title: Case F-115/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 June 2013 — Biwer and Others v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Family allowances — Education allowance — Conditions for grant — Deduction of an allowance of the same type received from another source — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 June 2013 — Biwer and Others v Commission
   (Case F-115/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration - Family allowances - Education allowance - Conditions for grant - Deduction of an allowance of the same type received from another source - Action manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 252/82
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jacques Biwer and Others (Bascharage, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Action for annulment of the Commission decision to consider certain financial assistance from a Member State to students in higher education to be an allowance of the same nature as family allowances and to deduct this financial assistance from the education allowance granted to officials who are parents of those students.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action of Mr Biwer and the other five applicants whose names appear in the annex is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.

               2.

               Mr Biwer and the other five applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 66.


title: Case T-168/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Professional Tennis Registry v OHIM — Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of the figurative mark PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY as a Community trade mark — Earlier national and Community figurative mark RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L. and earlier national figurative mark RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Professional Tennis Registry v OHIM — Registro Profesional de Tenis (PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY)
   (Case T-168/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of the figurative mark PTR PROFESSIONAL TENNIS REGISTRY as a Community trade mark - Earlier national and Community figurative mark RPT Registro Profesional de Tenis, S.L. and earlier national figurative mark RPT European Registry of Professional Tennis - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 90/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Professional Tennis Registry, Inc. (Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, United States) (represented by: M. Vanhegan and B. Brandreth, Barristers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Zarobe, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL and Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 February 2007, as corrected (Case R 1050/2005-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Professional Tennis Registry, Inc.;

               3.

               Orders Registro Profesional de Tenis, SL, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case T-113/12: Action brought on 5 March 2012 — Bial — Portela v OHIM — Probiotical (PROBIAL)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/20

         Action brought on 5 March 2012 — Bial — Portela v OHIM — Probiotical (PROBIAL)
   (Case T-113/12)
   2012/C 165/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bial — Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Probiotical SpA (Novara, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2011 in case R 1925/2010-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trade mark No 2408128 ‘PROBIAL’; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in dark blue and light blue ‘PROBIAL’, for goods in classes 1, 5 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 2408128

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 155284 of the word mark ‘Bial’, for goods in class 5; the trade mark ‘Bial’ being well known in Portugal; Community trade mark registration No 1400183 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘Bial’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 42; Spanish trade mark registration No 2026481 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘Bial’, for services in class 35; international registration No 490635 for the mark in standard characters ‘Bial’, for goods in class 5; emblem of establishment No 868 of the figurative sign ‘Bial’; Name of establishment No 35157 for the word ‘Bial’; logotype No 951 of the figurative sign ‘Bial’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that the trademarks in question were not confusingly similar.


title: Case T-5/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2006 — Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities (Declining of jurisdiction)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/8

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2006 — Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-5/06) (1)

   (Declining of jurisdiction)
   (2006/C 237/14)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and H Støvlbaek, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2005 L 271, p. 48).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case T-5/06 Denmark v Commission so that the Court of Justice may rule on the request for annulment.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-293/04: Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Guy Tachelet against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/37

         Action brought on 9 July 2004 by Guy Tachelet against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-293/04)
   (2004/C 262/70)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 2004 by Guy Tachelet, residing in Rijmenam (Belgium), represented by N. Lhöest, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority's decision of 2 September 2003, in that:

                           —

                           the Commission did not grant the applicant additional seniority of 48 months at the time of his recruitment;

                           —

                           the Commission did not reconstitute the applicant's career by bringing forward the date of his promotion to grade B3 and, if applicable, a promotion to grade B2 (now B*8);

                           —

                           the Commission did not consider the comparative merits of the persons concerned for the promotion exercises as from which the applicant became eligible for promotion to grade B3;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the appointing authority's express decision of 16 March 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint (R/714/03);

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation fixed provisionally at EUR 125,000 in the unlikely event that it should be unable to reconstitute the applicant's career in grade;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant, who had been classified in grade B5, step 3, on recruitment in October 1995, objects to the appointing authority's decision to fix that classification, upon review, at grade B4, step 2, and not at grade B4, step 3, not to reconstitute his career and not to consider the comparative merits of the persons concerned for the promotion exercises as from which he was eligible for promotion to grade B3.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               as regards seniority on the date of recruitment, infringement of the Commission's decisions of 6 June 1973 and 1 September 1983 on the criteria applicable to appointment in grade and to classification in step on recruitment, breach of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equality and also breach of the duty to state the reasons for decisions;

               —

               as regards the refusal to reconstitute the applicant's career, breach of Article 5(3) and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.


title: Case T-76/17: Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/34

         Order of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — TeamLava v EUIPO — King.com (Icônes animées)
   (Case T-76/17)
   (2017/C 178/56)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


title: Case T-1/02: Action brought on 3 January 2002 by Robert Polinsky against Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 84/64                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6.4.2002
The applicant also states that the Commission has erred in law           —      order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
and in fact by clearing the ‘no-discrimination rule’, according                 compensation for the damage suffered and to be suffered,
to which merchants are prohibited from charging their costs                     EUR 350 000, fixed with all manner of reservations,
for the use of debit card by a customer to that customer.                       together with default interest at the rate of 10 % per
According to the applicant, this rule constitutes a restriction                 annum as from 7 October 1999 until the date on which
on competition, since it prevents the merchants from using                      it is actually paid;
the threat of such discrimination as pressure in order to
bargain for lower merchant’s fees. The applicant states that the         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission has made an incomplete market investigation on
this point.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Likewise, the applicant claims that the Commission has erred
in clearing several other rules with the contested decision.             The applicant is suffering from an occupational disease
Thus the Commission clears the ‘cross-border issuing rules’              contracted after working in the Court of Justice building which
that require that a bank wishing to start issuing cards in               contained asbestos.
another state must comply with the rules applicable in that
state. According to the applicant, this partitions the market de         According to the applicant, the Court of Justice confuses two
facto and prevents less restrictive rules in one state from being        categories of damage: that covered by Article 288 of the EC
used by issuing banks as a competitive advantage in another              Treaty and that covered by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.
state. Furthermore, the Commission erred in clearing the                 The applicant is not seeking a finding under Article 73 of
‘cross-border acquiring rule’, which prevents, according to the          the Staff Regulations that his health has deteriorated but
applicant, merchants in one state from seeking an acquiring              compensation, under Article 288 of the EC Treaty, for non-
bank in another state where the multilateral interchange fee is          material damage as a result of his illness, damage which is
lower.                                                                   non-medical and non-economic.
Finally, the Commission gives insufficient reasoning for its             The applicant claims that all the conditions for the granting of
clearance of the ‘No acquiring without issuing rule’. This rule          such compensation are met in his case. In particular, he has
requires that a bank, wishing to acquire merchants, must issue           suffered actual damage in that his family and social lives have
a certain number of cards to customers before it may begin its           been disrupted as a result of his illness. Secondly, there is, in
acquiring activities. This amounts, according to the applicant,          the applicant’s view, a causal link between the damage suffered
to a market sharing agreement between the current issuers.               and the act complained of in that the Court of Justice did not
                                                                         take appropriate protective measures. Thirdly, the damage is
                                                                         unusual and special in nature.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 January 2002 by Schlüsselverlag
Action brought on 3 January 2002 by Robert Polinsky
                                                                         J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others against the
  against Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-1/02)                                                               (Case T-3/02)
                        (2002/C 84/117)                                                             (2002/C 84/118)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Court of Justice was brought before the            European Communities on 10 January 2002 by Schlüsselverlag
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., established in Innsbruck (Aus-
3 January 2002 by Robert Polinsky, residing in Thionville
                                                                         tria), J. Wimmer GmbH, established in Linz (Austria), Zeitungs-
(France), represented by Juan-Ramón Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.            und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., established in Bregenz (Aus-
                                                                         tria), Eugen Russ Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei
                                                                         Gesellschaft mbH, established in Schwarzach (Austria), ‘Die
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Presse’ Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., established in Vienna (Aus-
                                                                         tria), and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H.
—     annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 25 September         & Co KG, established in Salzburg (Austria), represented by
      2001;                                                              M. Krüger, lawyer.


title: Case T-341/06: Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Compagnie générale de Diététique v OHIM (GARUM)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/81

         Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Compagnie générale de Diététique v OHIM (GARUM)
   (Case T-341/06)
   (2006/C 326/164)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Compagnie générale de Diététique SAS (Caen, France) (represented by: J.-J. Evrard and T. de Haan, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GARUM’ for goods in Class 29 (application No 3501939)

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that, contrary to the finding by the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its mark is not descriptive in relation to the goods designated and having regard to the relevant public.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-34/00: Action brought on 21 February 2000 by Eurocool Logistik GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
29.4.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/39
Action brought on 21 February 2000 by Eurocool Logistik                 Action brought on 24 February 2000 by Yannick Cheva-
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                         lier-Delanoue against the Council of the European Union
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-37/00)
                         (Case T-34/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/60)
                        (2000/C 122/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          Communities on 24 February 2000 by Yannick Chevalier-Del-
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                 anoue, residing at Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                  sanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
21 February 2000 by Eurocool Logistik GmbH, Linz, Republic              service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société de Gestion
of Austria, represented by Dr. Günther Secklehner, Phyrnstras-          Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
se 1, Liezen, Republic of Austria.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul Council Decision 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999
                                                                             laying down the detailed arrangements for the integration
— annul decision R233/1999-1 of the Board of Appeal of                       of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of
    9 December 1999, confirming the decision of 11 March                     the Council;
    1999 and refer the mark back to the Office for registration
    to proceed;
                                                                        — annul the decision to appoint Ms R. to an LA 5 post in the
                                                                             French Division of the Translation Service of the Council;
— in the alternative, partially annul the decision of the Board
    of Appeal referred to at indent one above and refer the             — annul the implied consecutive decision not to appoint the
    mark back to the Office for registration to proceed on the               applicant to such a post;
    basis of a limited designation of goods;
                                                                        — order the defendant to draw all the necessary legal
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure,                     consequences as regards the reinstatement of the appli-
    including the costs of the procedure before the Board of                 cant’s rights;
    Appeal.
                                                                        — failing that, order the defendant to pay compensation for
                                                                             the damage suffered, both material and non-material,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              provisionally quantified at 1 euro, plus-interest charged for
                                                                             late payment as from 1 May 1999;
Trade mark                    Word mark ‘EUROCOOL’ —                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                              application no. 285536
Goods or services             Goods and services in classes 39          Pleas in law and main arguments
                              and 42 (including storage and
                              transport of goods, especially
                                                                        The applicant is an official in the French Translation Division
                              refrigerated and deep frozen
                                                                        of the Language Service of the Council. He contests the
                              goods; setting up logistical sys-
                                                                        appointment of a former member of staff in the Schengen
                              tems for the transport and storage
                                                                        Secretariat to an LA 5 post in the division to which he is
                              of such goods)
                                                                        assigned. That decision of appointment includes an implied
                                                                        decision not to appoint the applicant to such a post and
Decision         contested    Refusal to register by the Exam-          constitutes an individual measure implementing Decision
before the Board of           iner                                      1999/307/EC. In his application, the applicant pleads the
Appeal                                                                  illegality of that decision and of the individual decisions taken
                                                                        by the Council.
Pleas in law relied on        — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                  of Regulation No 40/94
                                                                        In support of his claim for the annulment of Decision
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)         1999/307, the applicant pleads:
                                  of Regulation No 40/94
                                                                        — infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol integrating the
                                                                             Schengen acquis into the framework of the European
                                                                             Union;


title: Case T-163/00: Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie Carotti against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 247/33
      the control of abuses of cartel law pursuant to Article 82           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      EC. However, such monitoring of conduct has no
      additional value whatever, in terms of the promotion of              —     annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting
      competition, as a counter- balance to the tolerated                        the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
      dominance of the market. More wide-reaching commit-                        of the Staff Regulations against the list of officials
      ments, as demanded by the applicant in the course of the                   promoted to grade A 4, published in ‘Administrative
      procedure, have not been given by the parties to the                       Notices’ No 1080 of 13 August 1999, inasmuch as his
      proposed concentration.                                                    name did not appear on that list;
—     In addition, the Commission acted incorrectly from a                 —     consequently, rule that the 1999 procedure for pro-
      procedural point of view. Although significant reser-                      motion to grade A 4 is annulled as regards the applicant;
      vations were expressed in the decision as regards the
      compatibility of the proposed concentration with the                 —     order the defendant to pay compensation of 5 000 euros
      common market, the Commission granted its approval,                        for non-material damage;
      on the basis of wide-ranging and partly unverifiable
      commitments offered by the parties seeking that                      —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
      approval, as early on as the initial examination stage. Had
      it acted correctly, however, proceedings should have been
      initiated in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) of the Merger           Pleas in law and main arguments
      Regulation.
                                                                           In support of his action, the applicant pleads:
—     Lastly, the Commission unlawfully failed to comply
      with the procedural rule laid down in Article 18(1) of               —     the total absence of any statement of reasons for the
      Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 (1), in that, even                    contested decision and infringement of Article 25(2) of
      after the expiry of the three-week time-limit prescribed in                the Staff Regulations of officials;
      that provision, it constantly had regard to further, altered
      commitments offered by the parties to the proposed
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and
      concentration. This infringed the procedural rights of the
                                                                                manifest error of assessment.
      applicant in particular, since the applicant was required
      to adopt a position within time-limits which became
      ever shorter, and ultimately had scarcely any further
      opportunity to express its views.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 447/98 of 1 March 1998 on the
    notifications, time limits and hearings provided for in Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 on the control of concentrations           Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie Carotti
    between undertakings (OJ 1998 L 61, p. 1).                             against the Court of Auditors of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties
                                                                                (Case T-163/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/59)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
                                                                           Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
                          (Case T-161/00)                                  of the European Communities on 16 June 2000 by Rosemarie
                                                                           Carotti, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Gaston Vogel
                                                                           and Ferdinand Burg, of the Luxembourg Bar.
                          (2000/C 247/58)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of 15 May 2000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs;
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Vassilios Tsarna-                  —     order the Court of Auditors to pay to Ms Carotti the sum
vas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the                 of LFR 50 000, constituting the expenses which she has
Brussels Bar.                                                                    had to incur in order to succeed with her case.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.8.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     award the applicant the sum of 25 000 euros, or such
                                                                                greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course
The applicant in the present case contests the decision of her                  of the proceedings, by way of compensation for his
immediate superior relieving her from the position of team                      having been rejected for that vacant post and, therefore,
leader in the Italian translation section.                                      the loss of a chance of promotion;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
In support of her claim, she puts forward the following pleas:
—     her immediate superior was not competent to adopt the               Pleas in law and main arguments
      contested measure, inasmuch as her appointment as team
      leader had been decided on by the Director of Translation
      himself;                                                            The applicant contests the rejection of his application for the
                                                                          post of Head of Unit, corresponding to Vacancy Notice
—     breach of essential procedural requirements, inasmuch as            COM/091/99 IV/E/2 ‘Basic industries’.
      the Staff Regulations Committee was not consulted;
                                                                          In support of his claim, the applicant pleads:
—     infringement of the rights of the defence, inasmuch as
      the applicant was not given an opportunity to express a             —     infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of
      view before the contested measure was adopted;                            the obligation to state reasons;
—     breach of the obligation to state the reasons for measures.         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
                                                                                promotions procedure and of the principle of equal
                                                                                treatment;
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                          —     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
                                                                                assessment and misuse of powers.
Action brought on 16 June 2000 by Carmelo Morello
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-164/00)
                         (2000/C 247/60)
                                                                          Action brought on 19 June 2000 by Consorzio Industrie
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 16 June                                     (Case T-165/00)
2000 by Carmelo Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jacques Sambon and Pierre Paul van Gehuchten, of the Brussels                                      (2000/C 247/61)
Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the Commission’s decision to appoint another
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      official to post COM/091/99 IV/E/2 ‘Basic industries’,
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      corresponding to an A5/A4 Head of Unit post;
                                                                          European Communities on 19 June 2000 by, Consorzio
                                                                          Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), represented by Antonio Tizzano
—     annul the decision not to accept the applicant’s appli-             and Gian Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar.
      cation for post COM/091/99 IV/E/2, being a Head of Unit
      post;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     award the applicant the sum of 100 000 euros, or such
      greater or lesser sum as may be determined in the course            —     annul the decision of the European Commission con-
      of the proceedings, by way of compensation for the non-                   tained in the letter from the Secretariat General of 7 April
      material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of                  2000, refusing access to certain documents concerning
      the inappropriate or incomplete information compiled                      Commission proceedings in relation to the system of
      by the defendant in relation to the applicant’s individual                production and sale of matches in Italy;
      file, and the state of uncertainty and anxiety in which he
      has found himself regarding his professional future;                —     order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-52/15: Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Sharif University of Technology/Conseil

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/52

         Action brought on 4 February 2015 — Sharif University of Technology/Conseil
   (Case T-52/15)
   (2015/C 138/70)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Annex to Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP, Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP, the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014, and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               award the applicant a compensation to make good the damage to its reputation caused by the Council’s actions; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By support of its action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Annex to Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP (1), Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2), the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 (3), and Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (4) insofar as they concern the applicant.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s rights of the defence and its right to effective judicial protection;
   Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment as regards its adoption of restrictive measures against the applicant;
   Third plea in law, arguing that the Council has violated the applicant’s right to property and the principle of proportionality; and
   Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has misused its powers in adopting restrictive measures against the applicant.

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 325, 19)

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, 39)

      (3)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ L 325, 3)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, 1)


title: Case C-406/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 21 October 2009 — Realchemie Nederland BV v Bayer CropScience AG

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 21 October 2009 — Realchemie Nederland BV v Bayer CropScience AG
   (Case C-406/09)
   2009/C 312/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Realchemie Nederland BV

      Respondent: Bayer CropScience AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the phrase ‘civil and commercial matters’ in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted in such a way that this regulation applies also to the recognition and enforcement of an order for payment of ‘Ordnungsgeld’ (an administrative fine) pursuant to Paragraph 890 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung)?

               2.

               Is Article 14 of Directive 2004/48 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights to be interpreted as applying also to enforcement proceedings relating to

                           (i)

                           an order made in another Member State concerning an infringement of intellectual property rights;

                           (ii)

                           an order made in another Member State imposing a penalty or fine for breach of an injunction against infringement of intellectual property rights;

                           (iii)

                           costs determination orders made in another Member State on the basis of the orders referred to at (i) and (ii) above?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case F-8/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Tolios and Others v Court of Auditors

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/67

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 23 September 2008 — Tolios and Others v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-8/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/132)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 35.


title: Case T-469/07: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council (Dumping — Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines — Expiry of anti-dumping measures — Review — Articles 4(1), 5(4) and 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 4(1), 5(4), and 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) — Concept of Community industry — Determination of injury — Obligation to state the reasons)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council
   (Case T-469/07) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in China, Vietnam, Pakistan and the Philippines - Expiry of anti-dumping measures - Review - Articles 4(1), 5(4) and 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (now Articles 4(1), 5(4), and 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009) - Concept of Community industry - Determination of injury - Obligation to state the reasons)
   2013/C 252/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Philips Lighting Poland S.A. (Piła, Poland), and Philips Lighting BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially J.-P. Hix, Agent, and by G. Berrisch and G. Wolf, lawyers, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and by G. Berrisch)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd, (Hangzhou, China) (represented by: M. Gambardella and V. Villante, lawyers), and GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt. (GE Hungary Zrt) (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: P. De Baere, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Talabér Ritz, Agents), and Osram GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Bierwagen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines (OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Philips Lighting Poland S.A. and Philips Lighting BV to bear their own costs, to pay the costs of the Council of the European Union, with the exception of those incurred by it in connection with the interventions of Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co., Ltd and GE Hungary Ipari és Kereskedelmi Zrt (GE Hungary Zrt), and to pay the costs of Osram GmbH;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics and GE Hungary to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council in connection with their interventions.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case T-312/08: Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 — Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/50

         Order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2010 — Ellinikos Niognomon v Commission
   (Case T-312/08) (1)

   2010/C 134/81

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case C-328/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2012 — Ralph Schmidt (in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Aletta Zimmerman) v Lilly Hertel

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2012 — Ralph Schmidt (in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Aletta Zimmerman) v Lilly Hertel
   (Case C-328/12)
   2012/C 303/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ralph Schmidt (in his capacity as liquidator in respect of the assets of Aletta Zimmerman)

      Defendant: Lilly Hertel

      Question referred

   The following question regarding the interpretation of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (1) is to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:
   Do the courts of the Member State within the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding the debtor’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to decide an action to set a transaction aside by virtue of insolvency that is brought against a person whose place of residence or registered office is not within the territory of a Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1.


title: Case T-430/15: Order of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Flowil International Lighting v EUIPO — Lorimod Prod Com (Silvania Food) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative trade mark Silvania Food — Earlier EU word marks SYLVANIA — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/42

         Order of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Flowil International Lighting v EUIPO — Lorimod Prod Com (Silvania Food)
   (Case T-430/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative trade mark Silvania Food - Earlier EU word marks SYLVANIA - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 419/54)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Flowil International Lighting (Holding) BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: SC Lorimod Prod Com, Srl (Simleul Silvaniei, Romania)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 May 2015 (Case R 616/2014-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Flowil International Lighting (Holding) and SC Lorimod Prod Com.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Flowil International Lighting (Holding) BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Action brought on 18 October 1995 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-198/95)

text:
30 . 12 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 351 / 15
Action brought on 18 October 1995 by Comafrica SpA and                 Action brought on 20 October 1995 by Le Nouveau Garage
Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the Commission               SA and Others against the Commission of the European
                 of the European Communities                                                     Communities
                        ( Case T-198/95 )                                                     ( Case T-l 99/95 )
                          ( 95/C 351 /29 )                                                      ( 95/C 351 /30 )
                (Language of the case: English)                                        (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      An action against the Commission of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 1 8 October 1995               Communities was brought before the Court of First
by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co .,               Instance of the European Communities on 20 October 1995
                                                                       by Le Nouveau Garage SA, established at Pierre Benite
represented by Mr. Bernard O'Connor, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arsene Kronshagen,             ( France ), Max Labat Automobiles 17, established at Royan
rue Marie Adelaide 22 .                                                ( France ) and Riviera Auto Service, established at Nice
                                                                       ( France ), represented by Christian Bourgeon, of the
                                                                       Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           at the Chambers of Decker & Braun , 16 Avenue
                                                                       Marie-Therese .
— declare the application admissible,
— declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 , 174 and 184 of              The applicants claim that the Court should :
    the EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC ) No 1869/95 in so far as
    it affects the applicants, or alternatively, to declare the        — declare pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty that the
    said Regulation void erga omnes,                                        Commission has failed to take a decision in relation to
                                                                            the complainant companies, despite the fact that they
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and the                     submitted in advance, and in good time, a request that it
    second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, to                    should do so,
    make good any damage, and interest thereon, caused to
    the applicants by the wrongful adoption of Regulation              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    ( EC ) No 1869/95 ,
— make any additional orders which the Court considers                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    necessary for the purposes of determining the damage
    caused to the applicants,                                          The applicants, three former Volkswagen & Audi
                                                                       concessionaires, currently in the process of recovery or in
— declare that the Commission pays the costs incurred by               compulsory liquidation, allege that the Commission failed
    the applicants in making this application .                        to act on complaints which they submitted to it concerning
                                                                       the application by VAG France, throughout the whole of
                                                                       France, of an exclusive and selective system for the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    distribution of new vehicles of the aforementioned makes
                                                                       and of spare parts for those vehicles , according to which the
The applicants, both of whom import bananas into the                   delivery of new vehicles and spare parts is reserved to
Community, attack the decisions of the Commission to                   selected retailers .
reduce the quantity of bananas allocated to them for the
year of 1995 through the application of a definitive
reduction coefficient set out in Commission Regulation                 They consider in that regard that the dealership agreements
( EC ) No 1869/95 of 25 July 1995 . The grounds on which               at issue, and the terms on which those agreements are
the applicants rely are similar to those raised in Case                applied, are not in accordance with the criteria governing
T-72/95 ('), in which they challenged the provisional                  eligibility for the block exemption arising from Regulation
reduction coefficient for 1995 , fixed by Commission                   ( EEC ) No 123/85 , and are not eligible . for individual
Regulation ( EC ) No 2947/94 .                                         exemption either.
With regard to the claim for damages, the applicants                   Following preliminary inquiries, at the end of which the
maintain that the Commission has breached a superior rule              defendant institution sent to VAG France a statement of
of law for the protection of the individual, that the                  objections, an inter partes hearing took place on
infringement is sufficiently serious and that such breach has          8 November 1994 . Although the investigation of the
caused damage to them .                                                complaints appears to have been concluded, the
                                                                       Commission has still not yet given its decision in the
                                                                       matter .
(') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 , p . 23 .


15.6.2002             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 144/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/00 (1)             from the register of Case C-462/00: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                       (2002/C 144/59)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/63)
                                                                  By order of 9 January 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-235/01: Commission of the
       Removal from the register of Case C-408/00 (1)             European Communities v Italian Republic.
                       (2002/C 144/60)                            (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 22 February 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-408/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      Removal from the register of Case C-242/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/64)
                                                                  By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-242/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/00 (1)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                       (2002/C 144/61)
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and
                                                                                C-270/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/65)
                                                                  By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01
                                                                  (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e
       Removal from the register of Case C-462/00 (1)
                                                                  Penale di L’Aquila): Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case
                                                                  C-269/01) and Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case
                       (2002/C 144/62)                            C-270/01).
                                                                  (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case T-171/02: Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma della Sardegna against Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.8.2002               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 191/29
The applicants claim that the contested regulation is unlawful               The applicant claims that the Court should:
and infringes their rights. The Commission was not em-
powered to issue the regulation in its present form. In addition,
the required investigation procedure was not implemented                     —     annul Commission Decision 2002/229/EC of 13 Novem-
before, but at the same time as, or only after, the regulation                     ber 2001 on the aid scheme which the Sardinia Region
was issued.                                                                        (Italy) is planning to implement for the restructuring of
                                                                                holdings in difficulty in the protected crops sector (OJ
                                                                                2002 L 77, p. 29)
The applicants further submit that the regulation, and
Annexes 1.1 to 2.1 thereto, have a dubious factual basis. On                 —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
27 March 2002, the data listed in those annexes were, in fact,                     pay the costs.
not yet available to the Commission, because EUROSTAT had
not yet received all the information for 2001.
In addition, the applicants claim that the contested regulation
is also unlawful on substantive grounds as the measures it                   Pleas in law and main arguments
lays down are disproportionate. The additional duties are
prohibitively high and, with the exception of developing
countries, the safeguard measures apply without distinction to
all countries.                                                               The decision which is at issue in the present case concerns a
                                                                             regional aid scheme for the restructuring of holdings in
                                                                             difficulty in the protected crops sector (flowers and vegetables)
Finally, the applicants claim that, given the circumstances, the             in Sardinia, adopted pursuant to Law No 4/98 of the Sardinian
provisional safeguard measures are incompatible with the rules               Region, which specifically concerns action to be taken in
laid down by the World Trade Organisation and GATT, and                      favour of small and medium-sized agricultural holdings in
infringe European Agreements concluded by the Council and                    difficulty.
the Commission with certain non-member countries.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002                  In support of its arguments, the applicant alleges:
    imposing provisional safeguard measures against imports of
    certain steel products (OJ L 85, 28.3.2002, p. 1).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on                —     breach or misapplication of Article 88(3) of the Treaty,
    the common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC)                     the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
    No 518/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53).                                       restructuring firms in difficulty (1) and of the principle of
                                                                                legitimate expectations. Moreover the time spent
                                                                                assessing whether the aid was compatible with the
                                                                                common market was unreasonably long.
                                                                             —     breach or misapplication of Article 87 of the Treaty and
                                                                                of the abovementioned guidelines, lack of a proper
                                                                                inquiry and inadequate statement of reasons.
Action brought on 6 June 2002 by Regione Autonoma
della Sardegna against Commission of the European
                            Communities
                                                                             In that regard, the applicant points out that, although the
                                                                             Commission first became aware of the regional plan in
                          (Case T-171/02)                                    question on 15 January 1998, the decision finding the aid
                                                                             unlawful was not adopted until 13 November 2001. During
                                                                             that time, there was an exchange of correspondence between
                          (2002/C 191/50)                                    the defendant and the Italian authorities with the purpose of
                                                                             clarifying the scope and effects of the notified aid project.
                                                                             However, by the contested decision, the Commission has
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             firmly declared the project unlawful, furthermore, according
                                                                             to the applicant, by reference to aspects which were perfectly
                                                                             clear from the earliest exchanges.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2002 by the Regione                           The applicant further claims that the contested scheme is
Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Giacomo Aiello of                    compatible with the guidelines for rescuing and restructuring
the Avvocatura dello Stato.                                                  firms in difficulties and that there was no basis in the inquiry
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/30                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.8.2002
for the conclusions concerning the impact of the scheme on                In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement
intra-Community trade.                                                    of the first indent of Article 37(a) and Article 38 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations in that the contested decision changes the place of
                                                                          employment of the applicant during the period in which he
(1) OJ 1997 C 283, p. 2.                                                  was on secondment in the interests of the service. The
                                                                          applicant further alleges infringement of Article 85 of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations and breach of the principle prohibiting arbitrary
                                                                          decisions, the principle that legitimate expectations are to be
                                                                          protected and the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                          officials inasmuch as the applicant was unaware of the irregular
                                                                          nature of the payments received. Finally, the applicant alleges
                                                                          infringement of Articles 5 and 10 of Annex VII to the Staff
                                                                          Regulations.
Action brought on 11 June 2002 by Georgios Gouvras
    against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-180/02)
                          (2002/C 191/51)                                 Action brought on 14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l.
                                                                          against Office for the Harmonization of the Internal
                                                                                Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-186/02)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (2002/C 191/52)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 June 2002 by Georgios                          (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
Gouvras, residing in Bereldange (Luxembourg), represented by              Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
Jean-Noël Louis, Etienne Marchal and Albert Coolen, lawyers,                                application was drafted: Italian)
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                                                                          Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     annul the decision of 14 August 2001 of the Staff                   the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          14 June 2002 by BMI Bertollo S.r.l., whose registered office is
      Administration and Management Directorate Luxem-
      bourg and Ispra of DG Admin:                                        in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by Federico
                                                                          Tedeschini, Maurizio Pinnarò and Patrik Santer.
      —     fixing, with effect from 1 November 2000, the place
            of employment as Athens, retrospectively removing             The applicant claims that the Court should:
            his right to the expatriation allowance, to the annual
            travel expenses and applying to his salary the                annul the decision of 19 March 2002 of the Third Board of
            weighting applicable to Greece;                               Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
                                                                          in the appeal against the decision of 28 February 2001 of the
      —     to withhold from his remuneration, pursuant to that           Fifth Unit of the Opposition Division and consequently
            decision, any amount in general;                              uphold the registration application submitted by the applicant
                                                                          undertaking.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Applicant for the Com-         The applicant
                                                                          munity trade mark:
The applicant, whose place of employment was Luxembourg,                  The Community trade            Figurative mark ‘DIESELIT’ —
was seconded in the interests of the service to the Greek                 mark concerned:                Registration            application
Ministry of Health. The contested decision fixes, with retrospec-                                        No 880211, registration sought
tive effect as from 1 November 2000, his place of employment                                             in respect of goods and services
as Athens, with all the implications of that decision. Further-                                          within Classes 7, 11 and 21 (flat
more, the Commission decided to withhold from his salary,                                                irons, steam irons and ironing
pursuant to the contested decision, any amount in general.                                               boards)


title: Case C-233/07: Action brought on 11 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/12

         Action brought on 11 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-233/07)
   (2007/C 170/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and P. Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that

                           —

                           by failing to subject, during the bathing season, the urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast to at least advanced primary treatment and to a disinfection system as provided for by Article 2 of Decision 2001/720/EC (1),

                           —

                           by failing to subject, outside the bathing season, the urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, prior to discharge, to at least primary treatments, as provided for by Article 3 of Decision 2001/720/EC,

                           —

                           and by suffering the discharge of urban waste water from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast to produce adverse effects on the environment,

                     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Decision 2001/720/EC;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 1999 Portugal made a request to the Commission for the discharge of waste water into the Atlantic Ocean near the estuary of the River Tagus, from the agglomeration of the Estoril coast, to be subject to less stringent treatment.
   The Commission established that the requirements laid down in the provision derogating from Directive 91/271/EEC (2) had been satisfied and granted Portugal's request by means of Decision 2001/720/EC.
   From the replies given by the Portuguese authorities to the formal notice and reasoned opinion it is apparent that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned articles of Decision 20001/720/EC.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 8 October 2001 granting Portugal a derogation regarding urban waste water treatment for the agglomeration of the Estoril coast (OJ 2001 L 269, p. 14).

      (2)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40).


title: Joined Cases C-217/15 and C-350/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi (C-217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C-350/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2 and 273 — National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of value added tax — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Ne bis in idem principle — Identity of the accused or penalised person — Absence)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — criminal proceedings against Massimo Orsi (C-217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C-350/15)
   (Joined Cases C-217/15 and C-350/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2 and 273 - National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of value added tax - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Ne bis in idem principle - Identity of the accused or penalised person - Absence))
   (2017/C 168/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

      Party in the main proceedings

   Massimo Orsi (C 217/15), Luciano Baldetti (C 350/15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits criminal proceedings to be brought for non-payment of value added tax, after the imposition of a definitive tax penalty with respect to the same act or omission, where that penalty was imposed on a company with legal personality, while those criminal proceedings were brought against a natural person.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

      OJ C 311 21.9.2015.


title: Case C-574/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Power Purchase Agreements — Compensation paid for voluntary termination — Commission decision finding State aid compatible with the internal market — Assessment of the lawfulness of aid by a national court — Annual adjustment of stranded costs — Point at which an energy generator’s membership of a group of undertakings is taken into account)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna S.A. v Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki
   (Case C-574/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Power Purchase Agreements - Compensation paid for voluntary termination - Commission decision finding State aid compatible with the internal market - Assessment of the lawfulness of aid by a national court - Annual adjustment of stranded costs - Point at which an energy generator’s membership of a group of undertakings is taken into account))
   (2016/C 419/09)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: PGE Górnictwo i Energetyka Konwencjonalna S.A.

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Regulacji Energetyki

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 107 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU, read together with Article 4(2) of Commission Decision 2009/287/EC of 25 September 2007 on State aid awarded by Poland as part of Power Purchase Agreements and the State aid which Poland is planning to award concerning compensation for the voluntary termination of Power Purchase Agreements must be interpreted as precluding, where the European Commission has assessed a State aid scheme in the light of the Commission Communication of 26 July 2001 relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs and classified it as being compatible with the internal market before its implementation, the national authorities and courts from reviewing in turn, at the time the State aid in question is implemented, whether it is consistent with the principles set out in that methodology;

               2.

               Article 4(1) and (2) of Decision 2009/287, read in the light of the Commission Communication of 26 July 2001 relating to the methodology for analysing State aid linked to stranded costs, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, when calculating the annual adjustment of the stranded costs compensation to be paid to a generator that is a member of a group of undertakings, account must be taken of that group membership and, therefore, the financial results of that group, on the date when adjustment is carried out.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


No C 87/18         | EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   8 . 4 . 95
1995 by Andrew Macrae Moat, represented by Jacques                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Verhaegen, Avenue René Gobert, 20, 1180 Bruxelles.
                                                                   The applicant challenges the rejection by the Commission,
                                                                   notified on 19 November 1994, of the complaint against the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        rejection of two requests of 30 March 1994, relating to his
1 . declare the present application, admissible and                candidature to the post COM/5/92 in DG IX/A/7.
    founded;                                                       The applicant claims that the Commission failed both to
                                                                   reconsider, pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First
2 . condemn the Commission for its failure to reconsider
                                                                   Instance of 16 December 1993 , in case T-58/92, the filling of
    the applicant's candidature for the post DG IX/A/7, or         the aforementioned post, and to complete his last staff
    for its failure to annul and republish that post and           report on time in order that it could be consulted when
    consider new candidatures, without delay;                      taking decisions about his career.
3 . condemn the Commission for its failure to ensure the
    early completion of the applicant's staff report for the
    period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1993 ;
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case T-172/94 ()
4. condemn the Commission for its failure to reply to the                                   ( 95/C 87/39 )
    applicant's request and/or complaint, with reasons,
    within the time limits laid down in Article 90 of the Staff                  (Language of the case: English)
    Regulations;
                                                                   By order of 13 February 1995 the President of the First
5 . condemn the Commission to pay the applicant                    Chamber ( Extended Composition) of the Court of First
    compensation in whatever amounts the Court considers           Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
    appropriate for its various failures;                          from the register of Case T-172/94: Rima Industrial SA v.
                                                                   Council of the European Union.
6. condemn the Commission to pay the applicant's
    costs .                                                        (!) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4. 1994 .


title: Case C-545/09: Action brought on 22 December 2009 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/31

         Action brought on 22 December 2009 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-545/09)
   2010/C 63/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall, B. Eggers, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools (1) is to be interpreted and applied so as to ensure that teachers seconded by a Member State have access during their secondment to the same progression in status and pay as those enjoyed by teachers employed in that Member State, and that the exclusion of certain teachers seconded by the United Kingdom, during their secondment, from access to improved pay scales (variously known as ‘threshold pay’, ‘excellent teacher system’, ‘advanced skills teachers’) and from other additional payments (such as ‘teaching and learning responsibility payments’) as well as the progression on existing pay-scales available to teachers employed in maintained schools in England and Wales is incompatible with Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) of the Convention;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This is a request under Article 26 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools (‘the Convention’) for a ruling regarding the interpretation and application of Articles 12(4)(a) and 25(1) of the Convention.
   According to the convention, the teachers at the European Schools are seconded by their Member State of origin. Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention provides that seconded teachers ‘retain promotion and retirement rights guaranteed by their national rules’. That notwithstanding, the salaries of teachers seconded by the United Kingdom are ‘frozen’ during the period of secondment. Thus, teachers seconded to the European Schools are denied access to improved pay scales (variously known as ‘threshold pay’, ‘excellent teacher system’, ‘advanced skills teachers’) and from other additional payments (such as ‘teaching and learning responsibility payments’) as well as the progression on existing pay-scales available to teachers employed in maintained schools in England and Wales.
   This policy is contrary to the letter and purpose of Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention. It reduces the pension rights of the teachers concerned and their career prospects when returning to the United Kingdom. Moreover, it adversely affects the Union budget which bears the difference between a lower national pay and the Community top-up for seconded teachers.
   Article 12(4)(a) of the Convention and by consequence Article 25(1) of the Convention should therefore be interpreted and applied so as to guarantee to seconded teachers full access to improved pay scales, progression on current pay scales and other allowances.

      (1)  OJ L 212, 17.8.1994, p. 3


title: Action brought on 1 August 1997 by Christian Marion against the Economic and Social Committee (Case T-227/97)

text:
1 . 11 97             I EN I                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /21
     withdrawal of a            legal  measure     which     confers      Moreover, having made a report on the applicant's ability,
      individual rights .                                                 efficiency and conduct at the request of the members of
                                                                          the Joint Committee on Promotion, the applicant's
(') Case T-66/96 , Mellet v. Court of Justice ( OJ C 233 , 10 . 8 .       superior failed to put it in writing and submit it to him, to
     1996, p. 10 ).                                                       enable him to make observation and place it in his
                                                                          personal file .
                                                                          The applicant, who has suffered a state of anxiety and
                                                                          uncertainty for more than two years, has been deprived of
                                                                          an opportunity of having his candidature taken into
Action brought on 1 August 1997 by Christian Marion                       consideration, at the conclusion of a regular procedure,
          against the Economic and Social Committee                       for promotion to Grade C 4 . The assessor was obliged to
                          ( Case T-227/97)                                give reasons for his assessments, in order to allow the
                                                                          applicant to make observations and put forward pleas in
                            ( 97IC 331/43 )                               his defence .
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Finally, the applicant makes a damages claim for
                                                                          combined material and non-material damage .
An action against the Economic and Social Committee
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 1997 by Christian
Marion, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and Fran^oise
Parmentier, all of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson,
                                                                          Action brought on 18 August 1997 by 'E' against the
Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                ( Case T-239/97)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /44
— annul        the    decision     definitively   establishing   the
      applicant's staff report for the period 1992—1994,                                  (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay the applicant FB 250 000
      compensation for combined material and non-material                 An action against the European Parliament was brought
      damage,                                                              before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 18 August 1997 by 'E', represented by
                                                                           Claudine Junion, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges
                                                                           Liolos, 6 Rue J. A. Muller.
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
 The applicant, an official in Grade C 5 , alleges
 infringement of Articles 26 , 43 and 45 of the Staff
 Regulations, of Articles 6 and 7 of Decision 1001 /81 A of                — annul the decision of the European Parliament of
 the Economic and Social Committee laying down general                         5 November 1996, appointing the applicant to Grade
 provisions for implementing the Staff regulations as                          B 5 , Step 4,
 regards the periodic staff reports of officials, of the
 principle of sound administration, the duty to state
 reasons and the rights of the defence, and, finally, that                 — annul the decision impliedly rejecting the applicant's
 there has been a manifest error of assessment .                               complaint of 11 February 1997,
 He maintains that the Economic and Social Committee
 was at fault in taking 28 months to draw up his staff                     — order the European Parliament to reclassify the
 report for the period 1992 to 1994. By reason of that                         applicant as from the date of his appointment and
 fault, the Joint Committee on Promotion 1996 did not                          reconstitute his career bracket accordingly,
 have available the up-to-date staff report on the
 applicant's ability, efficiency and conduct for the
 promotion year 1996 .                                                     — order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-453/06: Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland intervener: Vodafone D2 GmbH

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland intervener: Vodafone D2 GmbH
   (Case C-453/06) (1)

   (2007/C 96/62)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case C-519/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 19 November 2012 — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 19 November 2012 — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG
   (Case C-519/12)
   2013/C 46/24
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság

      Defendant: Hochtief Solutions AG

      Question referred

   Does a claim between parties which are not in a direct contractual relationship, asserted by an applicant company, which has granted credit, against a (foreign) member of a company which has received credit, that member having had a controlling interest in the latter company at the material time, qualify as a contract under Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) where the applicant company alleges that the company receiving the loan is liable for the debts of the controlled company?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.