title: Case T-319/05: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Switzerland v Commission (External relations — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport — German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Rights of the defence — Principle of non-discrimination — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/29

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Switzerland v Commission
      (Case T-319/05) (1)

      (External relations - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport - German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport - Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Rights of the defence - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of proportionality)
      (2010/C 288/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Swiss Confederation (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, U. Soltész and P. Melcher, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Benyon, M. Huttunen and M. Niejahr, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C.-D. Quassowski and A. Tiemann, acting as Agents, assisted by T. Masing, lawyer); and Landkreis Waldshut (represented by M. Núñez-Müller, lawyer)

         Re:

      ACTION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003 on a procedure relating to the application of Article 18(2), first sentence, of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (Case TREN/AMA/11/03 — German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich airport) (OJ 2004 L 4, p. 13)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The General Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Swiss Confederation to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

                  3.

                  Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Landkreis Waldshut to bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004 (previously Case C-70/04).


title: Case C-6/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 15.a Vara Civel da Comarca de Lisboa, 2a Secção, by order of that court of 25 May 2000 in the case of ANOMAR — Associação Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas and Others against Portuguese State

text:
24.2.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 61/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 15.a Vara Civel                7.   On the basis that the restrictive rules described at 6 above
da Comarca de Lisboa, 2a Secção, by order of that court                      do constitute a barrier to freedom to provide services, in
of 25 May 2000 in the case of ANOMAR — Associação                            the sense contemplated in Article 59 of the EC Treaty,
Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas and                           are they, given that they are applicable without distinction
               Others against Portuguese State                                to Portuguese nationals and undertakings and to nationals
                                                                              and undertakings of other Member States and are,
                                                                              moreover, based on overriding public-interest consider-
                         (Case C-6/01)                                        ations (consumer protection, crime prevention, protec-
                                                                              tion of public morality, restriction of demand for gam-
                                                                              bling and the financing of public-interest activities), in
                        (2001/C 61/15)                                        those circumstances compatible with Community law?
                                                                         8.   Is the activity of operation of games of chance subject to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              the principles of freedom of access to and pursuit of any
European Communities by order of the 15.a Vara Cı́vel da
                                                                              economic activity whatever and, therefore, does the
Comarca de Lisboa, 2a Secção (Second Chamber of the 15th
                                                                              possible existence of legislation in other Member States
District of the Lisbon Civil Courts) of 25 May 2000, which
                                                                              which lays down less restrictive conditions for the
was received at the Court Registry on 8 January 2001, for a
                                                                              operation of gaming machines sufficient to vitiate, of
preliminary ruling in the case of ANOMAR Associação
                                                                              itself, the validity of the Portuguese rules described at 6
Nacional de Operadores de Máquinas Recreativas and Others
                                                                              above?
against Portuguese State on the following questions:
                                                                         9.   Do the restrictions laid down in the Portuguese legislation
1.   Do games of chance constitute an ‘economic activity’                     on the activity of operation of games of chance comply
     within the meaning of Article 2 of the EC Treaty?                        with the principle of proportionality?
                                                                         10. Do the Portuguese rules making authorisation subject to
2.   Do games of chance constitute an activity relating to                    legal (conclusion of an administrative contract with the
     ‘goods’ which is covered, as such, by Article 30 of the EC               State following a tendering procedure: Article 9 of the
     Treaty?                                                                  abovementioned Decree-Law No 422/89) and logistical
                                                                              (operation and engagement in games of chance restricted
                                                                              to gaming areas: Article 3 of that instrument) conditions
3.   Are activities relating to the manufacture, importation
                                                                              constitute a requirement which is appropriate and necess-
     and distribution of gaming machines separate from the
                                                                              ary to the objectives that are being pursued?
     operation of such machines and, therefore, is the principle
     of the free movement of goods laid down by Articles 30
     and 34 of the EC Treaty applicable to such activities?              11. Does the use by the Portuguese legislation (Articles 1,
                                                                              4(1)(g) and 169 of the abovementioned Decree-Law No
                                                                              422/89 and Article 16(1)(a) of Decree-Law No 316/95 of
4.   Are the operation of and engagement in games of chance                   28 November 1995) of the word ‘fundamentally’, in
     excluded from the scope of Article 37 of the EC Treaty,                  conjunction with the word ‘exclusively’, in order to define
     in view of the fact that that provision does not cover                   games of chance and to draw a legal distinction between
     monopolies in the provision of services?                                 ‘gaming machines’ and ‘amusement machines’, call in
                                                                              question the precision of the concept according to the
                                                                              usual legal interpretation?
5.   Does the operation of gaming machines constitute a
     ‘provision of services’ and, as such, is it covered by Article      12. Do the imprecise legal concepts to which the Portuguese
     59 et seq. of the EC Treaty?                                             legislation resorts in defining ‘games of chance’ (Articles
                                                                              1 and 162 of Decree-Law No 422/89, cited above) and
                                                                              ‘amusement machines’ (Article 16 of Decree-Law
6.   Does a body of legal rules (such as is established in Articles
                                                                              No 316/95, cited above) call for interpretation, for the
     3(1) and 4(1) of Decree-Law No 422 of 2 December 1989)                   purpose of classifying the various types of amusement
     under which the operation of and engagement in games
                                                                              machines, which also falls within the margin of discretion
     of chance (defined by Article 1 of that instrument as ‘those             which the national authorities enjoy?
     whose result is uncertain since it depends exclusively or
     fundamentally on chance’) — which include (under
     Article 4(1)(f) and (g) of Decree-Law No 422/89) games              13. Even if it were considered that the Portuguese legislation
     played on machines which pay out prizes directly in                      at issue does not lay down objective criteria to distinguish
     tokens or money and games on machines which, while                       between gaming machines and amusement machines,
     not paying out directly prizes in tokens or money, involve               does the conferring on the Inspecção-Geral de Jogos
     matters proper to games of chance or have as their result                (Inspectorate-General for Gaming and Betting) of a dis-
     the awarding of points depending exclusively on chance                   cretionary power to classify in matters of gaming infringe
     is authorised only in casinos in permanent or temporary                  any principle or rule of Community law?
     gaming areas created by decree-law, constitute a barrier
     to the freedom to provide services, in the sense contem-
     plated in Article 59 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case F-33/07: Action brought on 10 April 2007 — Alberto Toronjo Benitez v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/26

         Action brought on 10 April 2007 — Alberto Toronjo Benitez v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-33/07)
   (2007/C 129/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alberto Toronjo Benitez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the unlawfulness of Article 2 of the Commission's decision on the promotion procedure for officials whose remuneration falls under the ‘Research ’credits of the general budget (both in the version of 16 June 2004 and that of 20 July 2005) (‘the first contested decision’);

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision to remove the 44.5 points from the applicant's balance which he had accumulated as a temporary agent (‘the second contested decision’);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who took up his post at the Commission on 16 January 2000 as a temporary agent in the ‘Research ’Directorate-General (‘DG’), was appointed as an official in the same DG with effect from 16 April 2004. On 1 May 2005 he was transferred to DG ‘Relex’. By letter of 16 June 2006, he was informed that the points which he had acquired as a temporary agent had been annulled, by application of the first contested decision, since he had moved to a post falling under the ‘Operational ’part of the general budget before two years had expired following his recruitment as a probationary official to a post falling under the ‘Research ’part of that budget.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies first on infringement of the principles of legal certainty, administrative legality and protection of acquired rights, since the withdrawal by the Appointing Authority (AIPN) of an unlawful decision constituting subjective rights should have taken place within a reasonable time, which is not the case in respect of the second contested decision.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that Article 2 of the second contested decision is discriminatory against officials whose remuneration falls under the ‘Research ’credits and who apply for a transfer before two years has expired following their recruitment, since those officials lose their points following the transfer whereas officials who are transferred automatically or who occupy posts considered sensitive retain their points.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 January 1995 in Case C-93/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure to fulfil obligations - Council Directive 90/667/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
4 . 3 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/3
Fifth Chamber                                                      Messrs Norton Rose, Kempson House, PO Box 570,
                                                                   Camomile Street, London EC3A 7AN — the Court (Fifth
(President: Mr Gulmann)                                            Chamber), composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias
                                                                   (Rapporteur), President of the Court acting as President of
Mr Joliet,                                                         the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and D. A. O.
Mr Edward,                                                         Edward, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Mr Jann,                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Mr Sevón,                                                          17 January 1995 , in which it:
Mr Moitinho de Almeida, and
Mr Puissochet, Judges                                              1 . sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        9 July 1992 in Case T-66/89;
Sixth Chamber
                                                                   2. annuls Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision
( President: Mr Schockweiler)                                           89/44/EEC of 12 December 1988 relating to a
                                                                        proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty
Mr Kakouris,                                                            (IV/27.393 and IV/27.394, Publishers Association —
Mr Kapteyn,                                                             Net Book Agreements);
Mr Murray,
Mr Ragnemalm,                                                      3.   orders the Commission to bear its own costs and all the
Mr Mancini, and                                                         costs incurred by the appellant, both in the proceedings
Mr Hirsch, Judges.                                                      before the Court ofFirst Instance and in the proceedings
                                                                        before this Court, and the costs incurred before this
                                                                        Court relating to the intervention by Clé — The Irish
                                                                        Book Publishers Association and the Booksellers
                                                                        Association of Great Britain and Ireland;
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                4. orders Pentos Pic and Pentos Retailing Group Ltd to
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                  bear their own costs.
                     of 17 January 1995
                                                                   (!) OJ No C 288 , 5 . 11 . 1992 .
in Case C-360/92 P: Publishers Association v. Commission           (2 ) Case T-66/89, Publishers Association and the Commission,
              of the European Communities ( J )                         ECR II, p. 1995 .
 (Appeal — Competition — Net price system for books —
Rejection of an application for exemption under
Article 85 (3) — Indispensability of restrictions on
                         competition)
                          95/C 54/04
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 17 January 1995
In Case C-360/92 P: Publishers Association, whose head                    in Case C-93/94: Commission of the European
office is in London, represented by J. Lever QC, M. Pelling               Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands i 1 )
and R. W. R. Thompson, Barristers, and R. Griffith,                 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Council Directive
Solicitor, of Messrs Clifford Chance, with an address for          90/667/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue                                         period)
Zithe, supported by Clé — The Irish Book Publishers                                           ( 95/C 54/05 )
Association, whose office is in Dublin, represented by J. D.
 Cooke SC and R. Heron, Solicitor, of Messrs Matheson,
 Ormsby & Prentice, with an address for service in                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,
and by Booksellers Association of Great Britain and Ireland,        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
whose office is in London, represented by C. Quigley,                        published in the European Court Reports)
Barrister, and M. Nathanson, Solicitor, of Messrs
Penningtons, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           In Case C-93/94: Commission of the European
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe — appeal against             Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn ) v. Kingdom of the
the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( Second               Netherlands (Agents: J. W. de Zwaan and J. S. van den
 Chamber ) of 9 July 1992 (2), seeking to have that judgment        Oosterkamp) — application for a declaration that, by failing
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being                 to adopt the measures necessary for the transposition of
 Commission of the European Communities (B. J. Drijber,             Council Directive 90/667/EEC of 27 November 1990 laying
Agent, assisted by N. Forwood QC), supported by Pentos              down the veterinary rules for the disposal and processing of
 pic, whose registered office is in London, and Pentos              animal waste, for its placing on the market and for the
 Retailing Group Ltd, whose registered office is in                 prevention of pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish
 Birmingham, both represented by R. P. Falkner, Solicitor, of       origin, and amending Directive 90/425/EEC (2 ), the
 ---pagebreak---  No C 54/4             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4. 3 . 95
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                   C-351/93 ) the interpretation and validity of Article 2 ( 3 ) of
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth                   Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2237/85 of 30 July 1985
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                   laying down detailed rules for the application of the
Third Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,              minimum import price system for dried grapes (2) and on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur),              interpretation of Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC)
Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,            No 426/86 of 24 February 1986 on the common
has given a judgment on 17 January 1995, in which it:                 organization of the market in products processed from fruit
                                                                      and vegetables ( 3 ); on (in Case C-352/93 ) the interpretation
                                                                      of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 994/88 of 15 April
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                      1988 on the application of the countervailing charge
     for the transposition of Council Directive 90/667/EEC            pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2742/82 on protective
     of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules             measures applicable to imports of dried grapes (4), on the
     for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its         interpretation and validity of Article 4 ( 3 ) of Commission
     placing on the market and for the prevention of                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2742/82 of 13 October 1982 on
     pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin, and            protective measures applicable to imports of dried
     amending Directive 90/425/EEC, the Kingdom of the                grapes (5 ), and on the interpretation of Article 14 of Council
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under           Regulation (EEC ) No 516/77 of 14 March 1977 on the
     Article 21 (1) of the first-mentioned directive;
                                                                      common organization of the market in products processed
                                                                      from fruit and vegetables (6); and (in Case C-353/93 ) on the
2. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                   interpretation and validity of Article 3 ( 3 ) of Commission
     costs.                                                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 1626/85 of 14 June 1985 on
                                                                      protective measures applicable to imports of certain
(M OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                       Morello cherries ( 7) and on the interpretation of
(2 ) OJ No L 363 , 27. 12 . 1990, p . 51 .                            Article 18 (2 ) of Regulation No 426/86 — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                      Chamber), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of
                                                                      the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, C. N.
                                                                      Kakouris (Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; W. van
                                                                      Gerven, Advocate General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                      19 January 1995 , in which it rules:
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                               Case C-352/93
                     of 19 January 1995
in Joined Cases C-351/93, C-352/93 and C-353/93                       1 . Community law is to be interpreted as meaning that the
(references for preliminary rulings from the College van                  legel basis for calculation of a countervailing charge
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): Fitmay Ltd and H. A. van                  imposed for the first time after delivery of the judgment
der Linde v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en                       ofl 1 February 1988 in Case 77/86 National Dried Fruit
Visserij and Tracotex Holland BV v. Minister van                          Trade Association [1988] ECR 757 is Article 2 (2) of
           Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( l )                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2742/82 of
                                                                          13 October 1982 on protective measures applicable to
(Common organization ofthe market in productsprocessed                    imports of dried grapes, in so far as it was not declared
from fruit and vegetables — Import into the Community of                  invalid by that judgment;
driedgrapes and Morello cherries — Countervailing charge
if the minimum import price is not respected —
Determination of the actual import price — Extent of the             2. Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 2742/82 is to be
      powers of the authorities of the Member States)                     interpreted as meaning that if the competent authorities
                                                                          have doubts as to whether the import price declared is
                          ( 95/C 54/06)                                   the true one, they may take al necessary measures to
                                                                          establish that price;
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     3 . consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of
                                                                          such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4 (3) of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          Regulation No 2742/82.
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Case C-351 /92
In Joined Cases C-351/93 , C-352/93 and C-353/93 :
references to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty
from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven                   1 . Article 2 (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry),                            No 2237/85 of 30 July 1985 laying down detailed rules
Netherlands, for preliminary rulings in the proceedings                   for the application of the minimum import price system
pending before that court between Fitmay Ltd and H. A. van                for dried grapes is to be interpreted as meaning that ifthe
der Linde and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en                      national authorities have doubts as to whether the
Visserij and between Tracotex Holland BV and Minister van                 import price declared is the true one, they may take all
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij — on (in Case                          necessary measures to establish that price;


title: Case T-43/15: Action brought on 28 January 2015  — CRM v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/43

         Action brought on 28 January 2015 — CRM v Commission
   (Case T-43/15)
   (2015/C 089/52)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CRM Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by: G. Forte, C. Marinuzzi and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1174/2014 of 24 October 2014 entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola (PGI)), published in the Official Journal of the European Union of 4 November 2014 (Volume L 316);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the registration of the protected geographical indication ‘Piadina Romagnola/Piada Romagnola’ with regard to the fact that the reputation enjoyed by handcrafted Piadina has been extended to cover Piadina produced on an industrial scale.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement and incorrect application of Article 7(1)(f)(ii) and Article 8(1)(c)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2012 L 343, p. 1).

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in that regard, that there is no evidence in the case which justifies the link to the geographical origin, and

                           —

                           that the reputation enjoyed by handcrafted Piadina has been extended to cover Piadina produced on an industrial scale.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment and a failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation.

                           —

                           In that regard, the applicant argues that there has been a manifest error of assessment of the application for registration with regard to compliance with the requirements for publishing the application for registration of a geographical indication in relation to Piadina Romagnola, and

                           —

                           that there has been a failure to conduct a proper preliminary investigation, owing to a failure to assess the annulment, by the judicial authorities of a Member State, of the national rules on which the contested regulation is based.

                           —

                           The applicant also alleges infringement of the principle of sound administration.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground of breach of the right to effective judicial protection.


title: Case T-538/11: Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Belgium v Commission (State aid — Public health — Aid granted to finance screening tests for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals — Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market — Action for annulment — Adversely affecting act — Admissibility — Notion of advantage — Notion of selectivity)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 March 2015 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-538/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Public health - Aid granted to finance screening tests for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals - Decision declaring aid to be partly compatible and partly incompatible with the internal market - Action for annulment - Adversely affecting act - Admissibility - Notion of advantage - Notion of selectivity))
   (2015/C 155/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, assisted by L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by H. van Vliet and S. Thomas, and subsequently by H. van Vliet and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011 concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (State aid C 44/08 (ex NN 45/04)) (OJ 2011 L 274, p. 36).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-295/16: Action brought on 6 June 2016 — SymbioPharm v EMA

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/38

         Action brought on 6 June 2016 — SymbioPharm v EMA
   (Case T-295/16)
   (2016/C 279/54)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SymbioPharm GmbH (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Sander, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the EMA of 1 April 2016, which was delivered on 7 April 2016, to initiate a referral procedure under Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC with respect to the medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and similarly named medicinal products of the company SymbioPharm GmbH;

               —

               Order the EMA to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

               The applicant submits that the referral procedure was initiated although no ‘specific case where the interests of the European Union are involved’ is set out in the notification of the German authorisations authority and that no such specific case, moreover, exists.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 29 of Directive 2001/83/EC
               The applicant maintains that the German authorisations authority did not, in relation to the medicinal product for human use Symbioflor 2, set out the ‘risk to public health’, which is a precondition for the initiation of a procedure, and submits that, what is more, there is clearly no such risk.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Articles 116 and 117 of Directive 2001/83/EC
               The applicant submits that the German authorisations authority has not made a case for the existence of an unfavourable benefit-risk balance with regard to the medicinal product for human use Symbioflor 2 and submits that there is clearly no such unfavourable benefit-risk balance.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC, of the principle of proportionality and of the right to be heard
               The applicant submits that there is infringement of Article 22a of Directive 2001/83/EC and of the principle of proportionality because the German authorisations authority did not make use of the possibility of ordering an efficacy study to be conducted (failure to exercise a discretion). It maintains that that is also shown by the express refusal of the German authorisations authority to organise a hearing in the form of a discussion on that subject with the ombudsman, as requested by the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Infringement of the principles of the rule of law
               Here the applicant submits that it is contrary to principles of the rule of law to initiate a referral procedure whilst national court proceedings in respect of the same subject-matter are pending.

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case T-833/16: Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Karp v Parliament

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/19

         Action brought on 28 November 2016 — Karp v Parliament
   (Case T-833/16)
   (2017/C 046/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kevin Karp (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lambers, and R. Ben Ammar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment for the EFDD Group within the European Parliament which classified the applicant in function group I within the scope of the accredited parliamentary assistant (APA) contract signed on 25 February 2015 and in function group II within the scope of the contract of employment signed on 12 May 2016;

               —

               order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the material and non-material damage suffered, estimated provisionally to be EUR 40 888,68 and EUR 63 323,20, respectively;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 80 of the CESO Staff Regulations

                           —

                           The applicant was given a salary grade corresponding to function group I for his first contract and at the bottom of function group II for the second employment contract he was offered. The function group II involves ‘Clerical and secretarial tasks, office management and other equivalent tasks, performed under the supervision of officials or temporary staff’ while the vast majority of tasks entrusted to the applicant within the scope of his first and his second employment contracts were administrative and advisory tasks as demonstrated in the annexes to the application.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 82 of the CEOS Staff Regulations

                           —

                           Article 82 of the CEOS staff regulations states that a contract staff member shall be recruited in function group IV if he can demonstrate a level of education which corresponds to completed university studies of at least three years attested by a diploma or professional training of an equivalent level. The applicant has five years of university studies attested by two diplomas and, in addition, regarding the second contract he was offered, has a previous work experience for the European Parliament involving tasks equivalent to the tasks he ended up performing.


title: Case T-370/14: Order of the General Court of 2 September 2014 — Petropars and Others v Council

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/46

         Order of the General Court of 2 September 2014 — Petropars and Others v Council
   (Case T-370/14) (1)

   (2014/C 431/73)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-104/05 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Figurative mark EMILIO PUCCI — Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks EMIDIO TUCCI — Similarity between the goods)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/22

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — El Corte Inglés, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-104/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Figurative mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the national figurative marks ‘EMIDIO TUCCI’ - Similarity between the goods)
   (2006/C 326/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) represented by: O. Montalto and P. Bullock, Agents), Emilio Pucci Srl (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti, M. Boletto and E. Gavuzzi, avvocati)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2004 in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Pucci, dismissing an action for the annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 3 October 2002, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division partially rejecting the opposition brought against the application for registration of the figurative Community trade mark ‘EMILIO PUCCI’ for goods in Classes 3, 18, 24 and 25
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               El Corte Inglés, SA shall pay 80 % of the costs.

               3.

               OHIM shall pay 20 % of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-134/05: Action brought on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/21

         Action brought on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-134/05)
   (2005/C 143/30)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa, member of the Commission's Legal Service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that:

                           1.

                           by subjecting the business of extrajudicial credit recovery to a licence issued by the local police authority (Questore);

                           2.

                           by limiting the validity of the licence to the province in which it was issued;

                           3.

                           by tying the carrying on of the business of extrajudicial credit recovery to specific premises set out in the licence;

                           4.

                           by making the carrying on of that business in a province for which the operator does not have a licence subject to contract of agency with an authorised representative;

                           5.

                           by requiring traders visibly to display a table setting out all the services which can be supplied to clients;

                           6.

                           by providing that the local police authority (Questore) may make the licence subject to further restrictions;

                           7.

                           by restricting the freedom of traders to set prices;

                           8.

                           by declaring that the business of credit recovery is incompatible with the banking and credit services which are the subject of Legislative Decree No 385/93;

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The obligation to obtain a licence from the police authority is incompatible with Article 49 of the Treaty in that it applies without distinction to all suppliers established in another Member State, without regard to whether those suppliers have complied with the rules for the protection of the public interest in their country of origin.

               2.

               Italy is currently divided into 103 provinces. That means that a Community trader who wants to set up business in Italy and extend his business throughout a substantial part of Italy must make as many applications for a licence as there are provinces making up the area he wishes to cover and a total of 103 applications if he wishes to set up and carry on business in the whole of Italy.

               3.

               A company which wishes to set up in Italy and operate in a certain area not only has to obtain several licences but also has to acquire as many premises as he has licences and as provinces are covered. That obligation is clearly disproportionate, given the cost to the operators, as well as not being indispensable to the carrying on of the business. Furthermore, the obligation to have premises amounts to a requirement that a person who provides cross-border services must become established in the recipient Member State.

               4.

               A trader who lawfully carries on business must be able to operate throughout Italy without having to enter into a contract of agency with an intermediary where that operator wishes to operate outside the province for which he has obtained a licence. Indeed since that intermediary works in the same sector he is a potential competitor of the principal and furthermore the appointment of an intermediary costs the principal time and money.

               5.

               The obligation visibly to display the table of services in the premises presupposes that the trader necessarily disposes of premises from which to operate. According to the Court's settled case-law, the obligation to dispose of premises in the recipient Member State amounts to a requirement that the trader who supplies cross-border services be established in the recipient Member State.

               6.

               The residual power of each provincial police authority (Questore) to make the licence for the business of credit recovery subject to ill defined ‘additional requirements’ infringes the requirements of transparency and objectivity which the Court's case-law stipulates, even where the power of the Questore is circumscribed by the law and by the objective pursued.

               7.

               The restrictions on the freedom to set prices constitute an obstacle both to the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services. A new trader who attempts to enter a given market must be able to compete with traders already operating in that market and the price of the services is a factor of primary importance in acquiring customers.

               8.

               The incompatibility of the Italian rules with the carrying on of banking and credit services results in a prohibition on the suppliers of banking and credit services from other Member States from carrying on the business of credit recovery in Italy, pursuant either to the freedom of establishment or the freedom to provide services guaranteed by the Treaty.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 October 2000 in Case T-27/00: Staff Committee of the European Central Bank and Others v European Central Bank (ECB) (Members of staff of the European Central Bank — Administrative circular — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

text:
24.3.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 95/13
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am
                                                                           Main, Germany, represented by N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and
                      of 17 November 2000                                  S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of A. Schiltz,
in Case T-200/99: Alberto Martinelli v Commission of the                   Association Luxembourgeoise des Employés de Banque et
                   European Communities (1)                                d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey, against European Central
                                                                           Bank (ECB) (Agents: C. Zilioli and J.M. Fernández-Martin) —
(Officials — Absence of staff report — Action for damages                  application for annulment, pursuant to Article 236 EC and
— Inadmissibility — Implicit rejection of a request not                    Article 36 of the Protocol on the Statute of the European
disputed within the time-limits — Express confirmation of                  System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, of
                    that rejection — Damage)                               Administrative Circular No 11/98 of 12 November 1998
                                                                           concerning ECB Internet usage policy — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, Presi-
                           (2001/C 95/24)
                                                                           dent, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                           has made an order on 24 October 2000, the operative part of
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        which is as follows:
In Case T-200/99: Alberto Martinelli, a former official of the             1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Munich
(Germany), represented by G. Marchesini, lawyer with a right               2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
of audience before the Corte Suprema di Cassazione, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the                     (1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. Dal Ferro)
— application for compensation for the non-material damage
allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the absence of
staff reports for the reference periods 1993-1995 and 1995-
1997 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 17 November
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.    The action is dismissed;                                                                          INSTANCE
2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                                of 19 October 2000
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                           in Case T-141/00 R: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Trenk-
                                                                               er SA v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
                                                                           authorisations for medicinal products for human use which
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 contain the substance ‘amfepramone’ — Directive
                                                                                75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                        of 24 October 2000
                                                                                (2001/C 95/26)
in Case T-27/00: Staff Committee of the European Central
    Bank and Others v European Central Bank (ECB) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Members of staff of the European Central Bank — Adminis-
trative circular — Time-limit for bringing an action —
                           Inadmissibility)                                In Case T-141/00 R: Laboratoires Pharmaceutiques Trenker
                                                                           SA, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by X. Leur-
                           (2001/C 95/25)                                  quin and L. Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt,
                                                                           7 Val Sainte-Croix, against Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) —
                                                                           application for suspension of operation of the Commission
In Case T-27/00: Staff Committee of the European Central                   decision of 9 March 2000 relating to the withdrawal of
Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes                  marketing authorisations for medicinal products for human
Priesemann, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt,             use which contain ‘amfepramone’ [Decision C(2000) 453] —
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the ECB,                    the President of the Court of First Instance has made an order
residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany, Maria Concetta                     on 19 October 2000, the operature part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-474/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014  — Cesáreo Martín-Sanz and Others v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/48

         Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Cesáreo Martín-Sanz and Others v Commission
   (Case T-474/14)
   2014/C 261/76
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Cesáreo Martín-Sanz, SA Transportes (Madrid, Spain); Transportes y Servicios de Minería, SA (Madrid); Inauto, Industrias del Automóvil, SA (Madrid); Premium Quality Investments, SL (Madrid); and Naviera Ispaster, AIE (Madrid) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case T-726/15: Action brought on 15 December 2015 — Blaž Jamnik and Blaž v Parliament

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/45

         Action brought on 15 December 2015 — Blaž Jamnik and Blaž v Parliament
   (Case T-726/15)
   (2016/C 098/60)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicants: Jožica Blaž Jamnik (Ljubljana, Slovenia) and Brina Blaž (Ljubljana) (represented by: D. Mihevc, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the selection of the tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06 is unlawful;

               —

               annul the selection of the tenderer;

               —

               select the applicants as the best tenderer;

               —

               in the alternative, award the applicants damages amounting to EUR 3 852 384,60 in the event that they are not selected as the best tenderer in the procedure INLO.AO-2013-051-LUX-UGIMBI-06;

               —

               reimburse the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 113 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (1)

               According to the applicants, the selection of the best tenderer was made in breach of Article 113 of the regulation in question, since the predetermined criteria set out in the tender specifications were not taken into consideration.

               2.

               Second plea in law: the selection procedure was conducted unlawfully
               In that regard, the applicants assert that none of the plans, graphic documentation and statistical calculations which they appended to their tender was examined, since they were not forwarded by the office in Ljubljana for the decision in Luxembourg.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).


               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/1

         Election of the Presidents of the Chambers
   (2006/C 326/03)
   At their meeting on 9 October 2006, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, under the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Jann, Mr Timmermans, Mr Rosas and Mr Lenaerts as Presidents of the First, Second, Third and Fourth Chambers of five Judges respectively for a period of three years ending on 6 October 2009.
   At their meeting on 12 October 2006, the Judges of the Court of Justice elected, under the second subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr Schintgen, Mr Kūris, Mr Klučka and Mr Juhász as Presidents of the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers of three Judges respectively for a period of one year ending on 6 October 2007.


title: Case T-520/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014 — Genebre v OHIM — General Electric (GE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark GE — Earlier national word mark GE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2014 — Genebre v OHIM — General Electric (GE)
   (Case T-520/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark GE - Earlier national word mark GE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 112/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Genebre, SA (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: D. Pellisé Urquiza, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: General Electric Company (Schenectady, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, initially, then E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 July 2011 (Case R 20/2009-4), relating to opposition proceedings between General Electric Company and Genebre SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Genebre SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case C-238/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Maria Do Céu Bragança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement of persons — Equal treatment — Social advantages — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(2) — Financial aid for higher education studies — Students not residing in the territory of the Member State concerned subject to the condition that they be the children of workers who have been employed or who have pursued their professional activity in that Member State for a continuous period of at least five years — Indirect discrimination — Justification — Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree — Whether appropriate — Proportionality)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Maria Do Céu Bragança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche
   (Case C-238/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Equal treatment - Social advantages - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(2) - Financial aid for higher education studies - Students not residing in the territory of the Member State concerned subject to the condition that they be the children of workers who have been employed or who have pursued their professional activity in that Member State for a continuous period of at least five years - Indirect discrimination - Justification - Objective of increasing the proportion of residents with a higher education degree - Whether appropriate - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 046/04)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maria Do Céu Bragança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, with the aim of encouraging an increase in the proportion of residents with a higher education degree, makes the grant of financial aid for higher education studies to a non-resident student conditional on at least one of that student’s parents having worked in that Member State for a minimum and continuous period of five years at the time the application for financial aid is made, but which does not lay down such a condition in respect of a student residing in the territory of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.


title: Case T-268/99: Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others against the Council of the European Union

text:
8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 102/27
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              The applicants claim that the Court should:
                     of 16 December 1999
                                                                        — declare that the derogation provided for in Article 1(7) of
                                                                            Council Regulation No 1804/99 is severable in nature, and
in Case T-153/99, Luciano Simonella v Commission of the                     annul that derogation;
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials — Non-promotion — Action for annulment and                   — order the Council to pay all the costs.
            damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                        (2000/C 102/54)
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        The applicants in the present case are professional bodies
In Case T-153/99, Luciano Simonella, official of the Com-               recognised by the French Ministry of Agriculture and compris-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Howald                 ing regional groups of organic farmers, with the object of
(Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented by Rosario Grasso,             defending and representing their interests and promoting
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                   organic farming.
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 35 Rue Notre Dame, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Christine
Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application, first, for        The application is directed against Council Regulation (EC)
annulment of the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s          No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing Regulation
complaint lodged on 25 November 1998 and, second, for                   (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural
compensation for the material and non-material damage                   products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
suffered — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),                products and foodstuffs to include livestock production,
composed of J. Pirrung, President, and A. Potocki and                   inasmuch as it provides for the insertion in Article 5 of
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on           Regulation No 2092/91 of a derogation permitting the con-
16 December 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:            tinued use, until 1 July 2006, of trade marks referring to the
                                                                        organic production method in order to designate products
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                             which are not produced by that method, provided that a clear
                                                                        indication is given of the fact that the products are not
2. The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                        produced according to the organic production method as
                                                                        prescribed by that regulation.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                        In support of their claims, the applicants plead, first of all,
                                                                        infringement of the Community rules on competition, in that
                                                                        the derogation in issue will have the immediate effect of
                                                                        placing undertakings producing organic foodstuffs at a disad-
                                                                        vantage, by enabling undertakings which are not in any way
Action brought on 15 November 1999 by Fédération                        engaged in organic farming to use trade marks referring to the
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France                organic production method.
(FNAB) and Others against the Council of the European
                               Union
                                                                        Moreover, the confusion created in the mind of the consumer
                        (Case T-268/99)                                 by the new Article 5 of Regulation No 2092/91 also violates
                                                                        the principle of consumer protection, as defined in Article
                        (2000/C 102/55)                                 3(t) of the Treaty. In the applicants’ view, a reasonably
                                                                        well-informed consumer is likely to treat products bearing an
                                                                        indication which refers to the organic production method as
                  (Language of the case: French)                        comparable to products which have in fact been produced by
                                                                        that method. Consequently, such trade marks, when applied
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 to products which have not in any way been produced by
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              organic methods, will inevitably give rise to confusion in the
Communities on 15 November 1999 by the Fédération                       minds of consumers.
Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France
(FNAB) and the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB),         The applicants further plead:
both established in Paris, and by SARL Est Distribution
Biogram, established at Château-Salins (France), represented
by Catriona Hatton and Dirk Leermakers, of the Brussels Bar,            — breach of an essential procedural requirement, in that the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s                   Council failed to consult the Parliament with regard to the
Chambers, 5 Place du Théâtre.                                               derogation at issue in the present proceedings;
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/28              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
— infringement of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December                   Action brought on 22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch
    1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States                   VerlagsgmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
    relating to trade marks and of Directive 84/450/EEC of                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
    10 September 1984 relating to misleading advertising;
                                                                                (Case T-357/99)
— violation of the principles of legal certainty, protection of
    legitimate expectations, proportionality, non-discrimina-
    tion and subsidiarity.                                                                      (2000/C 102/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                        22 December 1999 by Telefon & Buch VerlagsgmbH, of
Action brought on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait Pet-                       Perchtoldsdorf (Republic of Austria), represented by Hans
roleum (Nederland) B.V. against the Commission of the                   Georg Zeiner and Brigitte Heaman-Dunn, Rechtsanwälte, of
                    European Communities                                Messrs Zeiner & Zeiner, Vienna, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Feider, of Messrs Beghin,
                                                                        Feider, Allen & Overy, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
                        (Case T-354/99)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2000/C 102/56)
                                                                        — amend the decision adopted on 21 October 1999 by the
                                                                            Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                            the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in appeal
                                                                            No R 352/1999-3, in such a way that there are no
                                                                            obstacles under Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of the Community
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   Trade Mark Regulation to registration of the Community
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  trade mark UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH (application
European Communities on 10 December 1999 by Kuwait                          No 455881);
Petroleum (Nederland) B.V., of Rotterdam (Netherlands), rep-
resented by P.S.R.F. Mathijsen, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        — alternatively, annul the decision adopted on 21 October
                                                                            1999 by the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                            Designs) in appeal No R 352/1999-3
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        The trade mark con-           verbal mark        ‘UNIVERSALTE-
                                                                        cerned:                       LEFONBUCH’         — application
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       No 455881
                                                                        Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 9
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             cerned:                       (including     recorded     storage
T-242/99.                                                                                media), 16 (including printing
                                                                                products), 41 (including pub-
                                                                                lishing services) and 42 (including
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                                                    editing services)
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal of registration by the
                                                                        before the Board of           examiner
                                                                        Appeal:


title: Case C-180/13 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2013 by Vetrai 28 srl, formerly Barovier & Toso Vetrerie Artistiche Riunite srl and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-272/00 Barbini and Others v European Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/5

         Appeal brought on 12 April 2013 by Vetrai 28 srl, formerly Barovier & Toso Vetrerie Artistiche Riunite srl and Others against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-272/00 Barbini and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-180/13 P)
   2013/C 207/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Vetrai 28 srl, formerly Barovier & Toso Vetrerie Artistiche Riunite srl and Others (represented by: A. Vianello, A. Bortoluzzi and A. Veronese, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Alfredo Barbini srl and Others, Italian Republic, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside and/or vary the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 29 January 2013 in Case T-272/00, and order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of their appeal, the appellants allege errors of law in the application of the principles outlined by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’ and Others v Commission, regarding (i) the duty to state the reasons for decisions of the Commission relating to State aid and (ii) the allocation of the burden of proof concerning the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU.
   In the order that is the subject of the present appeal, the General Court did not comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 9 June 2011 in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, in so far as that judgment states that a decision of the Commission ‘must contain in itself all the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities’. However, even though the decision at issue in the present case lacked the matters essential for its implementation by the national authorities, the General Court failed to find any deficiency in the method used by the Commission in the contested decision, and consequently erred in law.
   On the basis of the principles outlined by the Court in its judgment in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’, when aid is being recovered, it is the Member State — and not, therefore, the individual beneficiary — which is required to show, in each individual case, that the conditions laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are met. In the present case, however, in the contested decision the Commission failed to clarify the ‘modalities’ of any such verification; consequently, since it did not have available to it, at the time when the aid was to be recovered, the information necessary to show that the advantages granted constituted, in the hands of the beneficiaries, State aid, the Italian Republic — by Law No 228 of 24 December 2012 (Article 1, paragraph 351 et seq.) — decided to reverse the burden of proof, in breach of Community case-law. According to the Italian legislature, in particular, it is not for the State but for the individual beneficiaries of aid granted in the form of relief to prove that the advantages in question do not distort competition or affect trade between Member States. In the absence of any such proof, there is a presumption that the advantage granted was likely to distort trade and affect trade between Member States. That presumption is clearly contrary to the principles outlined by the Court in Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’.


title: Case T-302/13: Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/21

         Action brought on 28 May 2013 — Nordex Holding/OHIM — Fontana Food (Taverna)
   (Case T-302/13)
   (2013/C 226/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nordex Holding A/S (Dronninglund, Denmark) (represented by: M. Kleis, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fontana Food AB (Tyresö, Sweden)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the First Board of Appeal’s decision of 21 March 2013 in Case R 2608/2011-1;

               —

               Annul the Cancellation Division’s decision of 21 October 2011 No 4891 C, which preceded the adoption of the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Office to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘Taverna’– Community trade mark registration No 5 466 909

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark partially invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) in conjunction with 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-279/12: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v Information Commissioner, United Utilities Water plc, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd, Southern Water Services Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Public access to environmental information — Scope — Concept of ‘public authority’ — Water and sewerage undertakers — Privatisation of the water industry in England and Wales)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/13

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal — United Kingdom) — Fish Legal, Emily Shirley v Information Commissioner, United Utilities Water plc, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd, Southern Water Services Ltd
   (Case C-279/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Public access to environmental information - Scope - Concept of ‘public authority’ - Water and sewerage undertakers - Privatisation of the water industry in England and Wales)
   2014/C 52/20
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Fish Legal, Emily Shirley

      Respondents: Information Commissioner, United Utilities Water plc, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd, Southern Water Services Ltd

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 2(2)(a), (b) and (c) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) — Obligation on public authorities to make environmental information held by them available to any applicant — Scope — Notion of natural or legal persons ‘performing public administrative functions under national law’.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In order to determine whether entities such as United Utilities Water plc, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd and Southern Water Services Ltd can be classified as legal persons which perform ‘public administrative functions’ under national law, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, it should be examined whether those entities are vested, under the national law which is applicable to them, with special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between persons governed by private law.

               2.

               Undertakings, such as United Utilities Water plc, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd and Southern Water Services Ltd, which provide public services relating to the environment are under the control of a body or person falling within Article 2(2)(a) or (b) of Directive 2003/4, and should therefore be classified as ‘public authorities’ by virtue of Article 2(2)(c) of that directive, if they do not determine in a genuinely autonomous manner the way in which they provide those services since a public authority covered by Article 2(2)(a) or (b) of the directive is in a position to exert decisive influence on their action in the environmental field.

               3.

               Article 2(2)(b) of Directive 2003/4 must be interpreted as meaning that a person falling within that provision constitutes a public authority in respect of all the environmental information which it holds. Commercial companies, such as United Utilities Water plc, Yorkshire Water Services Ltd and Southern Water Services Ltd, which are capable of being a public authority by virtue of Article 2(2)(c) of the directive only in so far as, when they provide public services in the environmental field, they are under the control of a body or person falling within Article 2(2)(a) or (b) of the directive are not required to provide environmental information if it is not disputed that the information does not relate to the provision of such services.

      (1)  OJ C 250, 18.8.2012.


title: Case C-85/13: Action brought on 21 February 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/9

         Action brought on 21 February 2013 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-85/13)
   2013/C 147/16
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and L. Cimaglia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic, by having failed to:

                           —

                           adopt the provisions necessary to ensure that the agglomerations of Bareggio, Cassano d’Adda, Melegnano, Mortara, Olona Nord, Olona Sud, Robecco sul Naviglio, San Giuliano Milanese Est, San Giuliano Milanese Ovest, Seveso Sud, Trezzano sul Naviglio, Turbigo and Vigevano (Lombardy), which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 and discharge into receiving waters considered to be ‘sensitive areas’ for the purposes of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, (1) are provided with collection systems for urban waste water, pursuant to Article 3 of that directive;

                           —

                           adopt the provisions necessary to ensure that, in the agglomerations of Pescasseroli (Abruzzo), Aviano Capoluogo, Cormons, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Grado, Pordenone/Porcia/Roveredo/Cordenons, Sacile (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Bareggio, Broni, Calco, Cassano d’Adda, Casteggio, Melegnano, Mortara, Orzinuovi, Rozzano, San Giuliano Milanese Ovest, Seveso Sud, Somma Lombardo, Trezzano sul Naviglio, Turbigo, Valle San Martino, Vigevano, Vimercate (Lombardy), Pesaro, Urbino (Marche), Alta Val Susa (Piedmont), Nuoro (Sardinia), Castellammare del Golfo I, Cinisi, Terrasini (Sicily), Courmayeur (Aosta Valley) and Thiene (Veneto), which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, pursuant to Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

                           —

                           adopt the provisions necessary to ensure that, in the agglomerations of Pescasseroli (Abruzzo), Aviano Capoluogo, Cividale del Friuli, Codroipo/Sedegliano/Flaibano, Cormons, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Grado, Latisana Capoluogo, Pordenone/Porcia/Roveredo/Cordenons, Sacile, San Vito al Tagliamento, Udine (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Frosinone (Lazio), Francavilla Fontana, Monteiasi, Trinitapoli (Puglia), Dorgali, Nuoro, ZIR Villacidro (Sardinia) and Castellammare del Golfo I, Cinisi, Partinico, Terrasini and Trappeto (Sicily), which have a population equivalent of more than 10 000 and discharge into receiving waters considered to be ‘sensitive areas’ for the purposes of Directive 91/271/EEC, urban waste water entering collecting systems is, before discharge, subject to more stringent treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, pursuant to Article 5 of that directive;

                           —

                           adopt the provisions necessary to ensure that the urban waste water treatment plants built to comply with the requirements of Articles 4 to 7 of Directive 91/271/EEC are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions and to ensure that, when the plants are being designed, seasonal variations of the load are taken into account in the agglomerations of Pescasseroli (Abruzzo), Aviano Capoluogo, Cividale del Friuli, Codroipo/Sedegliano/Flaibano, Cormons, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Grado, Latisana Capoluogo, Pordenone/Porcia/Roveredo/Cordenons, Sacile, San Vito al Tagliamento, Udine (Friuli-Venezia Giulia), Frosinone (Lazio), Bareggio, Broni, Calco, Cassano d’Adda, Casteggio, Melegnano, Mortara, Orzinuovi, Rozzano, San Giuliano Milanese Ovest, Seveso Sud, Somma Lombardo, Trezzano sul Naviglio, Turbigo, Valle San Martino, Vigevano, Vimercate (Lombardy), Pesaro, Urbino (Marche), Alta Val Susa (Piedmont), Francavilla Fontana, Monteiasi, Trinitapoli (Puglia), Dorgali, Nuoro, ZIR Villacidro (Sardinia), Castellammare del Golfo I, Cinisi, Partinico, Terrasini, Trappeto (Sicily), Courmayeur (Aosta Valley) and Thiene (Veneto);

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 and/or Article 4 and/or Article 5 as well as Article 10 of Directive 91/271/EEC;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the Commission complains that, in parts of its territory, Italy has not correctly implemented Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment.
   First of all, the Commission finds a number of breaches of Article 3 of that directive, the second subparagraph of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of which provide, regarding urban waste water discharging into receiving waters which are considered ‘sensitive areas’ as defined under Article 5 of the directive, that Member States were required to ensure, by 31 December 1998 at the latest, that all agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000 were provided with collection systems satisfying the requirements of Annex I(A). In various agglomerations in the Lombardy Region falling within the ambit of those provisions, that requirement was not properly complied with.
   In addition, under Article 4(1) and (3) of Directive 91/271/EEC, Member States were required to ensure, by 31 December 2000 at the latest for all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 and by 31 December 2005 at the latest for discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 10 000 and 15 000, that urban waste water entering collecting systems was, before discharge, subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with the relevant requirements of Annex I(B). The Commission has found that Italy failed to comply with those provisions in a series of agglomerations situated in the regions of Abruzzo, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lombardy, Marche, Piedmont, Sardinia, Sicily, Aosta Valley and Veneto.
   Next, under Article 5(2) and (3) of the directive, the Member States were required to ensure by 31 December 1998 at the latest that, for all discharges from agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 10 000, urban waste water entering collecting systems was, before discharge into sensitive areas, subject to more stringent treatment than that described in Article 4. The Commission has found that Italy failed to comply with those provisions in a series of agglomerations situated in the regions of Abruzzo, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Lazio, Puglia, Sardinia and Sicily.
   Lastly, the failure to comply with Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 91/271/EEC also entails a breach of Article 10 of the directive, which provides that urban waste water treatment plants must be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure sufficient performance under all normal local climatic conditions.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Case T-686/16 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/19

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2016 by Daniele Possanzini against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 in Case F-68/15, Possanzini v Frontex
   (Case T-686/16 P)
   (2016/C 428/22)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 July 2016 dismissing his action;

               —

               grant the claims sought at first instance;

               —

               order the other party to the proceedings to pay all of the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two grounds.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, divided into two limbs, alleging infringement of Article 11(4), (5) and (6) of the decision of the Executive Director of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (‘Frontex’) of 27 August 2009 establishing the staff appraisal procedure (‘decision of 27 August 2009’), interpreted in the light of Article 41(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                           —

                           First limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in failing to examine the plea, relied on at first instance by the appellant, relating to the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator.

                           —

                           Second limb, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in law in the order under appeal by failing to examine, of its own motion, the lack of prior dialogue between the validator and the evaluator.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of Article 2(2) of the decision of 27 August 2009 by failing to have regard for the difference in role between evaluator and validator as established within Frontex.