title: Action brought on 21 February 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-52/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 95/ 13
      operations of the European Investment Bank and the               Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Bruges, of
      other existing financial instruments make the recipients         6 February 1996, which was received at the Court Registry
      of Community subsidies subject to the review                     on 16 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      procedures within the meaning of Directive                       BVBA Sanders v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance,
      89/665/EEC, even if they themselves are not contracting          VAT Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
      authorities within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive         person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection
      93/37/EEC ?                                                      Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
                                                                       Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
0 ) OJ No L 199 , 1993 , p . 54.                                       person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT
( 2 ) OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p . 5 .                                     Inspectorate on the following questions :
( 3 ) OJ No L 185 , 1988 , p . 9 .
                                                                       1 . Must Article 18 (4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
                                                                           interpreted as permitting a Member State, instead of
                                                                           refunding to a taxable person a VAT credit for a given
                                                                           tax period, or carrying it forward to a subsequent tax
                                                                           period, to 'withhold' the same by way of protective
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                attachment on the basis of an additional demand in
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January                     respect of an earlier tax period, where that additional
1996 in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken- und                             demand is contested in law and is thus not based on any
             Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger                            definitive entitlement, and where the Member State has
                          ( Case C-45/96 )                                 not obtained authorization pursuant to Article 27 of the
                                                                           VAT Directive ?
                            ( 96/C 95/23 )
                                                                       2 . In the event that Question 1 is answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     affirmative :
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
( Federal Court of Justice ) of 11 January 1996, which was                 do the principle of proportionality enshrined in
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 1996 , for a                 Community law and Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT
preliminary ruling in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken                   Directive permit the Member State to provide :
und Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger on the following
question :                                                                 ( 1 ) that the taxable person may contest the attachment
                                                                                ( as validated by the 'withholding' measure ) only by
where a contract of suretyship is concluded under German                         adducing evidence rebutting the allegations made
law between a financial institution and a natural person
                                                                                by the Treasury in the official report, and not by
                                                                                challenging the actual need for, and urgency of, that
who is not acting in that connection in the course of his trade
                                                                                measure ;
or profession, in order to secure a claim by the financial
institution against a third party in respect of a loan, is it              ( 2 ) that withholding may not be replaced by another
covered by the words 'contracts under which a trader                             form of security nor lifted pending the delivery of
supplies goods or services to a consumer' ( Article 1 ( 1 ) of                   final judgment on the contested demand for
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
                                                                                payment made by the Treasury ?
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
away from business premises, OJ No L 372 , 31 . 12 . 1985 ,
p. 31 )?
                                                                       Action brought on 21 February 1996 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Beslagrechter of                                    ( Case C-52/96 )
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, by order of that
court of 6 February 1996 in the case of BVBA Sanders                                              ( 96/C 95/25
v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT          21 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                Communities, represented by Julian Currall and F. Enrique
person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT                    Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, with an address for
                             Inspectorate                              service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                                                                       de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,
                          ( Case C-47/96 )
                                                                       Kirchberg.
                            ( 96/ C 95/24 )
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Beslagrechter ( judge             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures
hearing attachment proceedings ) of the Rechtbank van                      necessary to ensure that officials of the Community
 ---pagebreak--- No C 95/ 14             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30 . 3 . 96
      institutions are able to transfer their rights to the                by order of that court of 1 February 1996 , received at the
       Community pensions scheme, the Kingdom of Spain has                 Court Registry on 22 February 1996, for a preliminary
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 ( 2 ) of           ruling in the case of Hermes International societe en
   v Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the               commandite par actions, Paris v. FHT Marketing Choice BV
      European Communities f 1 ) and Article 5 of the EC                   on the following question :
      Treaty; and
2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                          is an interim measure, such as, for example, is provided for
                                                                           in Article 289 et seq. of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Rechtsvordering (Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure )
                                                                           whereby an immediate, enforceable measure may be sought,
Despite the fact that the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges its                covered by the expression 'provisional measures' within the
obligation to comply with the provisions and Royal Decrees                 meaning of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related
have been drafted, no national implementing measures in                    Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS ) (*)?
the field have yet been adopted .
                                                                           (') OJ No L 336 , 1994 , p . 213 .
(') Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 259/68 of the Council of
     29 February 1968 ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 30 ),
     as amended by Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 571 /92
     ( OJ No L 62 , 1962 , p. 1 ).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-402/95
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/27 )
Reference        for      preliminary         ruling     from      the
Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by order of that
court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Hermes                             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
International societe en commandite par actions, Paris v.
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                   FHT Marketing Choice BV                                 22 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
                           ( Case C-53/96 )                                Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                             ( 96/C 95/26 )                                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by order of the                                By order of 20 February 1996 the Court has ordered that
Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam,                    the case be removed from the register.
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
                       of 15 February 1996                                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
                                                                           21 , Rue de Nassau, v. European Foundation for the
in Case T-5 89/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European                        Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ( Agents :
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                       John McColgan and subsequently Terry Sheehan, in the
                             Conditions ( 1 )                              written procedure, and Clive Purkiss, in the oral procedure,
(Officials — Servants of the European Foundation for the                   assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions —                             the annulment of the notice of vacancy concerning
Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an internal                           a post as administrator of the Foundation's publications
candidate — Actions for annulment of measures — Action                     programme, the notice of restricted competition relating to
                             for damages)                                  the filling of that post, the recruitment committee's
                             ( 96/C 95/28 )                                memorandum of 5 November 1993 and the decision of the
                                                                           Director of the Foundation of 22 November 1993 rejecting
                                                                           the applicant's application for that post, and , second, an
                                                                           order requiring the Foundation to pay damages in the sum
                 (Language of the case: French)                            of Bfrs 75 000 the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ),
                                                                           composed of: C. P. Briet, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
                                                                           A. Potocki , Judges; B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 15 February 1996, in which it:
In Case T-589/93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan, a servant of the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, represented by Luc Misson and                          1 . dismisses the action;


title: Case T-479/10: Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment and protection of human health — Genetically modified food and feed — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/10

         Order of the General Court of 11 April 2011 — Département du Gers v Commission
   (Case T-479/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Environment and protection of human health - Genetically modified food and feed - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 173/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Département du Gers (France) (represented by: S. Mabile and J.-P Mignard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi and L. Pignataro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2010/420/EU of 28 July 2010 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON89034xNK603 (MON-89Ø34-3xMON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2010 L 197, p. 15).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The Département du Gers is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those of the European Commission;

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications to intervene of the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the Centre Region, the Picardy Region, the Départment de la Haute–Garonne, the Brittany Region, the Poitou-Charentes Region, the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur Region, the Burgundy Region, the Midi-Pyrénées Region, the Auvergne Region, the Pays de la Loire Region, the Rhône-Alpes Region, the Départment des Côtes d'Armor, the Île de France Region and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Region.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case T-88/01: Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 186/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
                              — Registration of the mark in             Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                  question would accord with
                                  the other aspects of the
                                  decision-making practice fol-         The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment in
                                  lowed by the Boards of                Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
                                  Appeal.                               temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
                                                                        has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
                              — Infringement,         alternatively     an extension.
                                  misinterpretation,             of
                                  Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
                                  lation No 40/94.                      For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
                                                                        to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          (1) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
                                                                            27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
                                                                            safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
                                                                            territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
                                                                            origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
                                                                            28.2.2001, p. 13).
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against
                          (Case T-87/01)                                       the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 186/21)                                                            (Case T-88/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 186/22)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.              European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
                                                                        established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baró Fuentes,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño y Botella and Fernando
                                                                        Rodrı́guez Carretero, abogados.
—    annul Regulation No 376/2001 (1);
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
     by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March       —     annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
     2001, the importation of the products referred to in                     as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amount-
     Regulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted                  ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
     in consequence of that regulation, and order that the                    within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;
     parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of
     the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such         —     annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed                  that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
     within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a                 provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
     view to determining the quantum of the damage, and                       by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
     further order the Community to pay the damages pro-                      approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;
     visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively
     to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair                —     annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate                that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
     of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until                  form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
     payment in full;                                                         acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
                                                                              to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   market;
 ---pagebreak--- 30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 186/15
—     alternatively, annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July          —     manifest error in the calculation of the overall aid
      2000, inasmuch as it establishes that the fixed-price                    intensity. The applicant points out in that connection
      guarantees by the Province of Burgenland for the pro-                    that the calculation leaves out of account environmental
      vision of process utilities and the provision of aid of an               aid and other eligible costs, as well as existing aid. The
      unknown amount in the form of the creation of com-                       defendant should have examined not only whether the
      pany-specific infrastructure do not constitute aid within                threshold fixed by the scheme was observed but also
      the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;                           whether the aid, despite pursuing a different objective,
                                                                               covers jointly eligible costs as provided for in the
                                                                               directives on State aid designed to achieve regional
—     order the European Commission to pay all the costs.                      objectives.
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant argues that the application of the excep-
                                                                         tions laid down in Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty is unlawful,
                                                                         and that the procedural rules provided for in Article 88(3) of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the Treaty have been infringed.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 38 of 8.2.01, p. 33.
The present action is directed against Commission Decision
2001/102/EC of 19 July 2000 on State aid granted by Austria
to Lenzing Lyocell GmbH & Co KG (hereinafter ‘LLG’), notified
under document number C(2000) 2454) (1). That aid was
linked to a project for the construction of a new plant for the
production of Lyocell, a new type of man-made staple fibre
produced from natural cellulose in wood pulp.
                                                                         Action brought on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude Girar-
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:                          dot against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
—     an error of law, inasmuch as no consideration has been
      given to the sectorial effects of the aid granted to LLG. It                                  (Case T-92/01)
      is asserted in that regard that, in the contested decision,
      the Commission attached greater importance to the                                            (2001/C 186/23)
      regional aspect of the aid than to the sectorial aspect, as
      regards both the rules governing compatibility and the
      procedural rules. In particular, the applicant is unable to
      see how the defendant, knowing that the fibres market is                               (Language of the case: French)
      suffering from problems of overcapacity, could have
      authorised a State aid scheme in favour of LLG allowing
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      new production capacity to be established in the Burgen-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      land region. The applicant also considers that the Com-
                                                                         European Communities on 27 April 2001 by Marie-Claude
      mission has failed to take into account the existence of
                                                                         Girardot, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
      specific measures applicable to the man-made fibres
                                                                         and Véronique Peere, avocats, having an address for service in
      sector;
                                                                         Luxembourg.
—     a manifest error of assessment of the innovative character         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      of the product. The applicant observes that one of the
      criteria used by the Commission in order to authorise              —     annul the decision of the Selection Committee in Compe-
      certain of the contested measures is the innovative                      tition COM/R/A/01/1999 to award the applicant a mark
      character of the product and of the production process.                  insufficient for her to be included on the reserve list;
      In its view, Lyocell is not innovative, either as a product
      or as a production process. Consequently, there do not             —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      exist two distinct product markets limiting the effects on
      competition;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     disregard of the obligation to provide a statement of
      reasons, inasmuch as no justification has been given for
      the finding that the aid investment will have only a               The applicant in the present case challenges her non-inclusion
      limited effect on competition;                                     on the reserve list for Competition COM/R/A/01/1999.


title: Case T-18/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM (Alles, was uns verbindet)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM (Alles, was uns verbindet)
   (Case T-18/06) (1)

   (2006/C 212/80)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-406/08: Action brought on 19 September 2008 — ICF v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/47

         Action brought on 19 September 2008 — ICF v Commission
   (Case T-406/08)
   (2009/C 44/83)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Industries Chimiques du Fluor SA (ICF) (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by M. van der Woude and T. Hennen, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce substantially the fine imposed on the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this application the applicant seeks the annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3043 final of 25 June 2008 in Case COMP/39.180 — Aluminium fluoride, by which the Commission found that certain undertakings including the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing, on the world market in aluminium fluoride, on a target price increase, by examining various regions of the world including Europe to establish a general price level and in some cases to agree on a division of the market, and by exchanging commercially sensitive information.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward four pleas in law:

               —

               infringement of the rights of the defence and Article 27 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), in that the infringement described in the statement of objections differed from that eventually established in the contested decision and the contested decision was based on documents not mentioned in the statement of objections;

               —

               infringement of Article 81 EC, as the contested decision made an incorrect legal classification of the acts the applicant was accused of, by wrongly classifying a fortuitous exchange of information as an agreement and/or a concerted practice within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC. Moreover, the disputed acts could not in any event, according to the applicant, be classified as a single continuous infringement;

               —

               infringement of Article 23 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in fixing the amount of the fine, in that the Commission misapplied the guidelines for calculating fines by (i) not using an audited figure for turnover and (ii) omitting to estimate the total value of sales of goods or services in connection with the infringement in the geographical sector. Moreover, the Commission erred in its classification of the facts. Finally, the applicant puts forward, in support of its claim for a reduction of the fine, the small part of the aggregate market share of the parties to the agreement and the lack of implementation;

               —

               infringement of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Tunisia (2), on the ground that the Commission applied the Community competition rules exclusively, although the competition rules of the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement were applicable, albeit in parallel to the Community competition rules. According to the applicant, the Commission should have consulted the EU/Tunisia Association Committee, as required by Article 36 of the Agreement. The applicant further submits that the unilateral approach taken by the Commission is contrary to the principle of international comity and to its duty of care.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part (OJ 1998 L 97, p. 2).


title: Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) and from the High Court of Ireland — United Kingdom, Ireland) — N. S. (C-411/10) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and M. E. (C-493/10), A. S. M., M. T., K. P., E. H. v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (European Union law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Implementation of European Union law — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Common European Asylum System — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Concept of ‘safe countries’ — Transfer of an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible — Obligation — Rebuttable presumption of compliance, by that Member State, with fundamental rights)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) and from the High Court of Ireland — United Kingdom, Ireland) — N. S. (C-411/10) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and M. E. (C-493/10), A. S. M., M. T., K. P., E. H. v Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
   (Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10) (1)

   (European Union law - Principles - Fundamental rights - Implementation of European Union law - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Common European Asylum System - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Concept of ‘safe countries’ - Transfer of an asylum seeker to the Member State responsible - Obligation - Rebuttable presumption of compliance, by that Member State, with fundamental rights)
   2012/C 49/13
   Language of the cases: English

      Referring courts

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: N. S. (C-411/10), M. E., A. S. M., M. T., K. P., E. H. (C-493/10)

      Respondents: Secretary of State for the Home Department (C-411/10), Refugee Applications Commissioner, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (C-493/10)

      Intervening parties: Amnesty International Ltd and the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) (UK) (C-411/10), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (UK) (C-411/10), Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) (C-411/10), Amnesty International Ltd and the AIRE Centre (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe) (IRL) (C-493/10), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (IRL) (C-493/10)

      Re:

   (C-411/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) — Interpretation of Article 3(1) and (2), and the provisions of Chapter III, of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Interpretation of the minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, as set out in the provisions of Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18), Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12), and Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13) — Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for dealing with an asylum application submitted by an Afghan national — Risk that fundamental rights may be breached if responsibility is take up again by the Member State which was previously responsible — Nature and scope of the protection conferred on an asylum seeker by the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
   (C-493/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Articles 3(2) and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining asylum applications lodged by nationals of several third countries (Afghanistan, Iran and Algeria) — Obligation of a Member State to take responsibility for examining an asylum application on the basis of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 where there may be an infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and/or non-compliance with the minimum standards laid down by Directives 2003/9/EC, 2004/83/EC and 2005/85/EC by the Member State responsible for the application in accordance with the criteria established by that regulation.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The decision adopted by a Member State on the basis of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, whether to examine an asylum application which is not its responsibility according to the criteria laid down in Chapter III of that Regulation, implements European Union law for the purposes of Article 6 TEU and/or Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               European Union law precludes the application of a conclusive presumption that the Member State which Article 3(1) of Regulation No 343/2003 indicates as responsible observes the fundamental rights of the European Union.
               Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that the Member States, including the national courts, may not transfer an asylum seeker to the ‘Member State responsible’ within the meaning of Regulation No 343/2003 where they cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that Member State amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of that provision.
               Subject to the right itself to examine the application referred to in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, the finding that it is impossible to transfer an applicant to another Member State, where that State is identified as the Member State responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of that regulation, entails that the Member State which should carry out that transfer must continue to examine the criteria set out in that chapter in order to establish whether one of the following criteria enables another Member State to be identified as responsible for the examination of the asylum application.
               The Member State in which the asylum seeker is present must ensure that it does not worsen a situation where the fundamental rights of that applicant have been infringed by using a procedure for determining the Member State responsible which takes an unreasonable length of time. If necessary, the first mentioned Member State must itself examine the application in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003.

               3.

               Articles 1, 18 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union do not lead to a different answer.

               4.

               In so far as the preceding questions arise in respect of the obligations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the answers to the second to sixth questions referred in Case C-411/10 do not require to be qualified in any respect so as to take account of Protocol (No 30) on the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to Poland and the United Kingdom.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 09.10.2010

      OJ C 13, 15.01.2011.


title: Case F-108/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/69

      Action brought on 24 October 2011 — ZZ v Commission
      (Case F-108/11)
      (2012/C 25/133)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Fratini and F. Filpo, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      The annulment of the decision of the Selection Board not to admit the applicant to the open competition EPSO/AD/198/10, due to the alleged non fulfilment of the professional experience requirements.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the EPSO decision not to admit the applicant to the open competition EPSO/AD/198/10;

                  —

                  order the Commission to take all consequent measures in order to put the applicant in a position similar to the one he would be in, had he been admitted to the competition;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action on 14 February 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Cascina Laura SAS di Aldo Delbò e C. and Gariboldi Engineering Company SRL (Case C-65/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97                                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 131 /3
 1 . Dismisses the appeal.                                                                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber )
2 . Orders the appellant to pay the costs.                                                      of 5 February 1997
                                                                         in Case C-51/95 P: Unifruit Hellas EPE v. Commission of
(') OJ No C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 , p. 6 .                                                   the European Communities (')
                                                                         (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Special
                                                                         surveillance measures concerning imports of apples —
                                                                         Countervailing charge — Applied concurrently —
                                                                         Products in transit to the Community — Principle of the
                                                                                protection of legitimate expectations)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 ( 97/C 131 /06 )
                         ( Second Chamber)
                        of 13 March 1997                                                  (Language of the case: Greek)
in Case C-109/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
by the Polimeles Protodikio, Athens ): Astir AE v. the                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                            Greek State ( 1 )                                     published in the European Court Reports)
(Export refunds for agricultural products — Loss of goods
   in transit by reason of force majeure — Variable refund)              In Case C-51/95 P: Unifruit Hellas EPE, a company
                                                                         governed by Greek law, established in Athens, represented
                            ( 97/C 131 /05 )                             by Ilias Soufleros, of the Athens Bar, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                         31 Grand-rue — appeal against the judgment of the Court
                  (Language of the case: Greek)                          of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
                                                                         Chamber ) of 15 December 1994 in Case T-489/93
                                                                         Unifruit Hellas v. Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-1201 ,
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to
          published in the European Court Reports)                       the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agents: Xenophon Yataganas and
                                                                         Theofanis Christoforou ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ),
In Case C-109/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Polimeles Protodikio,                composed of G. F. Mancini , President of the Chamber, G.
Athens, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                      Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. La
pending before that court between Astir AE and the Greek                 Pergola, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
State — on the interpretation of Articles 10 (4 ), 20 and 21             order on 5 February 1997, the operative part of which is
                                                                         as follows :
of Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2730/79 of
29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules
for the application of the system of export refunds on                   1 . The appeal is dismissed.
agricultural products (2) — the Court ( Second Chamber),
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G.                 2 . The applicant shall bear the costs.
Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; M. B.
Elmer,       Advocate-General;            D.  Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                         (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 5 .
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 13 March 1997, the operative part of which
is as follows :
Articles 10 (4), 20 and 21 of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 2730179 of 29 November 1979 laying down                         Action on 14 February 1997 by the Commission of the
common detailed rules for the application of the system of               European Communities against Cascina Laura SAS di
export refunds on agricultural products must be                          Aldo Delbo e C. and Gariboldi Engineering Company SRL
interpreted as meaning that a trader is not entitled to an
                                                                                ( Case C-65/97)
export refund where the product concerned has perished
in transit as a result of force majeure, after leaving the                                            ( 97/C 131 /07 )
geographical territory of the Community, and where the
same rate of refund has been fixed for all non-member
countries, with the exception of one single country, for                 An action against Cascina Laura SAS Aldo Delbo e C. ,
which no refund has been fixed.                                          whose registered office is in Novara ( Italy), and Gariboldi
                                                                         Engineering Company SRL, whose registered office is in
                                                                         Milan (Italy ), was brought before the Court of Justice of
H OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 14 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 317, 12 . 12 . 1979 , p . 1 .                              the European Communities on 14 February 1997 by the
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Paolo Stancanelli of its Legal Service and Jean-Francis
                                                                         Pasquier, a national civil servant on detachment to that
 ---pagebreak--- No C 131 /4            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 4 . 97
Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                 The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            recovery of a financial contribution granted by the
                                                                     applicant to the defendant to enable the latter to complete
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          an integrated private solid waste collection and recycling
                                                                     system . The Commission decided to terminate the
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      contract, governed by Italian law, on the ground that the
     severally to refund ECU 479 134 together with interest          defendant failed to perform its obligations.
     as from the payment of that sum until the date on
     which it is repaid, by monthly instalments of ECU
     1 742 as from 31 July 1990 and of ECU 2 464 as from
     20 April 1991 — that is to say, by total monthly
     instalments of ECU 4 206 as from 20 April 1991 —
     until the date of actual settlement,                            Appeal brought on 18 February 1997 by Kruidvat BVBA
                                                                     against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     severally to pay damages to the Commission in the               in    Case    T-87/92       between     Kruidvat    BVBA       and
     amount of ECU 100 000 or such sum as the Court                  Commission of the European Communities, supported by
     may deem to be appropriate,                                     Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de liaison des syndicats
                                                                     européens de l'industrie de la parfumerie et des
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      cosmétiques and Fédération européenne des parfumeurs
     severally to pay the costs.                                                                  détaillants
                                                                                ( Case C-70/97 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/09 )
The object of this action, which is based on an arbitration
clause, is to recover financial assistance which the                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
Commission granted the defendants so that they could                  1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
construct a dual generator to produce electricity and heat           Communities in Case T- 8 7/92 between Kruidvat BVBA
from biomass consisting of rice production residue (chaff            and Commission of the European Communities, supported
and husks). The Commission decided to withdraw from                  by Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de liaison des syndicats
the contract, drawn up between the parties in accordance             europèens de l'industrie de la parfumerie et des
with Italian law, on account of the defendants' failure to           cosmétiques and Federation européenne des parfumeurs
perform their obligations thereunder.                                détaillants, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities on 18 February 1997 by Kruidvat
                                                                     BVBA, represented by O. W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam
                                                                     Bar, and F. P. Louis and P. Wytinck, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against SNUA SRL ( Servizi              The appellant claims that the Court should:
                    Netezza Urbana ed Affini)
                          Case C-69/97                               — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          12 December 1996 in Case T-87/92 and, if possible,
                          ( 97/C 131/08 )                                 itself declare admissible the action for annulment
                                                                          brought by Kruidvat BVBA before the Court of First
 An action against SNUA SRL ( Servizi Netezza Urbana ed                   Instance, and
 Affini) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities on 18 February 1997 by ' the                   — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
 Commission of the European Communities, represented                      proceedings.
 by Paolo Stancanelli and Jean-Francis Pasquier, of its
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,              — Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
 of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi,              the EC Treaty
 Kirchberg.
                                                                          — by inaccurate interpretation and incorrect
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   application of the conditions relating to
                                                                               participation in the competition procedure as an
 — order SNUA to repay ECU 195 397, together with                              element distinguishing a party individually for the
      interest at a rate of ECU 43,09 per day as from 1 April                  purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
      1988 until the date of actual payment,                                   the EC Treaty,
 — order SNUA to pay to the Commission ECU 60 000,                        — by the finding that the Commission's contested
      or another appropriate sum, by way of damages, and                       decision   was     not    of   individual  concern     to
                                                                               Kruidvat, despite the fact that at the time it was
 — order SNUA to pay the costs.                                                adopted Kruidvat was already involved in


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 July 2000 in Case T-43/00: Javier Martínez Lara and Milva Urbán Penón v Council of the European Union (Officials — Time-limit for lodging complaints — Application manifestly inadmissible)

text:
C 316/24                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distributeurs de                   taken by the Commission in a letter of 21 January 2000
Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (Setrab), established in               addressed to the applicant’s legal adviser, the Court of First
Paris, and Est Distribution Biogram SARL, established at                    Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
Château-Salins (France), represented by D. Leermakers, of the               R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Brussels and Luxembourg Bars, and C. Hatton, Solicitor, with                has made an order on 11 July 2000, in which it:
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Messrs De Meester and Oostvogels, 5 Place du Théâtre, v                     1.    Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible.
Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and J. Mon-
teiro) — application for partial annulment of Council Regu-                 2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs and to reimburse the
lation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 supplementing                            Commission all the expenses which the latter has incurred in
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of                              dealing with the applicant’s requests which gave rise to that
agricultural products and indications referring thereto on                        action and which form its subject-matter.
agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-
duction (OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and                   (1) OJ C 135 of 13.05.2000.
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
on 11 July 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.    There is no need to rule on the applications of the Commission,
      of Danone SA, of Compagnie Gervais Danone, of CLESA SA                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      and of SKW Biosystems GmbH for leave to intervene.
3.    The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs                                  of 31 July 2000
      incurred by the Council.
                                                                            in Case T-43/00: Javier Martı́nez Lara and Milva Urbán
4.    The Commission, Danone SA, Compagnie Gervais Danone,                            Penón v Council of the European Union (1)
      CLESA SA and SKW Biosystems GmbH, as applicants for
      leave to intervene, are to bear their own costs.                      (Officials — Time-limit for lodging complaints — Appli-
                                                                                cation manifestly inadmissible)
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                                (2000/C 316/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-43/00: Javier Martı́nez Lara and Milva Urbán Penón,
                                                                            officials of the Council of the European Union, residing in
                                                                            Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société
                                                                            de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against Council of
                            of 11 July 2000                                 the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and M. Dollfus) —
                                                                            application for the annulment, first, of the decisions of
in Case T-35/00 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the                       27 November 1998 of the selection board for internal Council
                    European Communities (1)                                competition B/260 not to include the applicants on the list of
                                                                            successful candidates and, secondly, the decision of the
                                                                            Secretary General of the Council of 28 July 1999 not to
     (Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)                      redefine the competition — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President J. Azizi and
                                                                            M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 31 July
                           (2000/C 316/46)                                  2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                            2.    The parties shall each bear their own costs.
In Case T-35/00 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St John                       (1) OJ 122 C 29.4.2000.
Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, Lon-
don, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
R. Lyal), application for annulment of the decision allegedly


title: Case C-309/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 27 June 2012 — Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 27 June 2012 — Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo and Others v Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP
   (Case C-309/12)
   2012/C 287/35
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Maria Albertina Gomes Viana Novo, Ezequiel Martins Dias, Gabriel Inácio da Silva Fontes, Marcelino Jorge dos Santos Simões, Manuel Dourado Eusébio, Alberto Martins Mineiro, Armindo Gomes de Faria, José Fontes Cambas, Alberto Martins do Alto, José Manuel Silva Correia, Marilde Marisa Moreira Marques Moita, José Rodrigues Salgado Almeida, Carlos Manuel Sousa Oliveira, Manuel da Costa Moreira, Paulo da Costa Moreira, José Manuel Serra da Fonseca, Ademar Daniel Lourenço Dias, Ana Mafalda Azevedo Martins Ferreira

      Respondent: Fundo de Garantia Salarial, IP

      Question referred

   Is European Union law in the specific context of guarantees covering wage claims in the event of the employer’s insolvency, in particular Articles 4 and 10 of Directive 80/987/EEC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law which guarantee only claims falling due in the six months preceding the initiation of insolvency proceedings against the employer, even where the employees have brought an action against their employer before the Tribunal do Trabalho (Labour Court) with a view to obtaining a judicial determination of the amount outstanding and an enforcement order to recover those sums?

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23).


14.9.2002              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 219/13
        Removal from the register of Case C-450/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-490/01 ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/30)                                                       (2002/C 219/33)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 7 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-450/01: Commission of the European                register of Case C-490/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-451/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-16/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/31)                                                       (2002/C 219/34)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 26 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-451/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-16/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-453/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-17/02 (1)
                         (2002/C 219/32)                                                       (2002/C 219/35)
By order of 11 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 18 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities ordered the removal from
register of Case C-453/01: Commission of the European                the register of Case C-17/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-392/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT — Exemption for leasing of immovable property — Leasing of commercial premises — Services connected with the leasing — Classification of the transaction for VAT purposes — Transaction consisting of a single supply or several independent supplies)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom)) — Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-392/11) (1)

   (VAT - Exemption for leasing of immovable property - Leasing of commercial premises - Services connected with the leasing - Classification of the transaction for VAT purposes - Transaction consisting of a single supply or several independent supplies)
   2012/C 366/24
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Exemptions for other activities — Scope of the VAT exemption for the leasing of immovable property — Inclusion of charges for certain management and maintenance services for the building and the common parts — Classification of the transaction, for VAT purposes, as a single supply or as independent supplies — Interpretation of the Court's judgment of 11 June 2009 in Case C-572/07 RLRE Tellmer Property

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the leasing of immovable property and the supplies of services linked to that leasing, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, may constitute a single supply from the point of view of value added tax. The fact that the lease gives the landlord the right to terminate it if the tenant fails to pay the service charges supports the view that there is a single supply, but does not necessarily constitute the decisive element for the purpose of assessing whether there is such a supply. On the other hand, the fact that services such as those at issue in the main proceedings could in principle be supplied by a third party does not allow the conclusion that they cannot, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, constitute a single supply. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in the light of the interpretative guidance provided by the Court in this judgment and having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, the transactions in question are so closely linked to each other that they must be regarded as constituting a single supply of the leasing of immovable property.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case T-38/12: Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/28

         Action brought on 23 January 2012 — Pips v OHIM — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (ISABELLA OLIVER)
   (Case T-38/12)
   2012/C 89/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pips BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J.A.K. van den Berg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in case R 2420/2010-1;

               —

               Allow the Community trade mark application No 7024961 for the word mark ‘ISABELLA OLIVER’, for all the goods and services subject to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ISABELLA OLIVER’, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 7024961

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark application No 6819908 of the word mark ‘S.Oliver’, for goods in classes 4, 16, 20, 21 and 24; Community trade mark registration No 4504569 of the figurative mark ‘s.Oliver’, for goods and services in classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 25, 28 and 35; German trade mark registration No 30734710.9 of the word mark ‘S.Oliver’, for goods in classes 10, 12 and 21; Community trade mark registration No 181875 of the word mark ‘S.Oliver’, for goods in classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 20, 25 and 26; International trade mark registration No 959255 of the word mark ‘S.Oliver’, for goods in classes 10, 12 and 21

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the CTM application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal; (i) made an assessment of the similarity of the marks on the basis of facts/circumstances not provided by the parties, as a consequence of which the conclusion with regard to the similarity of signs is erroneous; and (ii) incorrectly applied the principles formulated by the ECJ in relation to overall assessment of likelihood of confusion.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2005 in Case T-284/02 Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou v Council of the European Union (Officials — Promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Consideration of comparative merits — Taking into account of the actual duties performed during the reference period — Taking into account of age and seniority — Action for annulment — Action for compensation)

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/23

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 31 May 2005
   in Case T-284/02 Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Consideration of comparative merits - Taking into account of the actual duties performed during the reference period - Taking into account of age and seniority - Action for annulment - Action for compensation)
   (2005/C 193/36)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-284/02: Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou, a former official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Martin, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application, firstly, for annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade C2 in the 2001 promotion procedure and, secondly, for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 May 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case C-496/07: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 6 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/36

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 6 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-496/07) (1)

   2009/C 180/62

      Language of the case: Czech

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

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: Case C-242/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2010 — ENEL Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Sezione Terza (Italy) lodged on 17 May 2010 — ENEL Produzione SpA v Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas
   (Case C-242/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia, Sezione Terza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enel Produzione SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica e il Gas

      Question referred

   Do Articles 23, 43, 49 and 56 of the Treaty and Article 11(2) and (6) and Article 24 of Directive 54/03/EC preclude national legislation which, without the European Commission having been notified, requires on a permanent basis certain electricity producers which are, in certain circumstances, essential for the purpose of meeting the requirements of the demand for dispatching services, to submit bids on the energy exchange markets, in accordance with programmes determined by the network operator in accordance with external rules, and which prevents producers from freely determining the remuneration for such bids by linking the remuneration to criteria that have not been pre-determined according to ‘transparent, non-discriminatory and market-based procedures’?


title: Case F-81/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GM and GN v Commission

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2015 — GM and GN v Commission
   (Case F-81/15) (1)

   (2015/C 429/43)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10/8/2015, p. 42.


title: Case C-383/00: Action brought on 18 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
23.12.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/5
The legislation adopted by the Italian authorities on 18 May            Pleas in law and main arguments
1989 merely regulates the activities of bodies and organisations
with the purpose of drawing up, adopting and putting into
operation plans for water catchment areas for improving                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
surface waters as well as drawing up, adopting and putting into         in Case C-335/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
operation intervention programmes with the same objective.              on 3 February 1999, but the Federal Länder of Mecklenburg-
However, it does not directly adopt any specific plan. Accord-          Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony,
ingly, it is no more than a proposal for the implementation of          Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein have not to date taken
the obligations under Article 4(2) of the directive rather than         the necessary measures under Article 11 of the directive
actual implementation thereof.                                          concerning the drawing-up of emergency plans.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 10 of 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 26.                                               (2) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000, p. 16.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsisch-
                                                                        en Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of 28 August 2000
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtsch-
                                                                        aftskammer, Hanover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe
                                                                                and Irmtraut Bredemeier
Action brought on 18 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                        (Case C-384/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/09)
                         (Case C-383/00)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of 28 August 2000 by the
                         (2000/C 372/08)                                Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Adminis-
                                                                        trative Court for Lower Saxony), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 20 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtschafts-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   kammer, Hanover: joined parties Wilhelm Wieggrebe and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            Irmtraut Bredemeier on the following question:
ties on 18 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Is an agricultural holding received through ‘similar means’
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,        within the meaning of Article 3a of Council Regulation (EEC)
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                         No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
                                                                        amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 (2) of
                                                                        13 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35), where, following expiry
                                                                        of the non-marketing undertaking entered into by the producer
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             under Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, (3) the holding is leased
                                                                        by him to the husband of the designated heir before 29 June
                                                                        1989 on conditions more favourable than normal market
(1) declare that, by failing within the time-limit prescribed to        conditions?
      take all necessary measures in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving                (1) OJ L 90, p. 13.
      dangerous substances, and in particular Article 11 thereof,       (2) OJ L 150, p. 35.
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its          (3) OJ L 131, p. 1.
      obligations under the EC Treaty;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2001 in Case T-270/99, Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas v Council of the European Union (Application for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern — Council decision under the third paragraph of Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 88(2) EC — Inadmissibility)

text:
16.2.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 44/13
J.N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: J. Currall, F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Wael-
broeck) application for the annulment of the decision of the
selection board for internal competition COM/TA/99 not to                                          of 11 September 2001
admit the applicant to the tests for that competition — the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;
S. Haukka, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, gave a judgment               in Case T-270/99, Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas v
on 15 November 2001, in which it:                                                          Council of the European Union (1)
1.    dismisses the application;
                                                                             (Application for annulment — Natural or legal persons —
2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.                            Measures of direct and individual concern — Council
                                                                             decision under the third paragraph of Article 93(2) of the
                                                                             EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 88(2) EC —
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                                             Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 19 September 2001
in Case T-64/99 DEP: UK Coal plc v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                  In Case T-270/99: Polyxeni Tessa and Andreas Tessas, residing
                                                                             in Larissa (Greece), represented by A. Tessas, lawyer, with an
                                                                             address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
                         (Taxation of costs)
                                                                             European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and D. Zachariou) sup-
                                                                             ported by Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and P. Mylono-
                           (2002/C 44/23)                                    poulos) — application for the annulment of the Council
                                                                             decision of 15 December 1998 relating to the taking over by
                                                                             the Hellenic Republic of the debts of certain agricultural
                   (Language of the case: English)                           cooperatives and other agricultural businesses owed to the
                                                                             Agricultural Bank of Greece — the Court of First Instance
                                                                             (Extended Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, Presi-
                                                                             dent, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R. M. Moura Ramos and
In Case T-64/99 DEP: UK Coal plc, formerly RJB Mining plc,                   J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
established in Harworth (United Kingdom), represented by                     11 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:
J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K.-D. Borchardt and N. Khan) — application for
taxation of the costs to be paid by the defendant to the                     1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
applicant pursuant to the order of the Court of First Instance
of 25 July 2000 in Case T-64/99 RJB Mining v Commission
(not published in the ECR) — the Court of First Instance                     2.    The applicants shall pay their own costs and those of the
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                                defendant;
A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and
J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
19 September 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                3.    The Hellenic Republic shall pay its own costs.
The amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case T-64/99
shall be GBP 13 000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.


title: Case C-134/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 March 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea) v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 12 March 2012 — Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea) v Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea
   (Case C-134/12)
   2012/C 138/14
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Constanța

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Corpul Național al Polițiștilor — Biroul Executiv Central (on behalf of and in the interest of its members — public officials with a special status — police serving with the IPJ Tulcea (the Tulcea Inspectorate of Police))

      Defendant: Ministerul Administrației și Internelor, Inspectoratul General al Poliției Române, Inspectoratul de Poliție al Județului Tulcea

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Articles 17(1), 20 and 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding reductions in remuneration such as those imposed by the Romanian State under Law No 118/2010 and Law No 285/2010?

               2.

               Must the provisions of Article 15(3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whereby the Romanian Government was required to inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of its intention to adopt measures to reduce remuneration and to specify the time-limit laid down for implementing them, be interpreted as rendering invalid Law No 118/2010 and Law No 285/2010?


title: Case T-297/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Walter Klein v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — National support for the generation of renewable electricity — Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 4 September 2014 — Walter Klein v Commission
   (Case T-297/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - National support for the generation of renewable electricity - Commission decision to open the State aid formal investigation procedure - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case))
   (2014/C 431/46)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Walter Klein GmbH & Co. KG (Wuppertal, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz and B. Wißmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened the State aid formal investigation procedure concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-309/09: Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Sanyō Denki v OHIM — Telefónica 02 Germany (eneloop) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/26

         Order of the General Court of 24 May 2011 — Sanyō Denki v OHIM — Telefónica 02 Germany (eneloop)
   (Case T-309/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 226/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanyō Denki Kabushiki Kaisha (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: initially, M. De Zorti, M. Koch and T. Grimm, and subsequently V. Schmitz-Fohrmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, M. Ahlgren, and subsequently M. Ahlgren and J.F. Crespo Carillo, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Telefónica 02 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 May 2009 (Case R 794/2008-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG and Sanyō Denki Kabushiki Kaisha

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener are ordered to bear their own costs and those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-102/06: Action brought on  4 April 2006  — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/16

         Action brought on 4 April 2006 — Investire Partecipazioni v Commission
   (Case T-102/06)
   (2006/C 121/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Investire Partecipazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and A. Franchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of Commission Decision C (2005) 4683 of 25 November 2005;

               —

               declaration under Article 241 EC that points B.12 and C.2 of Datasheet No 19 annexed to Commission Decision 97/322/EC of 23 April 1997 are unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               order that the Commission pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled on grounds similar to those put forward in Case T-418/05 Investire Partecipazioni v Commission (OJ C 22 of 28.1.06, p. 21).


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-62/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Transposition)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-62/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
       (1)

   (Waste - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Transposition)
   (2005/C 45/10)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-62/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 February 2003, between the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: K. Manji and by D. Wyatt QC) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, A. Borg Barthet, J. P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the obligations under Articles 1(a), (e) and (f), 2(1)(b), 3, 4, 5, 7(1), 8, 12, 13 and 14 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 and, most recently, by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-244/04: Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit against Europol

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/31

         Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit against Europol
   (Case T-244/04)
   (2004/C 217/55)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against Europol was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, residing in Scheveningen (Netherlands), represented by P. de Casparis and M.F. Baltussen.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Europol's decision of 19 May 2003 together with the decision of 19 March 2004 on her complaint;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant contests the defendant's decision not to consider her for a number of vacant posts. The applicant submits that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment.