward the
Action brought on 20 November 2001 by Bioelettrica                        following pleas in law:
S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                ties
                                                                          —     failure to give one month’s notice by registered letter;
                        (Case T-287/01)                                   —     failure to notify the termination to all the Contractors;
                                                                          —     infringement of Clause 8(8).2(f) of Annex II to the General
                          (2002/C 31/29)                                        Terms and Conditions of the Contract, inasmuch as that
                                                                                provision provides for the Commission to be able to
                                                                                terminate the contract where the other contracting party
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                              has not commenced work by the date laid down in the
                                                                                contract, bearing in mind that the contract was entered
                                                                                into in December 1994 and that Clause 2.1 of the
                                                                                Contract lays down 1 January 1995 as the date for the
                                                                                commencement of work. According to the applicant, it is
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                       unbelievable that the Commission should have taken six
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      years to complain about the failure to commence work;
European Communities on 20 November 2001 by Bioelettrica
S.p.A., represented by Ombretta Fabe Dal Negro,                           —     breach of the general principle of legal certainty with
                                                                                regard to legal relationships with a contractor who may
                                                                                not under any circumstances be subject to unforeseeable
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     or unspecified consequences either as regards the con-
                                                                                ditions which the parties have imposed on themselves or,
                                                                                even less, the applicable legislation. The applicant points
—     find that, by terminating by letter of 6 September
                                                                                out that this is particularly the case inasmuch as the
      2001 the Thermie contract of 12 December 1994 with
                                                                                unforeseen effect arises from the exercise of an arbitrary
      Bioelettrica S.p.A., the Commission has acted unlawfully,
                                                                                power, which is not provided for either under the law or
      and consequently
                                                                                under the contract, to extinguish the existing contractual
                                                                                relationship by withdrawing on the basis of an improper
—     declare the contract valid and effective; and                             and moreover unfounded ground;