title: Case C-104/00 P: Appeal brought on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-19/99 between DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)

text:
C 192/6                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                of registering the sign with a clarifying disclaimer (dis-
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with European               claiming any exclusive right in the words ‘company’ and
     Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December                  ‘line’).
     1994 on packaging and packaging waste within the prescribed
     period, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        There is nothing in the contested decisions to indicate that
     under that directive;                                                     any consideration was given to the rectification provision
                                                                               contained in Article 12(b) of Regulation No 40/94. In the
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                              case of the sign ‘Companyline’, this may explain the reason
                                                                               why the grounds of exclusion laid down in Article 7(1)(b)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                      and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 were assessed in accord-
                                                                               ance with excessively stringent criteria.
                                                                               The Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard
                                                                               to the defendant’s failure, contrary to Article 38(2) and (3)
                                                                               of Regulation No 40/94, Rule 11(2) of the implementing
Appeal brought on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche                                regulation and point 8.13.2 of the examination guidelines,
Krankenversicherung AG against the judgment delivered                          to bring pressure to bear for the inclusion of a disclaimer.
on 12 January 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court                          In reaching its decision concerning the grounds of
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case                          exclusion set out in Article 7(1) of Regulation No 40/94,
T-19/99 between DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung                               the Court of First Instance wrongly omitted to have regard,
AG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                            in addition, to the registration practice followed in all the
               Market (trade marks and designs)                                Member states of the Community.
                          (Case C-104/00 P)                               — Infringement of substantive law and misuse of discretion-
                                                                               ary powers: the applicant considers that the contradictions
                           (2000/C 192/11)                                     and omissions on the part of the defendant clearly and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2000                    objectively show that the decisive aim of the contested
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                        decision was to refuse registration of the sign ‘Company-
the European Communities in Case T-19/99 between DKV                           line’ under any circumstances, in disregard of the legal
Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG and the Office for Harmon-                     situation and of the defendant’s duty to promote harmonis-
isation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)                       ation. The purely formal argument as to the co-existence
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        of Community trade mark law in tandem with the national
Communities on 20 March 2000 by DKV Deutsche Kranken-                          trade mark laws of the Member States is unconvincing,
versicherung AG, represented by Stephan von Petersdorff-                       since the Office for Harmonisation reached its decision
Campen, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs von Rospatt, von der                           without any objective determination of the facts, particu-
Osten, Pross, of Kaiser-Friedrich-Ring 56, D-40547 Düsseldorf,                 larly as regards the decision-making practice followed in
assisted by Alfred Maxton, patent attorney, of Messrs Maxton                   the United Kingdom, and failed to weigh up and reconcile
& Langmaack, of Goltsteinstrasse 93, D-50968 Cologne, with                     the interests involved in such a way as to fulfil its obligation
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc                   to ensure co-existence.
Loesch, of Messrs De Bandt, van Heckel, Lagae & Loesch,
11 Rue Goethe, L-1011 Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the contested decisions;                                      Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                ties
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    (Case C-114/00)
— Infringement of substantive law, in particular Arti-
     cle 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94: excessively                                       (2000/C 192/12)
     stringent criteria were applied in assessing the eligibility
     for registration of the sign ‘Companyline’. Instead of               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     assessing the overall impression produced by the sign                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     ‘Companyline’, the contested decisions merely considered,            Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
     in isolation, the component words ‘company’ and ‘line’               represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,
     together making up the composite sign. The numerous                  acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     possible meanings said to attach to the words by way                 the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
     of association are not apparent. Having regard to the
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
     registration practice followed in the Member States of the
     Community (including English-speaking Member States)                 1) annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
     and the defendant’s decision-making practice in relation to               concerning aid to finance operating capital in the agricul-
     comparable signs, registration of the sign ‘Companyline’                  tural sector in Extremadura;
     should not have been refused under Article 7(1)(b) of
     Regulation No 40/94. No use was made of the possibility              2) order the defendant institution to pay the costs.


title: Case T-483/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission (Interim relief — Investigation conducted by OLAF — Action for damages — Financial and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant — Application for interim measures — Inadmissibility — Lack of urgency)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 27 November 2013 — Oikonomopoulos v Commission
   (Case T-483/13 R)
   (Interim relief - Investigation conducted by OLAF - Action for damages - Financial and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant - Application for interim measures - Inadmissibility - Lack of urgency)
   2014/C 24/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Athanassios Oikonomopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and I. Zarzoura, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and A. Sauka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures lodged as part of an action for damages seeking compensation for the damage the applicant suffered in the course of his professional activities and regarding his reputation resulting from allegedly unlawful conduct of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as part of an investigation conducted by its agents.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-486/10: Action brought on 14 October 2010 — Iberdrola v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/51

         Action brought on 14 October 2010 — Iberdrola v Commission
   (Case T-486/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/80
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iberdrola, SA (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and E. Barbier de la Serre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action is brought against the same decision as that challenged in Case T-484/10 Gas Natural Fenosa SDG v Commission and Case T-490/10 Endesa v Commission.
   In the applicant’s submission, the Commission made a series of errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in holding, following a preliminary examination in accordance with Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, (1) that the public service compensation notified by the Kingdom of Spain was justified pursuant to the EU rules on State aids. The applicant puts forward five pleas in support of its application for annulment.
   First, the applicant complains that the Commission failed to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 4(4) of the Regulation, although there were serious doubts as to the compatibility of the notified aid with the internal market. Accordingly, the applicant claims that the Commission clearly infringed Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
   By its second plea, which is in two parts, the applicant submits, in the first part, that the Commission made errors of law and of assessment in holding that the measure notified by the Kingdom of Spain reflects the need to pay compensation in respect of the cost of supplying a service of general economic interest, justified on grounds of security of supply, although there are no problems of security of supply and it is not anticipated that any will arise in the medium term. In the second part of the plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding the measure notified by the Kingdom of Spain to be compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and the Third Electricity Directive [2009/72/EC].
   By its third plea, the applicant argues that the State aid authorised by the Commission breaches the temporal and material limits laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 (2) and in the Proposal for a Council Regulation concerning State aid to facilitate the closure of uncompetitive coal mines.
   By its fourth plea, the applicant maintains that the Commission has acted in breach of the principle of sound administration, which requires it to examine with due care and attention and in an impartial manner all relevant aspects of the matter, since it failed to deem it appropriate to seek all the opinions necessary for it to be fully informed about all data relevant to the case before adopting its decision and, instead, approved the notified measure at the preliminary stage.
   By its fifth plea, which is in three parts, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the principle established by the case-law which prevents the Commission from declaring compatible with the internal market State aid that infringes other provisions of the Treaty: in particular, the Commission disregarded the fact that the measure infringes the rules which give effect to the principle of free movement of goods, the objectives pursued by the directives concerning the internal market for electricity and the European Union’s objectives concerning sustainability.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1).


7.12.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 305/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-124/01 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-45/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/36)                                                      (2002/C 305/39)
By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 10 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               of the European Communities ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-124/01: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-45/02: Commission of the European
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-150/01 ( 1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-70/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/37)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/40)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-150/01: Commission of the
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                      from the register of Case C-70/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-443/01 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 305/38)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-221/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/41)
By order of 28 August 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-443/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Vestre Landsret): Poul Nørgaard v Skatteminis-          By order of 25 September 2002 the President of the Court of
teriet.                                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-221/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Case C-474/07: Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2008 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 December 2008 — European Parliament v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-474/07) (1)

   (2009/C 69/58)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-720/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Gat Microencapsulation/OHMI — BASF (KARIS)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/24

      Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Gat Microencapsulation/OHMI — BASF (KARIS)
      (Case T-720/13)
      (2014/C 71/45)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Gat Microencapsulation AG (Ebenfurth, Austria) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma and M. C. March Cabrelles, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Germany)

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  Annul the contested decision insofar appeal submitted by the appellant/applicant was rejected;

                  —

                  Order OHIM and the interveners to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gat Microencapsulation AG

         Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KARIS’, for a list of goods and services in Classes 1, 5 and 35

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BASF SE

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; international trade mark ‘CARYX’, for goods in classes 1 and 5; Hungarian, Italian and Benelux trade mark ‘AKRIS’, for goods in class 5

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial rejection of the opposition

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 1999 in Case C-107/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l'Emilia-Romagna): Teckal Srl v Comune di Viano, Azienda Gas-Acqua Consorziale (AGAC) di Reggio Emilia (Public service and public supply contracts — Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC — Award by a local authority of a contract for the supply of products and provision of specified services to a consortium of which it is a member)

text:
19.2.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 47/5
or withdrawal within the meaning of Council Regulation (EEC)                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
members of their families moving within the Community, as amended                                       (Fifth Chamber)
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992.
                                                                                of 18 November 1999
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                           in Case C-107/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-
                                                                           Romagna): Teckal Srl v Comune di Viano, Azienda Gas-
                                                                                Acqua Consorziale (AGAC) di Reggio Emilia (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Public service and public supply contracts — Directives
                                                                           92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC — Award by a local authority of
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   a contract for the supply of products and provision of
                                                                             specified services to a consortium of which it is a member)
                      of 18 November 1999
in Case C-209/97: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    (2000/C 47/08)
           ties v Council of the European Union (1)
(Regulation (EC) No 515/97 — Legal basis — Article 235                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 308 EC) or Article 100a of the
      EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC))
                          (2000/C 47/07)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case C-107/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Amministrativo Regionale per l’Emilia-Romagna (Regional
                   in the European Court Reports)                          Administrative Court for Emilia Romagna), Italy, for a prelimi-
                                                                           nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
In Case C-209/97: Commission of the European Communities                   between Teckal Srl and Comune di Viano, Azienda Gas-Acqua
(Agents: M. Nolin and P. van Nuffel), supported by the Euro-               Consorziale (AGAC) di Reggio Emilia — on the interpretation
pean Parliament, (Agents: J. Schoo and J.-L. Rufas Quintana) v             of Article 6 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992
Council of the European Union (Agents: B. Hoff-Nielsen,                    relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of
M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton), supported by the French Republic                public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1) — the Court
(Agents: M. Perrin de Brichambaut and F. Pascal) — application             (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the
for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of                  Chamber, L. Sevón, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and
13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrat-                M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
ive authorities of the Member States and cooperation between               Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application            on 18 November 1999, in which it has ruled:
of the law on customs and agricultural matters (OJ 1997 L 82,
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch             Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating pro-
(Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate                 cedures for the award of public supply contracts is applicable in the
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 Nov-              case where a contracting authority, such as a local authority, plans to
ember 1999, in which it:                                                   conclude in writing, with an entity which is formally distinct from it
                                                                           and independent of it in regard to decision-making, a contract for
1. Dismisses the application;                                              pecuniary interest for the supply of products, whether or not that
                                                                           entity is itself a contracting authority.
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
    costs and the European Parliament and the French Republic to
    bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case C-273/04: Action brought on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland against the Council of the European Union

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/6

         Action brought on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-273/04)
   (2004/C 239/10)
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by the Republic of Poland, represented by Jarosław Pietras.
   The Republic of Poland claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare invalid Article 1.5 of Council Decision 2004/281/EC of 22 March 2004 adapting the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, following the reform of the common agricultural policy (1); and

               2.

                           —

                           conduct the proceedings in Polish,

                           —

                           determine the case in plenary formation,

                           —

                           order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Government of the Republic of Poland takes the view that Article 23 of the Act of Accession, construed in accordance with the principles governing the interpretation of international agreements and Community law, does not provide any legal basis for adoption of the measures specified in Article 1.5 of Decision 2004/281/EC and based on the extension of the restricted scope of payments to the new direct payments.
   The contested measure does not constitute an adjustment to the Act of Accession designed to take account of changes to the Common Agricultural Policy, but amounts rather to a fundamental alteration of the conditions of accession defined in that Act that is detrimental to the Republic of Poland and to agricultural producers operating within its territory. The contested measure is not a measure that is necessitated by reason of changes to the Community rules. Consequently, in the view of the Government of the Republic of Poland, the Council of the European Union did not have the power to extend the restricted scope of payments by way of a decision adopted pursuant to Article 23 of the Act of Accession. In introducing the contested measure, the Council of the European Union has infringed Article 23 of the Act of Accession.
   The Government of the Republic of Poland submits further that the contested measure is contrary to the objective of the Accession Treaty of ensuring full assumption by the new Member States of the rights and duties deriving from membership of the European Union and infringes the principle of non-discrimination set out in Articles 12 EC and 34(2) EC, second subparagraph. The Accession Treaty was based on the principle that the new Member States should accede with equal rights, and thus in compliance with the fundamental principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment for producers from the Community of 15 States and for those from the new Member States. That fundamental principle has been limited only in the case of the listed instruments designed to support agricultural producers. The contested measure, by contrast, introduces a divergent principle that is discriminatory in character and under which all direct payments, both present and future, will be made on unequal bases resulting from the mechanism of gradual introduction. The contested measure accordingly results in departures from the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment within an indeterminate and uncertain area.
   The Government of the Republic of Poland also takes the view that, by basing itself as a rule on solutions which in the Accession Treaty were exceptional in nature, the contested measure undermines the negotiating compromise and constitutes an infringement of the principle of good faith. The Government of the Republic of Poland submits that, from the outset of the accession negotiations, it recognised the instrument of gradual introduction as being a solution exceptional in character, covering only the listed support instruments, but not as being a principle for supporting agricultural incomes within the territory of the Republic of Poland.

      (1)  OJ L 93 of 30.3.2004, p. 1.


title: Case F-19/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Action lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/23

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-19/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the time-limit for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Action lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)
   2013/C 377/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s note containing one or more decisions concerning the applicant’s administrative status and a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio will bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012, p. 34.


title: Case C-379/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-556/11: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/20

         Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-556/11: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-379/16 P)
   (2016/C 305/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: C.-N. Dede, D. Papadopoulou, Δικηγόροι)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court under Appeal as per the rejection of the new plea in law related to the acceptance of an offer including a discount.

               —

               Annul the award decision of EUIPO in so far as it accepted IECI’s tender, which included a discount contrary to the requirements of the tender specifications.

               —

               Order EUIPO to pay the Appellants’ legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure and the current Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants base their appeal on the fact that the General Court misinterpreted the Defendant’s arguments and distorted the evidence provided by EUIPO, following the Order of the General Court of measures of inquiry, which was also confirmed during the hearing by EUIPO. Such evidence demonstrated that the winning tenderer’s offer included a discount (which was offered irregularly) and that such discount was considered in the course of the evaluation. By offering a discount, the first winning tenderer included in its tender a variant in relation to the proposed price, contrary to the tender specifications (as complemented by the provision of answers by the Contracting authority to the questions of the tenderers). The General Court, specifically, erred in law in considering that EUIPO allegedly did not take into account the discount provided by the winning tender for the purposes of the financial assessment and, therefore, that because such discount was allegedly not taken into account, that EUIPO did not infringe the tender specifications.


title: Case T-33/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Zenab v Commission (Community financial support — Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus) — Call for proposals — Rejection of the proposal — Alleged unlawful delegation of powers which have been transferred to the Commission — Manifest errors of assessment — Obligation to state reasons — Access to documents — Action for annulment and for compensation)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2009 — Zenab v Commission
   (Case T-33/06) (1)

   (Community financial support - Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audiovisual works (MEDIA Plus) - Call for proposals - Rejection of the proposal - Alleged unlawful delegation of powers which have been transferred to the Commission - Manifest errors of assessment - Obligation to state reasons - Access to documents - Action for annulment and for compensation)
   2009/C 205/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zenab SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Windey and P. De Bandt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action, first, for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 November 2005 with reference number 648599 and, secondly, for a finding that the European Community is non-contractually liable, for an order that the Commission should pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 37 807 as compensation for the costs incurred in the context of the call for proposals, the amount of the non-material loss because of damage to reputation and the amount of the material loss resulting from the delay in the implementation of the EuroVOD project, and for the appointment of an expert to assess that loss

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zenab SPRL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case C-32/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Attila Sugár (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer — Mortgage loan agreement — Article 7(1) — Stopping the use of unfair terms — Adequate and effective means — Acknowledgement of the debt — Notarised instrument — Affixation of the enforcement clause by a notary — Enforceable order — Notary’s obligations — Examination by the national court of its own motion of unfair terms — Judicial review — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Törvényszék — Hungary) — ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt v Attila Sugár
   (Case C-32/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer - Mortgage loan agreement - Article 7(1) - Stopping the use of unfair terms - Adequate and effective means - Acknowledgement of the debt - Notarised instrument - Affixation of the enforcement clause by a notary - Enforceable order - Notary’s obligations - Examination by the national court of its own motion of unfair terms - Judicial review - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness))
   (2015/C 381/04)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ERSTE Bank Hungary Zrt

      Defendant: Attila Sugár

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a notary who drew up, in due form, an authentic instrument concerning a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, to affix the enforcement clause to that instrument or to refuse to cancel it when no review of the unfairness of the contractual terms has been performed at any stage.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case F-14/15: Action brought on 26 January 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/50

         Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-14/15)
   (2015/C 089/63)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions determining the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               annul the decisions determining the amount of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses granted to the applicants for 2014;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-727/14: Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. d/b/a Universal Nutrition v OHIM — H. Young Holdings (animal)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/44

         Action brought on 10 October 2014 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. d/b/a Universal Nutrition v OHIM — H. Young Holdings (animal)
   (Case T-727/14)
   (2014/C 431/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. d/b/a Universal Nutrition (New Brunswick, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H. Young Holdings plc (Newbury, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘animal’ — Community trade mark No 2 8 22  807

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 July 2014 in Case R 2054/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM and the other party to pay their own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 37(b)(ii) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Case T-109/09: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIVITAL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PROTIVITAL — Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER — Late submission of documents — Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Concept of a provision to the contrary — Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2011 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)
   (Case T-109/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PROTIVITAL - Earlier national word and figurative marks PROTIPLUS, PROTI and PROTIPOWER - Late submission of documents - Discretion granted by Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Concept of a provision to the contrary - Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95)
   2012/C 32/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France) (represented by: F. Baujoin, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 1660/2007-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Bernhard Rintisch and Valfleuri Pâtes alimentaires SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bernhard Rintisch to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-434/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)) — Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Freedom of movement for persons — Article 21 TFEU — Directive 2004/38/EC — ‘Beneficiary’ — Article 3(1) — National who has never made use of his right of free movement and has always resided in the Member State of his nationality — Effect of being a national of another Member State — Purely internal situation)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)) — Shirley McCarthy v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-434/09) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Article 21 TFEU - Directive 2004/38/EC - ‘Beneficiary’ - Article 3(1) - National who has never made use of his right of free movement and has always resided in the Member State of his nationality - Effect of being a national of another Member State - Purely internal situation)
   2011/C 186/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shirley McCarthy

      Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Articles 3 and 16 of Directive 2004/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77) — Concepts of ‘beneficiary’ and ‘legal residence’ — British citizen who also has Irish nationality and has always lived in the United Kingdom

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State.

               2.

               Article 21 TFEU is not applicable to a Union citizen who has never exercised his right of free movement, who has always resided in a Member State of which he is a national and who is also a national of another Member State, provided that the situation of that citizen does not include the application of measures by a Member State that would have the effect of depriving him of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred by virtue of his status as a Union citizen or of impeding the exercise of his right of free movement and residence within the territory of the Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-238/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) by order of that court of 13 April 2005 in the case of Asnef-Equifax Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, S.L. and Administración del Estado v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (AUSBANC)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) by order of that court of 13 April 2005 in the case of Asnef-Equifax Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, S.L. and Administración del Estado v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (AUSBANC)
   (Case C-238/05)
   (2005/C 205/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) of 13 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Asnef-Equifax Servicios de Información sobre Solvencia y Crédito, S.L. and Administración del Estado and Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (AUSBANC) on the following questions:

               A)

               Is it possible to interpret Article 81(1) EC as meaning that agreements between financial institutions for the exchange of information about the solvency of their customers and lateness of payments by them may be regarded as compatible with the common market, in so far as they affect the financial policies of the European Union and the common credit market and have the effect of restricting competition in the financial and credit institution sector?

               B)

               Is it possible to interpret Article 81(3) EC as meaning that a Member State may, by means of bodies responsible for overseeing competition, authorise agreements between financial institutions for the exchange of information about their customers through the establishment of a credit information register, in so far as the creation of that register produces benefits for consumers and users of those financial services?


title: Case C-270/03: Action brought on 23 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
23.8.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 200/17
Does subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 13C of           As regards hazardous waste transported directly by its
the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on               producer, the same provision of the Italian decree establishes
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to           a further exemption from the requirement of registration in
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax (1),                   the register referred to above, which applies to undertakings
permit a Member State which has exercised the power to allow             that transport less than 30 litres or 30 kg of waste per day.
taxpayers a right of option for taxation in cases of letting and
leasing of immovable property to make full deduction of the
input VAT conditional upon non-retroactive approval of the tax           In sum, the requirement in question is limited to the collection
authorities first being obtained?                                        and transportation of hazardous waste, except in cases where
                                                                         the collection or transportation of such waste is carried out by
                                                                         its producer in quantities below a certain daily limit, and to
(1) OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1.                                          the collection and transportation of non-hazardous waste on
                                                                         behalf of others.
                                                                         That is clearly inconsistent with the directive. According to
                                                                         Article 12 of the directive, all undertakings, without distinc-
                                                                         tion, which on a professional basis collect or transport waste
                                                                         of any kind, whether hazardous or non-hazardous, must,
                                                                         where not subject to authorisation, be registered with the
Action brought on 23 June 2003 by the Commission of                      competent authorities.
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         (1) OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32.
                          (Case C-270/03)
                          (2003/C 200/30)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 June
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      Action brought on 21 June 2003 by Ireland against the
represented by L. Visaggio and R. Amorosi, acting as Agents.                      Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-271/03)
—     declare that, by permitting undertakings, under
      Article 30(4) of Legislative Decree No 22, of 5 February                                     (2003/C 200/31)
      1997, as amended by Law No 426, of 9 December 1998,
      to collect and transport their own non-hazardous waste,
      as an ordinary activity, without requiring them to be
      registered in the national register of undertakings carrying       An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
      out waste disposal services, and, in addition, by permit-          nities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      ting undertakings to transport their own hazardous waste           Communities on 21 June 2003 by Ireland, represented by
      in quantities of less than 30 kg and 30 litres per day,            D.J. O'Hagan, acting as agent, assisted by P. Gallagher SC,
      without requiring them to be entered in that register, the         P. McGarry, Barrister and J. Buttimore of the Office of the
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under        Attorney General, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
      Article 12 of Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as
      amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2);
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         a)    declare the action admissible;
                                                                         b)    annul Commission Decision C(2003)1084 reducing assis-
                                                                               tance granted from the European Regional Development
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Find (ERDF) to the Global Grant Scheme for Private
                                                                               Sector Tourism and Development, Operational Programme
                                                                               for Tourism (1989-1993) sub-programme 2, in Ireland
As regards non-hazardous waste, Article 30(4) of the Legisla-                  under Commission Decision C89(2258/7) of 21 December
tive Decree expressly exempts undertakings which, on their                     1989;
own account, collect and transport non-hazardous waste in
the course of their particular occupational activities from the
requirement of registration in the national register of under-           c)    order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceed-
takings carrying out waste disposal services.                                  ings.


title: Case T-429/15: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Monster Energy v EUIPO — Mad Catz Interactive (MAD CATZ)
   (Case T-429/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark MAD CATZ - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 314/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Energy Company (Corona, California, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mad Catz Interactive, Inc. (San Diego, California, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 2176/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Monster Energy Company and Mad Catz Interactive.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monster Energy Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Case F-39/16: Action brought on 4 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/29

         Action brought on 4 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-39/16)
   (2016/C 371/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and ISPRA and order for the defendant to pay damages and interest for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered of an amount of EUR 10 000.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the jury for competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg), notified on 28 September 2015, not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;

               —

               order the defendant to pay an amount of EUR 10 000 for non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-182/15: Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/29

         Action brought on 13 April 2015 — Sopra Steria Group v Parlement
   (Case T-182/15)
   (2015/C 262/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sopra Steria Group SA (Annecy-le-Vieux, France) (represented by: A. Verlinden, R. Martens and J. Joossen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of the European Parliament of unknown date, notified by letters dated 13 February 2015, to exclude IBI IUS for Lot 2 and to exclude STEEL for Lot 3 in the tendering procedure for PE/ITEC-ITS14;

               —

               declare that the contract(s) with other tenderers due to this exclusion decisions is (are) null and void;

               —

               order that the European Parliament has to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the expenses for legal counsel incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, based on the infringement by the European Parliament of the principles of transparency, proportionality and equal treatment as contained in article 102.1 of the Financial Regulation, the infringement of the exclusion criteria as contained in article 107.1(a) and (b) of the Financial Regulation, the infringement of article 158.3 of the Rules of Application, the infringement by the European Parliament of its own Tender Specifications for ITS14, thus invalidating the Decisions of unknown date, notified by letters dated 13 February 2015, to exclude IBI IUS for Lot 2 and to exclude STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14.
   In the primary part of the first and only plea in law, the applicant claims that the European Parliament has failed to correctly apply its own Tender Specifications for ITS14 and the general procedural requirement of patere legem quam ipse fecisti and has infringed article 107.1(a) and (b) of the Financial Regulation and this by excluding the applicant and consequently, the consortia IBI IUS for Lot 2 and STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14, because of an alleged (and unproven) potential conflict of interest and because of an alleged (and unproven) failure to supply information to the European Parliament.
   In the secondary part of the first and only plea in law (subsidiary order), the applicant claims that the European Parliament has violated the principles of transparency, proportionality and equality of treatment (non-discrimination) as laid down in article 102.1 of the Financial Regulation and this by excluding the applicant and consequently, the consortia IBI IUS for Lot 2 and STEEL for Lot 3 of ITS14, because of an alleged (and unproven) potential conflict of interest and because of an alleged (and unproven) failure to supply information to the European Parliament.


title: Case F-63/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Donati v ECB (Civil service — ECB Staff — Complaint of psychological harassment — Administrative inquiry — Access to the file of the inquiry — Transmission of the case-file to persons impugned in the complaint — Duty of confidentiality — Respect for the rights of the defence)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/25

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Donati v ECB
   (Case F-63/09) (1)

   (Civil service - ECB Staff - Complaint of psychological harassment - Administrative inquiry - Access to the file of the inquiry - Transmission of the case-file to persons impugned in the complaint - Duty of confidentiality - Respect for the rights of the defence)
   2013/C 46/45
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paola Donati (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Feyerbacher and N. Urban, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil service — Annulment of the ECB’s decision not to take further action on claims relating to alleged psychological harassment suffered by the applicant, and compensation for the non-material harm suffered

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Donati to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 50.


title: Case C-22/05: Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/9

         Action brought on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-22/05)
   (2005/C 82/19)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Rozet and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by excluding persons working in fairground undertakings from the scope of national measures transposing Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time, (1) the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(3) and 17 of that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The exclusion of persons working in fairground undertakings from the scope of national legislation transposing Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time is not provided for by Article 1(3) of that directive defining its scope. According to that provision, the Directive applies to all sectors of activity, with the exception of air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea and the activities of doctors in training. The category of persons working in fairground undertakings is not referred to in that article and moreover does not satisfy the conditions of any of the derogations allowed by Article 17 of the Directive, which furthermore have not been relied on by the Belgian authorities. By introducing an exception which the Directive itself did not provide for, Belgium has incorrectly transposed that directive, thereby failing to fulfil its obligations.

      (1)  OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18


title: Case T-360/11: Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark PATRIZIA ROCHA — Earlier national word mark ROCHAS — Refusal to register by the Opposition Division — Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal — Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 April 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços v OHIM — Parfums Rochas (PATRIZIA ROCHA)
   (Case T-360/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark PATRIZIA ROCHA - Earlier national word mark ROCHAS - Refusal to register by the Opposition Division - Inadmissibility of the action brought before the Board of Appeal - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 147/31
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: A. J. Rodrigues, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Parfums Rochas SAS (Paris, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 2355/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Parfums Rochas SAS and Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-83/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Customs Code — Retrospective export declaration — Concept of ‘sufficient evidence’ — Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/17

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen Sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — ‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Case C-83/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Customs Code - Retrospective export declaration - Concept of ‘sufficient evidence’ - Assessment as to whether the evidence is sufficient))
   (2017/C 168/21)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Heta Asset Resolution Bulgaria’ OOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The combined provisions of Article 161(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and of Article 788 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 430/2010 of 20 May 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that a seller established in the customs territory of the European Union is considered to be an exporter, within the meaning of the former provision, in the event that, following the conclusion of a contract for the sale of the goods in question, the ownership of those goods is transferred to a purchaser established outside that customs territory.

               2.

               Subparagraph 3(b) of Article 795(1) of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the Member States are entitled to require supporting documents in addition to a contract for the sale of a yacht to a person established in another Member State and removal of that yacht from the shipping registers of the Member State concerned, on condition that such a requirement complies with the principle of proportionality.

               3.

               Article 795 of Regulation No 2454/93, as amended by Regulation No 430/2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authority called upon to accept a retrospective export declaration within the meaning of that provision is not bound, under circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, by the assessment, by a customs authority, as to whether the evidence under Article 796da(4) of the regulation is sufficient.

      (1)  OJ C 136, 18.4.2016.


title: Case C-646/13: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Galați — Romania) — Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Brăila v E.S. (Reference fora preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 8(1) — Applicability of social security conventions between Member States — Repatriated refugee originating in a Member State — Completion of periods of employment within the territory of another Member State — Application for the grant of an old-age benefit — Application refused)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/11

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 22 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Galați — Romania) — Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Brăila v E.S.
   (Case C-646/13) (1)

   ((Reference fora preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 8(1) - Applicability of social security conventions between Member States - Repatriated refugee originating in a Member State - Completion of periods of employment within the territory of another Member State - Application for the grant of an old-age benefit - Application refused))
   (2015/C 213/16)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Galați

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Casa Judeţeană de Pensii Brăila

      Respondent: E.S.

      Operative part of the order

   Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a bilateral convention on social security benefits for nationals of one of the signatory States who had political-refugee status within the territory of the other signatory State, which was concluded at a date on which one of the two signatory States had not yet acceded to the European Union and which does not feature in Annex II to that regulation, does not remain applicable to the situation of political refugees repatriated to their State of origin prior to the conclusion of the bilateral convention and the entry into force of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/1

         (2008/C 247/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

      OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

      OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

      OJ C 183, 19.7.2008

      OJ C 171, 5.7.2008

      OJ C 158, 21.6.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A. against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-298/01)

text:
C 84/60                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     6.4.2002
In the absence of any reply from the Commission, the                            complaints of 22 October 1996 and 20 June 1997 lodged
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, called upon it to take                    by the applicant;
action in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 232.
                                                                          3.    order the Commission to pay all the costs.
After the expiry of the period of two months prescribed by the
Treaty, the Commission had not initiated the procedure nor
responded to the call to take action.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In early November 2001, after the abovementioned two-
month period had expired, the applicant received a letter from            The applicant is a commercial company whose sole object is
the Commission informing it that the internal preparatory                 the pursuit of television broadcasting activities.
work for compliance with the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of May 2000 was almost complete.
                                                                          On 22 October 1996, the applicant lodged with Directorate
                                                                          General for Competition — DG IV of the Commission —
The applicant takes the view that that letter is a merely                 a complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP —
provisional step which does not define the position of the                Radiotelevisão Portuguesa, alleging breach of Community rules
defendant institution.                                                    on competition, in particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
                                                                          Treaty.
                                                                          The complaint concerned a number of measures adopted by
                                                                          the Portuguese Government in favour of RTP, a public operator
                                                                          holding the public service television concession, taking the
                                                                          view that such measure constituted State aid within the
Action brought on 6 December 2001 by SIC — Sociedade                      meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and that such aid had
Independente de Comunicação S.A. against Commission                      been granted contrary to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.
                 of the European Communities
                         (Case T-298/01)                                  The complaint related, in particular, to compensatory pay-
                                                                          ments made in 1994, 1995 and 1996 by the Portuguese
                                                                          Republic to RTP.
                         (2002/C 84/111)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      The payments for 1994 and 1995 were the subject of a
                                                                          Commission decision of 7 November 1996, against which an
                                                                          action for annulment was brought.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                The failure to act which constitutes the subject-matter of the
European Communities on 6 December 2001 by SIC —                          present action relates to the compensatory payment for 1996.
Sociedade Independente de Comunicação S.A., whose regis-
tered office is at Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha (Portugal), represent-
ed by Carlos Botelho Moniz, lawyer.                                       Such a measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of
                                                                          Article 87 of the EC Treaty, since it was implemented by the
                                                                          Portuguese State contrary to Article 88(3) without previously
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               notifying the Commission.
1.   find the action admissible;
                                                                          The measure was brought to the attention of the Commission
2.   accordingly, in view of the duty incumbent on the                    by means of the complaint of 22 October 1996, that is to say,
     Commission under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty as              more than 5 years ago, no decision having been taken by that
     regards the preliminary assessment of State aid measures             Community institution with regard to the 1996 compensatory
     brought to its attention, as well as of the general principles       payment until the end of November 2001.
     of law to which it is subject, in particular the principles
     of legality, good administration and care, declare that the
     Commission failed, contrary to Articles 87 and 88 of the             On 20 June 1997 the applicant lodged with Directorate
     Treaty and the abovementioned general principles of law,             General for Competition — DG IV of the Commission — a
     in its duty to adopt a decision regarding the request for            fresh complaint against the Portuguese Republic and RTP
     the procedure under Article 88(2) to be initiated in                 alleging breach of Community rules on competition, in
     respect of the measures which were the subject of the                particular of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/61
In view of the inactivity of the Community institution, the             It was stated in the application that the Community Ship-
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, received by the Com-              owners should hold 60 % of the shares of the joint enterprise,
mission on 30 July 2001, more than 53 months after                      while the partner in the relevant third Country, Namibia,
the complaint was lodged, called on the Commission, in                  should hold 40 % of the shares. After the withdrawal of the
accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, to adopt a                project of the Spanish company E. Vieira S.A. and the
position on the complaint and initiate the procedure under              replacement of two of the four vessels involved with two other
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.                                         vessels, the applicant and the Namibian partner concluded an
                                                                        agreement, according to which the applicant owned 28,51 %
                                                                        of the share capital, but only 13,68 % of the voting rights.
The Commission replied, after the two-month time-limit                  Finally, with effect from 1 May 1995, the applicant transferred
prescribed by Article 232, in a letter of 24 October 2001, in           part of its shareholding in the joint entreprise to the Namibian
which it does not define its position, but merely states that it        partner under an agreement providing that the applicant’s
is completing the internal preparatory work with regard to the          shareholding was reduced to 1 % of the share capital.
complaints.                                                             According to the contested Decision, the basis for providing
                                                                        financial aid has ceased to exist because of this reduction to
                                                                        1 % of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint undertaking,
                                                                        which is not be considered sufficient for a joint enterprise, as
                                                                        defined by Community Regulations.
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Norway Sea-
foods Denmark A/S against the Commission of the                         The contested Decision infringes Article 44(1) of the above
                   European Communities                                 mentioned Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4028/86.
                        (Case T-319/01)                                 —     The reduction of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % did not mean that a joint enterprise
                                                                              within the meaning of the Regulation no longer existed.
                        (2002/C 84/112)
                                                                        —     The applicant had a legitimate expectation that the
                  (Language of the case: English)                             reduction of the Applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % would not result in any demand for
                                                                              repayment of aid from the Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Norway                      (1) OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990, p. 1.
Seafoods Denmark A/S, represented by Mr Jacob Ørndrup of
Gorrissen Federspiel Kierkegaard, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October
      2001
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
                                                                        Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-323/01)
The present application has been lodged against Commission
Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October 2001, regarding the                                          (2002/C 84/113)
reduction and repayment of financial aid to Foodmark A/S
under Commission Decision K(93)1823 of 5 July 1993, as
amended by Decision K(94)119 of 27 January 1994, for                                       (Language of the case: French)
Project SM/DNK/02/93, the object of which was an application
for financial aid pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 4028/88 of 18 December 1986, on Community measures
to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquacul-
ture sector as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
No. 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (1). The applicant’s name               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
at the time of this application was Foodmark A/S; this name             European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
was later changed to Foodmark Holding A/S and later still to            Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges
Norway Seafoods Denmark A/S.                                            Vandersanden and Laura Levi, avocats.


title: Case C-326/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) and Others, Other party: Z

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW) and Others, Other party: Z
   (Case C-326/17)
   (2017/C 293/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Directie van de Dienst Wegverkeer (RDW), X, Y

      Other party to the proceedings: Z

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Council Directive 1999/37/EC (1) of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) applicable to motor vehicles which existed before 29 April 2009, the date on which the Member States had to apply the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required to implement Directive 2007/46/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1)?

               2.

               Is a motor vehicle composed of essential parts which were manufactured before the application of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) and, on the other hand, of essential parts which were only added after the application of that Directive, a motor vehicle which already existed before the application of that Directive, or has such a motor vehicle only come into existence after the application of that Directive?

               3.

               Having regard to Article 3(2) of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57), does the recognition obligation as referred to in Article 4 of that Directive apply in full if the data represented by certain Community codes (made compulsory under the Annexes to that Directive) have not been filled in, when those data could easily have been obtained?

               4.

               Is it permissible under Article 4 of Council Directive 1999/37/EC of 29 April 1999 on the registration documents for vehicles (OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57) to recognise a registration certificate of another Member State, but to nevertheless submit the vehicle concerned to a technical check within the meaning of Article 24(6) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1) and, if the vehicle fails to meet the technical requirements of the Member State, to impose the condition that the issue of the registration certificate will be refused?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 138, p. 57.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 263, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 November 2002 in Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission's administrative structures — Redeployment — Reasons — Interest of the service — Misuse of power — Duty of care)

text:
C 19/32                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                                       of 23 October 2002
                                                                            in Case T-104/01: Claudia Oberhauser v Office for Har-
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.                                                 monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                            (Community trade mark — Opposition — Earlier figurative
                                                                            mark containing the term ‘miss fifties’ — Application for
                                                                            Community word mark ‘Fifties’ — Relative ground for
                                                                            refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 19/60)
                       of 26 November 2002                                                     (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik v Commission of the
                                                                            In Case T-104/01, Claudia Oberhauser, established in Munich
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Germany), represented by M. Graf, lawyer, v Office for
                                                                            Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
(Officials — Reorganisation of the Commission’s adminis-                    Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the
trative structures — Redeployment — Reasons — Interest                      proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for
       of the service — Misuse of power — Duty of care)                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) being Petit Liberto, SA, established in Vidreres (Spain):
                                                                            Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber
                           (2003/C 19/59)                                   Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                            Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February
                                                                            2001 (Case R 757/1999-2), the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and
                                                                            P. Mengozzi, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the
                                                                            Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
                                                                            it:
In Case T-103/01: Michael Cwik, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren (Belgium),                1.     Dismisses the application;
represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Com-                      2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
munities (Agents: J. Currall, D. Waelbroeck and J. Waldron) —
application, in the first place, for annulment of the Commission
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.
decision transferring the applicant from the ‘Economic Infor-
mation, Publications and Documentation’ Unit, which first
became the ‘Information: EURO, EMU’ Unit and subsequently
became Unit 4 ‘Communications Policy in regard to Monetary
Union’, to the ‘General Coordination, Human Resources and
Administration’ Unit, which became Unit 1 ‘Human Resources
Coordination; Information and Administration’, within the                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
‘Economic and Financial Affairs’ Directorate-General, and,
second, for compensation — the Court of First Instance                                             of 7 November 2002
(Second Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, Presi-
dent, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,                   in Case T-199/01: G v Commission of the European
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                                             Communities ( 1)
26 November 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (Officials — Social security — Refusal to reimburse medical
                                                                                expenses — Inefficacious treatment)
1.     The application is dismissed;
                                                                                (2003/C 19/61)
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.08.2001.
                                                                            In Case T-199/01: G, an official of the Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by