title: Case T-302/05: Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Torijano Montero v Council

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/23

         Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Torijano Montero v Council
   (Case T-302/05)
   (2005/C 281/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Javier Torijano Montero (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, lawyer, A. Jaume, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:
   Principally:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's complaint together with the decision of appointment adopted by the appointing authority on 20 October 2004 in so far as it determined his grade pursuant to Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               advise the appointing authority of the consequences of the annulment of the contested decisions, in particular the regrading of the applicant in grade A*8 with retroactive effect as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect;

         In the alternative:

               —

               order the Commission to compensate the loss suffered by the applicant as a result of not having been graded, at least in grade A*8, as from 16 October 2004, the date on which the decision of appointment of 20 October 2004 took effect.

         In any event:

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are, for the most part, identical to those relied on in Case T-207/05 Schulze v Commission.
       (1) The applicant also claims that there has been a breach of the rules concerning the correspondence between types of posts, on the one hand, and categories and grades, on the other.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36.


title: Case T-363/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Zoetis Belgium v Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/50

         Action brought on 7 July 2016 — Zoetis Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-363/16)
   (2016/C 305/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zoetis Belgium (Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium) (represented by: H. Vanhulle, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, C. Borgers and N. Baeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption state aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 2-4 of the Decision;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has committed an error of law and a manifest error of assessment in the identification of the alleged aid measure and in its qualification as an aid scheme within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 (1) and Article 107 TFUE.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 107 TFUE, failed to state reasons and committed a manifest error of assessment in considering that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes a State aid measure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 16(1) of Council Regulation No 2015/1589 and the general principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations in ordering the recovery of the alleged aid.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(6) TFUE and the principle of equal treatment, and misuses its powers, by using State aid rules to prohibit the Belgian excess profit ruling system.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015, L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T -96/06: Action brought on  17 March 2006  — Tsakiris-Mallas A.E. v OHIM

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/29

         Action brought on 17 March 2006 — Tsakiris-Mallas A.E. v OHIM
   (Case T -96/06)
   (2006/C 108/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Tsakiris-Mallas A.E. (Aryiroupoli, Attica, Greece) (represented by: Kharalambos Samaras, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Late Editions Limited (Leighton Buzzard, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 January 2006 in Case R 1127/2004-2.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tsakiris-Mallas A.E.

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark exë for goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Application No 2 190 015

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Late Editions Limited

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark EXE for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition accepted for some of the goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: Case T-527/12: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/60

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — DeMaCo Holland v Commission
   (Case T-527/12) (1)

   (2017/C 144/82)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


Avis juridique important

|

52003XX1024(06)

Court of Justice - Appointment of the First Advocate General

Official Journal C 255 , 24/10/2003 P. 0007 - 0007

Appointment of the First Advocate General(2003/C 255/12)Under the third subparagraph of Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice appointed Mr Tizzano as First Advocate General for a period of one year from 7 October 2003.


title: Case F-141/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Maniscalco v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/49

         Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Maniscalco v Commission
   (Case F-141/07)
   (2008/C 92/100)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniele Maniscalco (Rome, Italy) (represented by: C. Cardarello and F. D'amora, avvocati)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Re
   Annulment of the decision to recruit the applicant in Function Group IV, at Grade 13, step 1.
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul decision ADMIN.B.2/OG/jmt/D(07)23504;

               —

               declare the claim for recruitment at a higher grade and for payment of the resulting difference in salary as at the date of establishment of the report recognising the applicant's entitlement to recruitment at grade 16 to be well founded

               —

               order the Directorate General for Personnel and administration — Directorate A — Staff and Careers to pay the sum owed, with interest and costs, corresponding to the difference between a grade 13 salary and the grade 16 salary to which the applicant was entitled;

               —

               appoint the applicant for the future at grade 16 as a member of the contract staff in the appropriate step for the number of years' experience he has.


title: Case T-154/99: Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Stadtsportverband Neuss e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 265/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.9.1999
Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Stadtsportverband                     dren’s olympiad under the title ‘Internationale Schülerbegeg-
Neuss e.V. against the Commission of the European                       nung 1994’, in which a large number of children and young
                         Communities                                    persons from various European countries took part. On
                                                                        application by the applicant, the defendant on 6 June 1994
                        (Case T-154/99)                                 approved a subsidy of ECU 20 000.00 in the context of the
                                                                        Eurathlon programme, under reference number 215050/94.
                        (1999/C 265/32)
                  (Language of the case: German)                        The contested repayment decision obliged the applicant to
                                                                        reimburse the entire subsidy, since it appeared from the report
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               of the relevant audit office of the Neuss district local authority
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              that an impermissible profit had been made.
European Communities on 25 June 1999 by Stadtsportver-
band Neuss e.V., of Neuss, Germany, represented by Hein                 In its application, the applicant complains of
Günther Hüsch and Simona Schnelle, Rechtsanwälte, of
Dr Hüsch, Kinnius & Partner, Markt 21, Neuss.                           — procedural error, in that the defendant gave an opportunity
                                                                             to make observations only to the chairman of the board of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  the applicant who was no longer in office;
1. annul the repayment decision of the European Commission
    of 6 April 1999, account number 3240010317;                         — absence of the material conditions for claiming repayment,
                                                                             since there had been no actual surplus at all; and
2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        — breach of the rights of the defence, since in the contested
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              repayment decision the defendant neither stated the
                                                                             amount of the impermissible profit made nor based its
The applicant, which is an association of all the sports clubs in            finding on a factual basis which could be checked by the
the municipality of Neuss, organised in 1994 a schoolchil-                   applicant.


title: Call for Applications — Director of the Protocol and Visits Directorate (grade AD 14 or AD 15)

text:
               9.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               CA 130/1

         Call for Applications
   Director of the Protocol and Visits Directorate (grade AD 14 or AD 15)
   (2009/C 130 A/01)
   The post of Director of the Protocol and Visits Directorate (grade AD 14 or AD 15) at the Court of Justice of the European Communities will soon become vacant. This post will be filled under Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials.
   Duties
   Under the authority of the Registrar of the Court, the holder of this post is responsible for managing the Protocol and Visits Directorate and organising and coordinating its activities.
   The Director of Protocol and Visits is required to act as head of protocol of the Court and, in that capacity, to supervise the organisation of official visits to the Court by high-ranking visitors and the organisation of formal sittings and other official events.
   He will also be responsible for the visits service, which entails:

               —

               preparing for study and information visits (approximately 15 000 visitors annually),

               —

               organising meetings at the Court of national magistrates.

         The Director of Protocol and Visits will have particular responsibility for the good management of staff in his directorate; in particular he must encourage their motivation, their training and their adaptation to the needs of the service. He must also endeavour to improve the working methods of the directorate and to make optimum use of the resources and tools available. Finally, in his capacity as subdelegated authorising officer, he must ensure the proper management of the appropriations made available to him.
   Qualifications required

               —

               Completed university education attested by a diploma,

               —

               thorough knowledge and professional experience of the fields covered by the directorate,

               —

               aptitude for running an administrative unit,

               —

               good knowledge of French and English.

         Submission of applications
   Applications for this post must reach the Court of Justice, by e-mail only to the following e-mail address: DIR-PV-CURIA@curia.europa.eu by 27 June 2009 at 1 p.m. at the latest. Applications must be accompanied by a detailed curriculum vitae and supporting documents.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 9 November 2000 in Case C-148/99: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 — Aid for fibre flax and hemp)

text:
C 28/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          27.1.2001
(Labour Court, Turin), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the               — application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
proceedings pending before that court between Roberto Vitari                1999/187/EC of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the
and European Training Foundation — on the interpretation of                 accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants                expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
of the European Communities — the Court, (Fifth Chamber),                   Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (OJ 1999 L 61,
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                       p. 37) in so far as it excludes from Community financing
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and                        expenditure of GBP 869 283 incurred in the United Kingdom
L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                under the scheme established by Commission Regulation (EEC)
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November                     No 1164/89 of 28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                concerning the aid for fibre flax and hemp (OJ 1989 L 121,
                                                                            p. 4) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O.
                                                                            Edward, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, L. Sevón
On a proper construction of Article 79 of the Conditions of                 and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Employment of other Servants of the European Communities, that              Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
provision precludes the possibility for a Community institution to          has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in which it:
conclude a fixed-term contract of employment with a member of its
local staff where that is contrary to its own rules applicable to the       1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February
conditions of employment of local staff and drawn up in accordance                1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
with the rules and practice of the State in which the duties are                  States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
performed. It is therefore for the national court to determine whether,           Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
in accordance with Article 3 of the rules governing the conditions of             Fund, in so far as it excludes from Community financing
employment of local staff serving in Italy adopted by the Commission,             expenses of GBP 869 283 incurred in the United Kingdom of
the circumstances surrounding the work, or the nature of that work,               Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the scheme estab-
made it necessary for the local-staff contract between the parties to             lished by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 of
the main proceedings to be concluded for a fixed term. If not, it is for          28 April 1989 laying down detailed rules concerning the aid
the national court to convert that contract into a contract of                    for fibre flax and hemp;
employment for an indefinite period.
                                                                            2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 9 November 2000                                                            of 9 November 2000
in Case C-148/99: United Kingdom of Great Britain                           in Case C-207/99 P: Commission of the European Com-
and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European                                           munities v Claudine Hamptaux (1)
                           Communities (1)
                                                                            (Appeal — Officials — Promotion — Consideration of
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year                                                  comparative merits)
— Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 — Aid for fibre flax and
                                 hemp)                                                                   (2001/C 28/11)
                            (2001/C 28/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                    (Language of the case: English)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-148/99: United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agent: J.E. Collins, assisted by A. Sutton) v             In Case C-207/99 P: Commission of the European Communi-
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: P. Oliver)                   ties (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and


title: Action brought on 17 May 1996 by Miguel Forcat Icardo against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-73/96)

text:
 10 . 8 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 233/ 11
The applicant maintains, first, that the notice of competition          head    of   another     unit  in  DG     VIII   informed    the
COM/AY/955 was unlawful in that it required the selection               Director-General and the Deputy Director-General in
board to take notice of all the candidates ' applications and           writing of a number of very negative assessments concerning
supporting documents before fixing the criteria for assessing           the manner in which the applicant performed his duties . The
their professional qualifications . As a result of the                  applicant immediately challenged those accusations, which
unlawfulness of that notice, all decisions adopted on the               he regarded as defamatory and insulting. Having carried out
basis of the notice should also be considered unlawful .                an enquiry, the Director-General concluded that no
                                                                        evidence had been adduced to support the assessments made
She also argues that she has outstanding professional                   of the applicant and decided to close the file on the matter .
qualifications and significant professional experience . The           Nevertheless, he subsequently informed the applicant that
decision not to admit her to the oral test in the competition          he had decided, first, to transfer him to unit VIII/B/5 and,
therefore cannot fail to be vitiated by a manifest error of             secondly, to retain the author of the accusations in his post
assessment .                                                           without taking any disciplinary measure against him . In a
                                                                       conversation he had on that subject with the
Finally, the Commission refused to communicate to her                  Director-General, the applicant challenged the decision,
during the pre-litigation stage any information concerning             arguing that to transfer him to a post of lesser professional
the deliberations of the selection board and, in particular, as        interest and at a lower administrative level, while
to the precise criteria fixed by the board and the time at             maintaining the other person in his post, could only be
which they were adopted . She infers that the Commission               interpreted as a disguised sanction against him . On
infringed the duty to state reasons under Article 25 of the             11 August 1 995 , the applicant was informed that the
                                                                       Commission had decided, in the context of the
Staff Regulations of officials.
                                                                       reorganization of DG VIII, to assign him as Head of the unit
                                                                       VIII/B/5 ' Sysmin ' in Directorate B ' Instruments '.
                                                                      The applicant applies for the annulment of that decision,
                                                                       and makes the following pleas in law:
Action brought on 17 May \ 996 by Miguel Forçat Icardo                 ( a ) the statement of reasons was erroneous and unfounded
  against the Commission of the European Communities                         in so far as the Commission claimed that the contested
                          ( Case T-73/96 )                                   decision was taken ' in the context of the reorganization
                                                                             of DG VIII'. The applicant maintains that, in the light of
                            ( 96/C 233/21 )
                                                                             the facts, that statement of reasons is obviously unreal,
                                                                             since he was in fact transferred after accusations which
                (Language of tbe case: French)                               were made against him, even though those accusations
                                                                             turned out to be unfounded;
An action against the Commission of the European                       ( b ) the applicant considers that the contested decision
Communities was brought before the Court of First                            disregards the interests of the service, since its effect is
Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 1996 by                       to deprive the service of a responsible person
Miguel Forçât Icardo, residing in Brussels, represented by                   unanimously recognized as competent and efficient and
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address                   to assign him to less responsible tasks in a smaller team,
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                 signifying de facto demotion in the eyes of all
Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener .                                                       concerned ;
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          (c ) in the applicant's submission, the contested decision
                                                                             constitutes a misuse of powers, in that it was not based
                                                                             on the interests of the service and that its real
— annul the decision compulsorily to reassign the applicant
     to unit VIII/B/5 , contained in the note of F. De Koster of             motivation was not the reorganization of DG VIII but
     11 August 1995 ,                                                        the seriously defamatory and acknowledgedly
                                                                             unfounded accusations which had been made against
                                                                             him .
— award compensation to the applicant for the
     non-material damage suffered,
                                                                      The applicant further maintains that the attitude which the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                             Commission adopted towards the unjustified accusations
                                                                      against him, as described above, has caused him obvious
                                                                      non-material damage which it must make good . He
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   therefore claims that the Commission should be ordered to
                                                                      pay him Bfrs 500 000 in damages and take disciplinary
The applicant states that, as from 1 January 1991 , he was            action against the author of the accusations .
Head of the ' Caribbean' unit (VIII/F/1 ) in the
Directorate-General for Development ( DG VIII ), and
performed his duties to the satisfaction of his superiors, as is
demonstrated by his staff reports. In February 1995 , the


               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/1

         (2007/C 42/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 20, 27.1.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 331, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 326, 30.12.2006

      OJ C 310, 16.12.2006

      OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

      OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

      OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-364/09 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2009 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08, Lebedef v Commission

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/52

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2009 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08, Lebedef v Commission
   (Case T-364/09 P)
   2009/C 282/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the judgment of the CST of 7 July 2009 in Case F-39/08, Giorgio Lebedef, resident at 4, Neie Wee, L-1670, Senningerberg, Luxembourg, official of the European Commission, assisted and represented by Frédéric Frabetti, 5, rue Jean Bertels, L-1230 Luxembourg, avocat à la Cour, with an address for service at his offices, against the Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant, seeking annulment of the decisions of 29.5.2007, 20.6.2007, 28.6.2007, 6.7.2007, both decisions of 26.7.2007 and that of 2.8.2007 concerning the deduction of 32 days from the appellant’s entitlement to annual leave for 2007;

               —

               uphold the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               in the alternative, return the action to be heard by the Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               rule on costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present appeal, the appellant requests that the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 7 July 2009, delivered in Case F-39/08 Lebedef v Commission, rejecting the action by which the appellant sought the annulment of a series of decisions concerning the deduction of 32 days from the appellant’s entitlement to annual leave for 2007, be set aside.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward nine pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               failure to have regard to the sixth paragraph of Article 1 on Annex II to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities with regard to the composition and operation of, inter alia, the Staff Committee and to Article 1(2) of the Framework Agreement on relations between the Commission and staff unions and associations;

               —

               incorrect interpretation and application of the concept of ‘trade union freedom’ based on Article 24b of the Regulations;

               —

               failure to have regard to point III.c concerning part-time work for medical reasons of Commission Decision [C(2004) 1597] of 28 April 2004 introducing implementing provisions on absences as a result of sickness or accident and, more particularly, the point providing that ‘any days of annual leave taken count as whole days’;

               —

               failure to have regard to the appellant’s state of health;

               —

               incorrect interpretation and application of the concepts ‘participation in staff representation’, ‘secondment to a trade union’ and ‘official trade union business’;

               —

               distortion of the facts and the appellant’s assertions and the material inaccuracy of the findings of the CST with regard to registration of ‘unauthorised absence’ in SysPer2;

               —

               an error in law committed by the CST by interpreting the concept of ‘absence’ as it is defined in Articles 57, 59 and 60 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               an error in law committed by the CST in the application of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations; and

               —

               failure to give reasons as regards the assessments made by the CST which are challenged in the first eight pleas in law.


title: Case C-8/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Spain) lodged on 10 January 2014  — Unnim Banc, S.A. v Diego Fernández Gabarro and Others

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Spain) lodged on 10 January 2014 — Unnim Banc, S.A. v Diego Fernández Gabarro and Others
   (Case C-8/14)
   2014/C 102/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unnim Banc, S.A.

      Defendants: Diego Fernández Gabarro, Pedro Penalva López and Clara López Durán

      Question referred

   Is the limitation period of one month provided for by Law 1/2013 on the protection of mortgagors, restructuring of debt and social rent contrary to the terms of Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13/EEC  (1)?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

      OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.


title: Joined Cases T-420/11 and T-56/12: Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015  — Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Res judicata — Consequence of an annulment of restrictive measures for the entity owned or controlled by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation — Temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 January 2015 — Ocean Capital Administration and Others v Council
   (Joined Cases T-420/11 and T-56/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Res judicata - Consequence of an annulment of restrictive measures for the entity owned or controlled by an entity identified as being involved in nuclear proliferation - Temporal effects of an annulment))
   (2015/C 081/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ocean Capital Administration GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) and other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (Case T-420/11); IRISL Maritime Training Institute (Tehran, Iran); Kheibar Co. (Tehran); Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. (Kish Island, Iran); IRISL Multimodal Transport Co. (Tehran) (Case T-56/12) (represented by: F. Randolph, QC, M. Taher, Solicitor, and M. Lester, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and, in Case T-420/11, by P. Plaza García and, in Case T-56/12, by M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Applications, in Case T 420/11, for the annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26) and of Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) in so far as those measures concern the applicants, and, in Case T 56/12, for the annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and of Regulation No 267/2012 in so far as those measures concern the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern Ocean Capital Administration GmbH and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               2.

               Annuls, in so far as they concern IRISL Maritime Training Institute, Kheibar Co., Kish Shipping Line Manning Co. and IRISL Multimodal Transport Co.:

                           —

                           Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran;

                           —

                           Regulation No 267/2012;

               3.

               Declares that the effects of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Decision 2011/299 and Decision 2011/783, are maintained as regards, on the one hand, Ocean Capital Administration and the other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment and, on the other hand, IRISL Maritime Training Institute, Kheibar, Kish Shipping Line Manning and IRISL Multimodal Transport, until the annulment of Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Ocean Capital Administration and the 35 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to this judgment and by IRISL Maritime Training Institute, Kheibar, Kish Shipping Line Manning and IRISL Multimodal Transport.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


               9.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/22

         Action brought on 20 December 2016 by Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-20/16)
   (2017/C 73/12)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 December 2016 by Autonomy Capital (Jersey) LP and Eaton Vance Management, represented by Pétur Örn Sverrisson hrl. and Halldór Backman hrl., Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP, Citypoint, One Ropemaker Street, London EC2Y 9AW.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare void the Defendant’s decision of 23 November 2016 closing the Applicants’ complaint against Iceland; and

               2.

               Order the Defendant to pay the Applicants’ costs of the present proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicants argue that Act No 37/2016, passed by the Icelandic Parliament, discriminates on the grounds of nationality by imposing extensive requirements, with penalties for failure to comply, on the holders of offshore króna who are predominantly non-residents of Iceland, and does not place any equivalent requirements on domestic holders of króna.

               —

               According to the Applicants, the EFTA Surveillance Authority has relied on Article 43 of the EEA Agreement to support the assertion that Iceland was, and continues to be, allowed to derogate from its obligation to comply with the fundamental freedoms set out in the EEA Agreement.

               —

               The Applicants claims that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has misjudged the level of discretion awarded to EEA/EFTA States by Article 43 and, therefore, Iceland has not met the test set out in Article 43(4).

               —

               Additionally, the Applicants submits that, regardless of scenario, any derogation from an obligation under the EEA Agreements must be in accordance with the principal of proportionality and must be no wider in scope than necessary to remedy whatever sudden difficulties have arisen. According to the Applicants, the controls imposed by Act No 37/2016 are disproportionate and do not address the Icelandic Government’s stated concern, and, additionally, the Icelandic Authorities have failed to consider the considerably less restrictive options suggested to them.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Case C-86/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Reiner Woltmann, trading as Trans-Ex-Import v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam (Theft of goods - Customs duties - Remission - Special situation)

text:
C 100/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.4.1999
Advocate-General: A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. von                   within the meaning of Article 905(1) of Commission
Holstein, Assistant Registrar, has given a judgment on               Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
23 February 1999, in which it:                                       down provisions for the implementation of Council
                                                                     Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the
                                                                     Community         Customs     Code       exist,   necessitating
1. Dismisses the application;                                        examination of the file by the Commission, where, having
                                                                     regard to the objective of fairness underlying Article 239
                                                                     of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 factors liable to place
                                                                     the applicant in an exceptional situation as compared with
2. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                           other operators engaged in the same business are found to
                                                                     exist and the conditions laid down in Article 900(1)(a) of
                                                                     Regulation No 2454/93, for remission of customs duties in
(1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.                                               favour of an applicant, are not fulfilled.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                    of 25 February 1999                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-86/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    (Sixth Chamber)
the Bundesfinanzhof): Reiner Woltmann, trading as
      Trans-Ex-Import' v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam (1)                                       of 25 February 1999
(Theft of goods Ð Customs duties Ð Remission Ð                       in   Case    C-195/97: Commission of the             European
                       Special situation)                                         Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                       (1999/C 100/12)                               (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                              Failure to transpose Directive 91/676/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/13)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-86/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                      published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany, for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
that court between Reiner Woltmann, trading as Trans-
Ex-Import', and Hauptzollamt Potsdam Ð on the                        In Case C-195/97: Commission of the European
interpretation of Article 905(1) of Commission Regulation            Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) v. Italian Republic
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions               (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier
for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)                   Giorgio Ferri) Ð application for a declaration that, by
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code                   failing to adopt and communicate within the prescribed
(OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth                      period the provisions necessary to transpose into domestic
Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the                   law Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991
Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                     concerning the protection of waters against pollution
Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H.                caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375,
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; G. Cosmas,                       31.12.1991, p. 1), and in particular by failing to comply
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                   with the obligation laid down in Article 3(2) of the
judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it has ruled:                 Directive, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                     obligations under Community law Ð the Court (Sixth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur), H.
Factors which might constitute a special situation resulting         Ragnemalm and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; P. LeÂger,
from circumstances in which no deception or obvious                  Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
negligence may be attributed to the person concerned,                judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it:


title: Case T-284/16: Order of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/60

         Order of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — Gulli v EUIPO — Laverana (Lybera)
   (Case T-284/16) (1)

   (2017/C 022/81)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.


title: Case F-123/06: Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Timmer v Court of Auditors

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/84

         Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Timmer v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-123/06)
   (2006/C 326/170)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marianne Timmer (Saint Sauves d'Auvergne, France) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annulment of all the applicant's staff reports drawn up by M.L.;

               —

               annulment of the connected and/or subsequent decisions, including that appointing M.L.;

               —

               an order for the payment of compensation for the material damage corresponding to the loss of income which the applicant has suffered in relation to the situation she would have been in if she had been promoted each time that she theoretically could have been during the period of her work under M.L.'s orders;

               —

               an order for the payment of EUR 250 000 compensation for pain and suffering and for the effects which the unlawful treatment referred to above had on the applicant's health;

               —

               an order for the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant first submits that her career has been hampered, to the point of excluding her from the service, in order to allow her superior to continue in the unlawful exercise of his/her duties. The delay in bringing the action is due to the fact that the applicant learnt that the decisions on her career were unlawful only on the discovery of new facts which affected the validity of her staff reports, namely, in particular: (i) a twofold failure by her superior to observe Article 11a of the Staff Regulations; (ii) that her superior's length of service was insufficient when he/she was appointed; (iii) illegalities in connection with competition CC/LA/18/82; (iv) the unlawful filling of a post that the applicant could have filled; (v) her superiors' personal interest; (vi) the omission of disciplinary measures.
   The applicant also alleges, first, a complete failure to give reasons for the decisions concerning her which were adopted by the General Secretariat of the Court of Auditors and, secondly, illegalities in the disciplinary procedures followed by that that institution.


title: Case T-389/16: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark MONTORSI F. & F. — Earlier national word mark Casa Montorsi — Relative ground for invalidity — Likelihood of confusion — Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Agreement for coexistence of the marks — Scope — Article 53(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2017 — AIA v EUIPO — Casa Montorsi (MONTORSI F. & F.)
   (Case T-389/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark MONTORSI F. & F. - Earlier national word mark Casa Montorsi - Relative ground for invalidity - Likelihood of confusion - Article 53(1)(a) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Agreement for coexistence of the marks - Scope - Article 53(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/65)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Agricola italiana alimentare SpA (AIA) (San Martino Buon Albergo, Italy) (represented by: S. Rizzo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Casa Montorsi Srl (Vignola, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 (Case R 1239/2014-1) concerning invalidity proceedings between Casa Montorsi and AIA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Agricola italiana alimentare (AIA) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case F-93/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Dethomas v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/22

         Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Dethomas v Commission
   (Case F-93/06)
   (2006/C 237/38)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Dethomas (Rabat, Morocco) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annul the Commission decision of 11 January 2006 appointing the applicant a probationary official of the European Communities, as Head of the Commission delegation to Morocco in the Directorate-General for External Relations, in so far as it classifies him in Grade A*14, step 2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   While he was a member of the temporary staff in Grade A*14, step 8, the applicant applied for the post advertised in vacancy notice COM/229/04 for the recruitment of the Head of the Commission Delegation to Morocco (1). His application being successful, he was appointed a probationary official in Grade A*14, step 2.
   In his application, the applicant claims that, since he was appointed an official in the same Grade immediately following his period of service as a member of the temporary staff, the Commission should have appointed him, under the third paragraph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, in grade A*14, step 8. By refusing him the benefit of that provision, the Commission made a manifest error of law.

      (1)  OJ C 246 A, 5.10.2004, p. 1.


title: Case T-410/16: Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/13

         Action brought on 31 July 2016 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-410/16)
   (2016/C 371/15)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2016/850 of 27 May 2016 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to effective judicial protection provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), in Article 215 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) and in Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in so far as the Council’s reasoning does not meet the obligation on the institutions of the European Union laid down in Article 6 of the ECHR, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment with regard to the involvement of the applicant in the financing of the Syrian regime;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested measures impose an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights, in particular his right to property provided for in Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to respect for his reputation provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the ECHR, the principle of the presumption of innocence provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, his right to freedom of expression provided for in Article 10 of the ECHR and his right to freedom of movement provided for in Article 2(2) of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the Council’s Guidelines of 2 December 2005 on implementation and evaluation of restrictive measures (sanctions) in the framework of the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy (Council document 15114/05 of 2 December 2005).


title: Case C-139/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, S.A.

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Burgos (Spain) lodged on 7 March 2016 — Juan Moreno Marín, María Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente v Abadía Retuerta, S.A.
   (Case C-139/16)
   (2016/C 200/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Burgos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Juan Moreno Marín, Maria Almudena Benavente Cárdaba and Rodrigo Moreno Benavente

      Other party: Abadía Retuerta, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               May the prohibitions in Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2008/95 (1) include the use of a sign referring to the characteristic of a product or service which is that it can be found in abundance in a single place with a high degree of value and quality?

               2.

               May a sign with these characteristics be regarded as a sign of geographical origin in so far as the product or service will always be concentrated in a specific physical area?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25).


title: Case T-14/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe) (Community Trade Mark — Procedural issues — Plea of inadmissibility — Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal — Time-limit for bringing an action)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Parallel stripes on a shoe)
   (Case T-14/06) (1)

   (Community Trade Mark - Procedural issues - Plea of inadmissibility - Notification of the decision of the Board of Appeal - Time-limit for bringing an action)
   (2006/C 331/96)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: K-Swiss, Inc. (West Lake Village, California, United States) (represented by: H. Hübner, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: Ó. Mondéjar, Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1), concerning registration of a mark in the form of five parallel stripes placed on the lateral part of a representation of a shoe as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-356/16: Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/50

         Action brought on 4 July 2016 — Brita v EUIPO — Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme (maxima)
   (Case T-356/16)
   (2016/C 305/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Brita GmbH (Taunusstein, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aquis Wasser-Luft-Systeme GmbH (Rebstein, Switzerland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: International registration No 1 128 639 designating the European Union

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 May 2016 in Case R 99/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and the decision of the Opposition Division of 11 November 2014 and alter them to the effect that the opposition is granted and the extension of international registration IR 1128639 ‘MAXIMA’ to the field of EU trade marks is denied;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the action and the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-76/01 P: Comité des industries du coton et des fibres connexes de l'Union européenne (Eurocoton) and Others (Appeal — Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt a proposal for a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping duties — Lack of simple majority necessary for the adoption of the regulation — Expiry of the time-limit for the anti-dumping investigation — Definition of a reviewable act — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
15.11.2003             EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 275/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      2.    Article 7(2) of Directive 90/435 is to be interpreted as
                                                                                allowing taxation such as the 5% charge envisaged by the
                                                                                double taxation convention at issue in the main proceedings
                                                                                even though that charge, in so far as it applies to dividends
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                          paid by the subsidiary to its parent company, amounts to a
                                                                                withholding tax within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the
                                                                                Directive.
                     of 25 September 2003
                                                                            3.    Examination of the third question has revealed no formal or
                                                                                procedural defects such as to affect the validity of Article 7(2)
in Case C-58/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          of the Directive.
the Special Commissioners of Income Tax): Océ van der
   Grinten NV v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1),
                                                                            (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
(Directive 90/435/EEC — Corporation tax — Parent com-
panies and subsidiaries of different Member States —
                  Concept of withholding tax)
                         (2003/C 275/12)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
                                                                            in Case C-76/01 P: Comité des industries du coton et des
In Case C-58/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                fibres connexes de l’Union européenne (Eurocoton) and
by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax (United                                                       Others (1)
Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before them between Océ van der Grinten NV and Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue, on the interpretation of                      (Appeal — Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt a
Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990                proposal for a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping
on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of                  duties — Lack of simple majority necessary for the adoption
parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States                of the regulation — Expiry of the time-limit for the anti-
(OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6, corrigendum at OJ 1991 L 23, p. 35)                   dumping investigation — Definition of a reviewable act —
and the interpretation and validity of Article 7(2) of that                                     Obligation to state reasons)
directive, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La
Pergola, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                                           (2003/C 275/13)
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 25 September 2003, in which it has
ruled:                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
1.   In so far as taxation such as the 5 % charge envisaged by the
     double taxation convention at issue in the main proceedings is
     imposed on the dividends paid by a subsidiary resident in the          In Case C-76/01 P, Comité des industries du coton et des fibres
     United Kingdom to its parent company resident in another               connexes de l’Union européenne (Eurocoton), established in
     Member State, it amounts to a withholding tax on profits               Brussels (Belgium), Ettlin Gesellschaft für Spinnerei und Webe-
     which a subsidiary distributes to its parent company within the        rei AG, established in Ettlingen (Germany), Textil Hof Weberei
     meaning of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of             GmbH & Co. KG, established in Hof (Germany), H. Hecking
     23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in            Söhne GmbH & Co., established in Stadtlohn (Germany),
     the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different             Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, established in Uhingen
     Member States. On the other hand, such taxation does not               (Germany), F. A. Kümpers GmbH & Co., established in Rheine
     amount to a withholding tax prohibited by Article 5(1) of the          (Germany), Tenthorey SA, established in Éloyes (France), Les
     Directive in so far as it is imposed on the tax credit to which        tissages des héritiers de G. Perrin — Groupe Alain Thirion
     that distribution of dividends confers entitlement in the United       (HPG–GAT Tissages), established in Cornimont (France), Étab-
     Kingdom.                                                               lissements des fils de Victor Perrin SARL, established in
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/8                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
Thiéfosse (France), Filatures et tissages de Saulxures-sur-Mose-                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
lotte, established in Saulxures-sur-Moselotte (France), Tissage
Mouline Thillot, established in Thillot (France), Filature Nigge-                                   of 23 September 2003
ler & Küpfer SpA, established in Capriolo (Italy), Standardtela
SpA, established in Milan (Italy), (Agents: C. Stanbrook and                 in Case C-78/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
P. Bentley, QC): Appeal against the judgment of the Court of                 the Bundesgerichtshof): Bundesverband Güterkraftver-
First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber,                  kehr und Logistik eV (BGL) v Bundesrepublik Deutsch-
Extended Composition) of 29 November 2002 in Case T-213/                     land, represented by the Hauptzollamt Friedrichshafen (1)
97 Eurocoton and Others v Council [2000] ECR II-3727,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to                (Free movement of goods — External transit operation —
the proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:                Transport under cover of a TIR carnet — Offences or
S. Marquardt acting as Agent, assisted by G.M. Berrisch and                  irregularities — Possibility for a guaranteeing association to
H.P. Nehl), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                     prove the place where the offence or irregularity was
Ireland (Agent: K. Manji) and Tessival SpA, established in                   committed — Time-limit for furnishing proof — Existence
Azzano S. Paolo (Italy), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-                 of an obligation for the Member State which detects an
guez Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans                  offence or irregularity to investigate the place where it was
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann,                                             committed)
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                                         (2003/C 275/14)
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 30 September 2003, in which it:                                                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
      European Communities of 29 November 2000 in Case T-213/
      97 Eurocoton and Others v Council in so far as it concerns the
      appellants.                                                            In Case C-78/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                             in the proceedings pending before that court between Bundes-
                                                                             verband Güterkraftverkehr und Logistik eV (BGL) and Bundes-
2.    Sets aside the decision of the Council of the European Union of        republik Deutschland, represented by the Hauptzollamt Fried-
      16 May 1997, which became final on 21 May 1997, not to                 richshafen, third party: Préservatrice Foncière Tiard SA, on
      adopt the proposal for a Council regulation (EC) imposing a            the interpretation of Articles 454 and 455 of Commission
      definitive anti-dumping duty on the import of unbleached               Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
      cotton fabric from the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India,       provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
      Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey (COM (97) 160 final),                   No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ
      submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on             1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
      21 April 1997, in so far as it concerns the appellants.                Iglesias, President, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and
                                                                             C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
                                                                             A. La Pergola, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha
3.    Dismisses the action for damages.                                      Rodrigues and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advo-
                                                                             cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a
                                                                             judgment on 23 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
4.    Orders the Council of the European Union and the appellants
      to bear their own costs at first instance.                             1.    The first subparagraph of Article 454(3) of Commission
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
                                                                                provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
5.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of                 No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code
      the appeal.                                                                  does not preclude a guaranteeing association against which
                                                                                proceedings are brought by a Member State for payment of
                                                                                customs duties on the basis of the guarantee contract it has
                                                                                concluded with that State in accordance with the Customs
6.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                      Convention on the International Transport of Goods under
      Ireland to bear its own costs both at first instance and on                  cover of TIR Carnets from being able to furnish proof of the
      appeal.                                                                      place where the offence or irregularity was committed, provided
                                                                                that that proof is furnished within the period laid down in that
                                                                                provision, that time-limit being peremptory.
(1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.                                                    2.    The first paragraph of Article 454(3) and Article 455 of
                                                                                Regulation No 2454/93 must be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                                the guaranteeing association has available, to furnish proof of
                                                                                the place where the offence or irregularity was actually commit-
                                                                                ted, a period of two years running from the date of the claim
                                                                                for payment made to it.


title: Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Service pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions (SGA) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-39/96)

text:
No C 145/ 12           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18 . 5 . 96
Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Société Guérin                      Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 1996
Automobiles against the Commission of the European                     by Service pour le Groupement d'Acquisitions ( SGA ),
                             Communities                               established at Istres ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                          ( Case T-38/96 )                             Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 , rue
                            ( 96/C 145/22 )                            Béatrix de Bourbon .
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      — declare that the Commission has failed to take steps in
Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 1996                      the matter since 6 November 1995 and, in so far as the
by Société Guérin Automobiles, established at Alençon                       Court interprets the silence of the Commission in
 ( France ), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris              response to the request for interim measures as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                      tantamount to a refusal, annul that decision,
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 , rue Béatrix de Bourbon .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           — award SGA in any event the sum of ECU 150 000 as
                                                                           damages in addition to those applied for,
— declare that the Commission has wrongfully failed to
     act ,                                                            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
— declare         that   the      Commission     has    incurred
     non-contractual liability towards Guérin Automobiles,             Pleas in law and main arguments
     and order it to pay the applicant compensation for the
     damage, assessed at FF 1 660 912, equivalent to ECU              The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
     237 273 ,                                                         intermediary in the distribution of all makes of motor
                                                                       vehicle, contests the Commission's refusal to act on the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                      complaint lodged by it against the pressure applied by PSA
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        on Peugeot and Citroën concessionaires situated in other
                                                                      Member States in order to prevent supplies from reaching
The applicant company, which has already brought an                   agents and to partition the market.
action for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully
refrained from taking a decision in response to its complaint         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
concerning the imposition by Nissan France of a dealership             in Case T- 1 89/95 SGA v . Commission .
scheme incompatible with Commission Regulation ( EEC )
No 123/85 ('), has now brought fresh proceedings for a
declaration of failure to act, which also concern the
non-adoption by the Commission of a position on the
complaint, but which are based this time on a second formal
notice sent to the Commission on 2 January 1996 in
consequence of the objection of inadmissibility on the
ground of lateness raised by the Commission in the first              Action brought on 21 March 1996 by Armel de Kerros
action . As regards the application in respect of liability, in          against the Commission of the European Communities
which the applicant seeks compensation for the damage                                          Case T-40/96 )
caused by the Commission's conduct, the applicant merely                                       ( 96/C 145/24 )
claims once again the compensation applied for in the first
action, adding the amount of interest which has accrued to
date since the initiation of that action .                                           (Language of tbe case: French)
(M Case T-195/95 , OJ 1995 C 333 , p . 21 .
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 21 March 1996
                                                                      by Armel de Kerros, residing in Grez-Doiceau ( Belgium ),
Action brought on 15 March 1996 by Service pour le                    represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
Groupement d'Acquisitions ( SGA) against the Commission               Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                 of the European Communities                          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                      SARL, 1 , rue Glesener.
                         ( Case T-39/96 )
                           ( 96/C 145/23 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the decision of the Selection Board in competition
An action against the Commission of the European                           COM/T/B/96 not to admit the applicant to the tests in
Communities was brought before the Court of First                          the competition,


No C 318/26       EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
                                                            CORRIGENDA
           Corrigendum to Case No C-232/96: Action brought on 9 July 1996 by the French Republic against the
                                             Commission of the European Communities
                       (Official Journal of the European Communities No C 269 of 14 September 1996)
                                                             ( 96/C 318/44 )
           On page 10 in the left hand column under 'Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support', beginning of
           second indent :
           for:              '— (In the alternative ) Breach of the principle of subsidiarity: . .
           read:             '— ( In the alternative ) Breach of the principle of proportionality : . . .'.


title: Case C-54/06: Action brought on  1 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/10

         Action brought on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-54/06)
   (2006/C 74/19)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Hottiaux and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time for transposing the directive expired on 21 July 2004. Belgium still has not adopted all the measures which come within the powers of the Flemish Region and of the Federal Government, or, in any event, has not informed the Commission of them.

      (1)  OJ L 197 of 21.07.2001, p. 30.


title: Case T-666/16 P: Order of the General Court of 3 July 2017 — De Nicola v EIB (Appeal — EIB staff — Appraisal — Career development report — 2013 staff report — Application for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee and of the decision not to promote the applicant — Psychological harassment — Claim for damages)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/50

         Order of the General Court of 3 July 2017 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-666/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EIB staff - Appraisal - Career development report - 2013 staff report - Application for annulment of the decision of the Appeals Committee and of the decision not to promote the applicant - Psychological harassment - Claim for damages))
   (2017/C 283/77)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 21 July 2016, De Nicola v EIB (F-100/15, EU:F:2016:167), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Carlo De Nicola shall bear his own costs and shall pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the present appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 410, 7.11.2016.


               15.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 467/25

         Action brought on 20 September 2016 by Marine Harvest ASA against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-12/16)
   (2016/C 467/12)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 20 September 2016 by Marine Harvest ASA, represented by Torben Foss, advocate and Kjetil Raknerud, advocate, Advokatfirmaet PricewaterhouseCoopers AS, Sandviksbodene 2A, P.O. Box 3984 Sandviken, NO-5835 Bergen.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s decision in Case No 79116 from 27 July 2016 is based on a wrongful interpretation of the relevant sources of law, and is consequently void.

               2.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority does have the competence and obligation to perform surveillance of State aid to the fisheries sector, pursuant to Article 4(1) of Protocol 9 EEA, and is therefore obliged to assess the claims made by the Applicant through the formal complaint filed on 2 May 2016.

               3.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The Applicant seeks the annulment of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision in Case No 79116 from 27 July 2016.

               —

               Marine Harvest submits that ESA has the necessary competence to review whether aid to the production and marketing of fisheries and aquaculture products is compatible with the EEA Agreement, and to carry out surveillance, pursuant to Article 62 EEA, cf. Protocol 26 of the EEA Agreement, and further that ESA is obliged to carry out such surveillance pursuant to the same article.

               —

               An essential element is the interpretation of Protocol 26 of the Agreement, which sets out the competences of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, but does not specifically refer to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors. According to ESAs decision, the aforementioned list should be regarded as exhaustive.

               —

               The applicant finds this interpretation to add a qualification to Protocol 26 that is not supported by the objectives and basic provisions of the Agreement, which the Protocol itself enumerates.


title: Case C-349/02: Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 289/16               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.11.2002
Action brought on 30 September 2002 by the Com-                         Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                              Republic
                                                                                (Case C-351/02)
                         (Case C-349/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/27)
                         (2002/C 289/26)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 Septem-              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 Octo-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                 ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana and Roberto Amorosi,             represented by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.
acting as Agent.
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                              communicate, the laws, regulations and administrative
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
      Directive 2000/14/EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and                1999/31/EC ( 1) of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste,
      of the Council of 8 May 2000 on the approximation of
                                                                              the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      the laws of the Member States relating to the noise                     under that directive;
      emission in the environment by equipment for use
      outdoors, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 22 of that directive;
                                                                        —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The Member States are required by the binding character of
                                                                        the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC to
Article 249 EC, by virtue of which directives are binding upon          adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
the Member States to which they are addressed, requires                 law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
Member States to observe the time-limits for transposition laid         purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
down in the directives. The period prescribed in this case              the Commission. That time-limit expired on 16 July 2001
expired on 3 July 2000 without the Italian Republic’s having            without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the Com-
promulgated the provisions necessary to comply with the                 mission the provisions transposing the directive in question
directive referred to in the forms of order sought by the               into national law.
Commission.
( 1) OJ L 162 of 3.7.2000, p. 1.                                        (1 ) OJ L 182 of 16.7.1999, p. 1.


title: Case F-85/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Roest v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 August 2016 — Roest v Commission
   (Case F-85/12) (1)

   (2016/C 371/40)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 295, 29/9/2012, p. 35.


title: Case T-256/17: Action brought on 2 May 2017 — Labiri v EESC

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/34

         Action brought on 2 May 2017 — Labiri v EESC
   (Case T-256/17)
   (2017/C 213/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vassiliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

      Form of order sought

   Declare and rule that,

               —

               the decision of the EESC not to perform in good faith point 3 of the amicable settlement agreement reached between the parties is annulled;

               —

               the EESC shall pay the applicant the sum of EUR 250 000;

               —

               the defendant shall pay the costs.

      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 infringement of Article 266 TFEU, insofar as the contested decision, according to which it is impossible for the defendant to execute an agreement made as part of an amicable settlement in Case F-33/15, Labiri v EESC, constitutes a failure to execute a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Such an unlawful failure to execute the agreement thus reached constitutes, moreover, an infringement of the duty of care to the applicant, the duty to cooperate in good faith provided for in Article 4(3) TEU, the [principle] of performance in good faith of agreements freely entered into between parties and the principle of sound administration and the duty of assistance flowing from Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a misuse of powers, consisting more specifically of an abuse of process, insofar as the defendant never intended to perform in good faith the agreement reached between the parties and signed that agreement only in order to achieve the discontinuance of Case F-33/15.


title: Case C-136/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 10 April 2009 — Organismos Sillogikis Diakhirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Acropolis Hotel and Tourism AE

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos (Greece) lodged on 10 April 2009 — Organismos Sillogikis Diakhirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon v Divani Acropolis Hotel and Tourism AE
   (Case C-136/09)
   2009/C 141/56
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Arios Pagos

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Organismos Sillogikis Diakhirisis Dimiourgon Theatrikon kai Optikoakoustikon Ergon

      Respondent: Divani Acropolis Hotel and Tourism AE

      Question referred

   Does the mere installation of television sets by a hotelier in hotel rooms and their connection to the central antenna installed in the hotel, without any other action, intermediation or intervention by the hotelier, constitute communication of the work to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC, and, in particular, in accordance with the aforementioned judgment of the Court of Justice of 7 December 2006 in Case C-306/05 Sociedad General de Autores y Editores de España (SGAE) v Rafael Hoteles SA, does this involve the distribution of a signal, via television sets, to customers who stay in the hotel rooms, by means of the technical intervention of the hotelier?