title: Case C-220/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against certain persons in view of the situation in Egypt — Freezing of the funds of persons subject to judicial proceedings for misappropriation of State funds — United Nations Convention against Corruption)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/22

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz and Others v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-220/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against certain persons in view of the situation in Egypt - Freezing of the funds of persons subject to judicial proceedings for misappropriation of State funds - United Nations Convention against Corruption))
   (2015/C 138/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin, Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar (represented by: J. Lewis QC, B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, and J. Binns, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Mr Ahmed Abdelaziz Ezz, Ms Abla Mohammed Fawzi Ali Ahmed, Ms Khadiga Ahmed Ahmed Kamel Yassin and Ms Shahinaz Abdel Azizabdel Wahab Al Naggar to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case F-116/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Muariu v EIOPA (Civil Service — EIOPA staff — Temporary member of staff — Vacancy notice — Requirement for minimum professional experience of eight years — Internal candidate already confirmed in her post as a temporary member of staff following a probationary period — Provisionally posted to the new position, giving classification at a higher grade — Material error in the vacancy notice — Withdrawal of the offer of employment — Applicability of the GIPs — Consultation of the Staff Committee — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/52

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — Muariu v EIOPA
   (Case F-116/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIOPA staff - Temporary member of staff - Vacancy notice - Requirement for minimum professional experience of eight years - Internal candidate already confirmed in her post as a temporary member of staff following a probationary period - Provisionally posted to the new position, giving classification at a higher grade - Material error in the vacancy notice - Withdrawal of the offer of employment - Applicability of the GIPs - Consultation of the Staff Committee - Legitimate expectations))
   (2015/C 279/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Simona Muariu (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) (represented by: C. Coucke, acting as Agent, and F. Tuytschaever, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the executive director of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) which withdrew a previous decision appointing the applicant as a temporary member of staff at grade AD 8 and a claim for damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 24 February 2014 of the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority in so far as;

                           —

                           in disregard, in a contractual relationship, of the acquired rights and terms of the contract, it retroactively rejects the application of Ms Murariu for the post of senior expert on personal pensions and impliedly withdraws the offer of employment, under a temporary posting, already accepted by Ms Murariu, made to her on 17 July 2013;

                           —

                           it deprives Ms Murariu of the benefit of remuneration corresponding to grade AD 8 for the period of her temporary posting from 16 September 2013 to 24 February 2014;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the claims;

               3.

               Orders the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority to compensate Ms Murariu for her material loss, suffered between 16 September 2013 and 24 February 2014, in an amount corresponding to the difference in remuneration between grades AD 6 and AD 8, together with default interest, to run from 16 September 2013, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations during the relevant period and increased by two points;

               4.

               Dismisses the remainder of the claims for compensation;

               5.

               Orders the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Ms Murariu.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015, p. 47.


title: Case C-115/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Berlin, lodged on  28 February 2006  — Annette Radke v Achterberg Service GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/29

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Berlin, lodged on 28 February 2006 — Annette Radke v Achterberg Service GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-115/06)
   (2006/C 131/52)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Arbeitsgericht Berlin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Annette Radke

      Defendant: Achterberg Service GmbH & Co. KG
   Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Is Council Directive 98/59/EC (1) of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies to be interpreted to the effect that the consultation procedure under Article 2 of the Directive is concluded as soon as direct negotiations between the employer and the workers' representatives have failed or, where the employer and/or workers' representatives refer the matter to an establishment-level arbitration committee provided for by national law, do the negotiations before that committee also have to have been concluded?

                           (b)

                           If the second alternative part of the question should be answered in the affirmative does the Directive require, before the notices of dismissal are announced, the conclusion of both the negotiations before the arbitration committee as to ways and means of avoiding collective redundancies or reducing the number of workers affected and the negotiations on ways and means of mitigating the consequences by recourse to accompanying social measures?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Is the Directive to be interpreted to the effect that notification may not be issued to the employment authority under Article 3 of the Directive until after the consultation procedure has been concluded?

                           (b)

                           If Question 2(a) should be answered in the affirmative must both the negotiations on the avoidance of collective redundancies or the reduction of the number of workers affected and the negotiations on the mitigation of the consequences have been concluded before notification is issued?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16.


title: Case C-408/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de Cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg by judgment of that Court of 31 October 2002 in the case of José Antonio Da Silva Carvalho against Ministère Public

text:
C 7/16                    EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        11.1.2003
—       As regards amended Directive 78/659/EEC, not all of               another Member State, rely on the directive in order to obtain
        the requisite information was forwarded — thus, the               from the State of residence recognition of the licence issued in
        Commission had no information regarding the total                 the State of origin and thereby escape being charged with
        surface or length of water supporting fish life, nor              driving without a valid licence?
        whether the waters complied with the parameters laid
        down in that directive;
                                                                          (1 ) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences
                                                                               (OJ L 237 of 24.08.1991, p. 1).
—       As regards amended Directive 80/68/EEC, not all of
        the requisite information was forwarded — thus, the
        Commission did not receive the requested information
        relating to authorisations, the measuring system and
        ground water.
The Commission points out that at the expiry of the period
                                                                          Action brought on 18 November 2002 by the Com-
granted to the Kingdom of Belgium by the reasoned opinion,
the missing information had still not been received by the                    mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Commission, the explanation for such absence of information
being that the competent authorities did not ensure collection                                      (Case C-410/02)
of the data necessary for the drawing up of the reports in
question.
                                                                                (2003/C 7/30)
( 1) Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused
     by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
     environment of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23).                 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
( 2) Council Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of       Justice of the European Communities on 18 November 2002
     fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to           by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     support fish life (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 1).                             by L. Ström and X. Lewis, acting as agents, with an address for
( 3) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the               service in Luxembourg.
     protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain
     dangerous substances OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43).
( 4) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 48
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1)     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2001/8/EC ( 1) of 8 February 2001
                                                                                replacing Annex I to Council Directive 92/109/EEC on
                                                                                the manufacture and placing on the market of certain
                                                                                substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                                drugs and psychotropic substances or, in any event, by
Cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg by judgment                               failing to notify such provisions to the Commission,
of that Court of 31 October 2002 in the case of José                             Ireland has failed to fully fulfil its obligations under
     Antonio Da Silva Carvalho against Ministère Public                          Article 2 of this directive;
                            (Case C-408/02)                               2)     order Ireland to pay the costs.
                             (2003/C 7/29)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation                 the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg of 31 October 2002, received                 implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
at the Court Registry on 15 November 2002, for a preliminary              period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
ruling in the case of José Antonio Da Silva Carvalho against              expired on 1 March 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
Ministère Public on the following question:                               provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
                                                                          in the conclusions of the Commission.
On a proper interpretation of Article 1(2) and (3) of Council
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 39, 09.02.2001, p. 31.
Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 (1), may a person who
has obtained a driving licence during a brief stay in his country
of origin, at a time when he was already normally resident in


title: Case C-65/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  9 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — EAEC Treaty — Scope — Directive 89/618/Euratom — Health and safety — Ionising radiations — Use of nuclear energy for military purposes — Repairs to a nuclear-powered submarine)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-65/04) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - EAEC Treaty - Scope - Directive 89/618/Euratom - Health and safety - Ionising radiations - Use of nuclear energy for military purposes - Repairs to a nuclear-powered submarine)
   (2006/C 131/15)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Ström van Lier and J. Grunwald, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson and C. Gibbs, Agents, and D. Wyatt QC and S. Tromans, Barrister)

      Intervener: French Republic (represented by R. Abraham, G. de Bergues, E. Puisais and C. Jurgensen, agents)

   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 5(3) of Council Directive 89/618/Euratom of 27 November 1989 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency (OJ 1989 L 357, p. 31)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The application is dismissed;

               2.

               The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay the costs;

               3.

               The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.


title: Case T-369/14: Action brought on 29 May 2014 — Sequoia Capital Operations v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/49

         Action brought on 29 May 2014 — Sequoia Capital Operations v OHIM — Sequoia Capital (SEQUOIA CAPITAL)
   (Case T-369/14)
   2014/C 253/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sequoia Capital Operations LLC (Menlo Park, United States) (represented by: F. Delord and A. Rendle, Solicitors, and G. Hollingworth, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sequoia Capital LLP (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 March 2014 in Case R 1457/2013-4;

               —

               Condemn the Office and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Office and the General Court and pay those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘SEQUOIA CAPITAL’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 7 4 65  347

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Sequoia Capital LLP

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark No 4 1 02  141‘SEQUOIA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 36

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The request was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

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


title: Case C-398/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 July 2015 — Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce v Salvatore Manni
   (Case C-398/15)
   (2015/C 354/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura di Lecce

      Defendant: Salvatore Manni

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the principle of keeping personal data in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed, laid down in Article 6(e) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995, (1) implemented by Legislative Decree No 196 of 30 June 2003, take precedence over and, therefore, preclude the system of disclosure through the commercial registers provided for by the First Council Directive 68/151/EC of 9 March 1968, (2) and by national law in Article 2188 of the Civil Code and Article 8 of Law No 580 of 29 December 1993, in so far as it is a requirement of that system that anyone may, at any time, obtain the data relating to individuals in those registers?

               2)

               Consequently, is it permissible under Article 3 of the First Council Directive 68/151/EC of 9 March 1968 [on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies, within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community], by way of derogation from [the principles] that there should be no time limit and that anyone may consult the data published in the companies register, for the data no longer to be subject to ‘disclosure’, in both those regards, but to be available for only a limited period and only to certain recipients, on the basis of an assessment case by case by the data manager?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).

      (2)  First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ 1968 L 65, p. 8).


title: Case F-23/06: Action brought on  3 March 2006  — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/32

         Action brought on 3 March 2006 — Abad-Villanueva and Others v Commission
   (Case F-23/06)
   (2006/C 108/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Roberto Abad-Villanueva and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The Tribunal is asked to

               —

               annul the decisions notifying the applicants of their change of category, in so far as those decisions allocate a grade lower than that which should have been obtained under the provisions of the Staff Regulations, maintain the mulitiplier coefficient and cancel the applicants' promotion points;

               —

               declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants were all successful candidates in internal competitions for change of category COM/PA/04 and COM/PB/04, in respect of which notices were published before the date on which the new Staff Regulations entered into force. After that date, they were appointed by the defendant to a higher category, but with the same grade, step and multiplier coefficient as before. By contrast, their promotion points were reset at zero.
   In their application, the applicants submit that the appointment decisions infringe Articles 31 and 62 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2(1) and (2) and Article 5(2) of Annex XIII thereto, inasmuch as under those provisions they should have obtained a better grading. The defendant has thus infringed the right of all officials to be recruited to the grade stated in the competition notice, and has discriminated against the applicants as compared with the successful candidates in other competitions giving access to the same categories.
   Furthermore, the applicants submit that there is no legal basis which permits the defendant to continue to apply to them the multiplier coefficients laid down by their former categories or to deprive them of the promotion points they have in their ‘rucksacks’.
   Finally, according to the applicants, the contested decisions also infringe the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, the protection of acquired rights and equal treatment.


title: Case C-3/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 8 January 2009 — Erotic Center BVBA v Belgian State

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 8 January 2009 — Erotic Center BVBA v Belgian State
   (Case C-3/09)
   (2009/C 82/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Gent
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erotic Center BVBA

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Question referred
   Should a cubicle consisting of a lockable space where there is room for only one person and where this person can watch films on a television screen for payment, where this person personally starts the film projection by inserting a coin and has a choice of different films, and during the time paid for can continually modify his/her choice of projected films, be regarded as a ‘cinema’ as referred to in the Sixth Council Directive No 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, Annex H, Category 7 (subsequently: Annex III, No 7, of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006)?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 7/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case T-131/02 (1)
—     annul the implied decision which the appointing auth-                                        (2004/C 7/80)
      ority might be deemed to have taken, rejecting the
      complaint made by the applicant on 29 October 2002,
      by which it requested the annulment of a decision dated                               (Language of the Case: English)
      6 August 2002, refusing to grant a request for assistance
      and compensation made on 24 January 2002 on the basis
      of Article 24 and Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;           By order of 2 October 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     so far as necessary also annul that decision of 6 August            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-131/02:
      2002, against which the complaint of 29 October 2002                Travelex Global and Financial Services Limited and Interpay-
      was made;                                                           ment Services Limited v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities.
—     order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 50 000,
      without prejudice to subsequent increase, reduction or
      alteration;                                                         (1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs and the expenses
      necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings,
      inter alia, accommodation, travel and subsistence
      expenses, and lawyers fees.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-159/02 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 7/81)
The applicant made a request for assistance to the Commission
seeking the opening of an investigation and payment of                                      (Language of the Case: English)
compensation following psychological harassment to which
he was allegedly subjected in Eurostat.
                                                                          By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
In support of his application, the applicant alleges a manifest           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
error of assessment in the decision rejecting his request, a              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the             T-159/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European
duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and, finally, a          Communities.
breach of the principle of equal treatment and the right to
reasonable career expectations.                                           (1) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case T-68/02 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-162/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 7/79)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/82)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Fourth
T-68/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-162/03: Pascal Millot v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.06.2002.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.


title: Case T-47/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2008 — Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Success in internal competitions for change of category under the Staff Regulations — Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitory rules for classification in grade — Changes to levels of hierarchy under the old Staff Regulations — Admissibility — Plea of illegality — Acquired rights — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Principle of sound administration and duty of care)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2008 — Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-47/05) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Success in internal competitions for change of category under the Staff Regulations - Entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitory rules for classification in grade - Changes to levels of hierarchy under the old Staff Regulations - Admissibility - Plea of illegality - Acquired rights - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration and duty of care)
   (2008/C 285/60)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Jean-Marie Bras (Luxembourg), Dominiek Decoutere (Wolwelange, Luxembourg), Armin Hau (Luxembourg), Adolfo Orcajo Teresa (Brussels, Belgium) and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos (Brussels), represented by É. Boigelot, lawyer.

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: initially, L. Knudsen, A. Bencomo Weber and K. Zejdova, and subsequently by L. Knudsen and K. Zejdova)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Sims and I. Sulce, and subsequently I. Sulce and M. Sims, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the individual decisions containing the applicants' classification in the intermediate grade from 1 May 2004 and communicated to them, by letter from the Director General for Personnel of the European Parliament, during the first week of May 2004, and of any act consecutive to and/or relating to those decisions, even ones adopted subsequent to the present action, and an application to order the European Parliament to pay damages and interest.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Finds that there is no need to adjudicate in respect of Angé Serrano and Bras and Orcajo Teresa as regards the first head of claim;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Angé Serrano and Bras and Orcajo;

               4.

               Orders Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana to bear their own costs;

               5.

               Orders the Council to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-568/13: Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (KIMBO)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/24

         Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (KIMBO)
   (Case T-568/13)
   2014/C 24/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 August 2013 given in Cases R 636/2012-4 and R 608/2012-4;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs of 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 word mark ‘KIMBO’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 21, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 420 973

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade marks No 291 655, No 451 559 and No 2 244 563

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-38/09 P: Appeal brought on 29 January 2009 by Mr Ralf Schräder against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2008 in Case T-187/06 Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/17

         Appeal brought on 29 January 2009 by Mr Ralf Schräder against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 November 2008 in Case T-187/06 Ralf Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office
   (Case C-38/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Ralf Schräder (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 18 November 2008 in Case T-187/06;

               —

               Allow the appellant's application for annulment of the decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 2 May 2006 (Reference A003/2004) made in the proceedings at first instance.
               With regard to point 2, in the alternative:

               —

               Refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for fresh judgment.

               —

               Order the CPVO to pay all the costs arising from the present proceedings, the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The object of the present appeal is the judgment of the Court of First Instance by which the appellant's action against the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office concerning the application for Community plant variety rights in respect of the plant variety SUMCOL 01 was dismissed. By that judgment which is subject to the present appeal the Court of First Instance confirmed the decision of the Board of Appeal, according to which the candidate variety was not clearly distinguishable from the reference variety, which was to be regarded as a matter of common knowledge.
   The appellant's first ground of appeal refers to a number of procedural errors. In its review of the decision of the Board of Appeal the Court of First Instance made findings the incorrectness of which is immediately apparent from the pleadings. In addition it distorted facts and evidence, imposed excessive demands with regard to the applicant's submissions, drew contradictory conclusions and infringed the appellant's right to be heard. The Court of First Instance for example ignored large parts of the appellant's submissions and numerous offers of evidence made by him, rejecting them by pointing out that the submissions were too general. The Court of First Instance in so doing also overlooked the fact that it was in part objectively impossible for the appellant to be any ‘more specific’ in his submissions. It thus infringed both the appellant's right to be heard and the principles governing the burden of proof and evidence-gathering. Furthermore the Court of First Instance unlawfully expanded the subject-matter of the appeal proceedings by basing the judgment which is subject to the present appeal on reasoning which was not used either by the Office or by the Board of Appeal.
   By its second ground of appeal the appellant argues that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law when interpreting Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights by regarding the written description of a variety in the academic literature as proof that it was a matter of common knowledge. In addition, the appellant contends that infringements of Article 62 of the abovementioned Regulation and Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office occurred.


title: Case T-400/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v EUIPO — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark CITRUS SATURDAY — Earlier national word mark CITRUS — Late submission of documents — Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Rule 19 and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto v EUIPO — University College London (CITRUS SATURDAY)
   (Case T-400/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark CITRUS SATURDAY - Earlier national word mark CITRUS - Late submission of documents - Discretion conferred by Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 19 and Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2016/C 410/20)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto (Algés, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pita Negrão, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: University College London (London, United Kingdom)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 April 2015 (Case R 2109/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Ms Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto and University College London.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ana Isabel Pinto Eliseu Baptista Lopes Canhoto to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 March 2001 in Case C-276/98: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 12 and 28(2) — Reduced rate)

text:
14.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 200/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      amended by Council Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992
                                                                             supplementing the common system of value added tax and
                                                                             amending Directive 77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates)
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                    (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
                                                                             of: V. Skouris, President of the Second Chamber, acting as
                                                                             President of the Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
                                                                             F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
                          of 8 March 2001
                                                                             Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                             on 8 March 2001, in which it:
in Case C-276/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                                                                             1.   Declares that, by maintaining in force a reduced rate of value
                                                                                added tax of 5 % applicable to transactions concerning the
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth                        goods listed in points 1.8, 2.11 and 3.8 of List I annexed to
  VAT Directive — Articles 12 and 28(2) — Reduced rate)                           the Portuguese VAT Code, respectively covering wines, machines
                                                                                and equipment designed for research into alternative forms of
                                                                                energy, and agricultural tools and utensils, the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12
                           (2001/C 200/01)
                                                                                and 28(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                                17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
                                                                                added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                              Directive 92/77/EEC of 19 October 1992 supplementing the
                                                                                common system of value added tax and amending Directive
                                                                                77/388/EEC (approximation of VAT rates);
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           2.   Dismisses the remainder of the action;
                                                                             3.   Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
In Case C-276/98: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. Figueira and E. Traversa) v Portuguese Republic
(Agents: L. Fernandes, Â. Seiça Neves and T. Lemos) —
application for a declaration that, by maintaining in force or
by introducing legislative provisions applying a reduced rate
of value added tax of 5 % to the importation and supply of                   (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
certain goods and to certain services, set out in List I annexed
to the Portuguese VAT Code, the Portuguese Republic had
failed, to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 and 28(2) of
the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on
the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as


title: Case C-347/07: Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-347/07) (1)

   (2008/C 171/53)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


title: Case T-383/02: Action brought on 13 December 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
22.2.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 44/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           European Communities on 13 December 2002 by G.D. Searle
                                                                          LLC, Illinois, United States of America, represented by Pro-
                                                                          fessor W. A. Hoyng, lawyer.
The applicant in the present action is the representative of
Seven Stars Pictures Italia (‘SSP’), a company with its head
office in Rome and which, on 13 August 1977, applied, in the
context of the Phare-Tacis Joint Venture Programme, for a                 A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
financial contribution towards the incorporation of an Italo-             was PHYTO-ESP S.L.
Rumanian company (a joint venture project with Phoenix
European S.r.l.). It is recorded that a contribution of
EUR 81 327, together with a further EUR 4 099 in respect of
the pre-feasibility stage, was granted, whereupon an advance              The applicant claims that the Court should:
of EUR 28 311 was paid to SSP and the corresponding
contract was signed. At the end of the first phase of ‘Facility 2’
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
the remainder of the contribution was paid over.
                                                                                OHIM of 1 October 2002 (Case R 627/2001-1);
According to the applicant, the relevant staff of the Com-
mission had continuously assured the abovementioned com-                  —     order the OHIM to compensate Searle for the costs of
pany that everything was in order and that all that needed to                   these proceedings.
be done was to calculate the precise amount still owing.
However, on 30 October 2001, the Commission adopted the
contested decision, refusing the joint venture company the
contribution granted by the joint venture programme.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its claims, the applicant argues that insufficient
reasons were given and that the Commission made an error in
its evaluation of the facts.                                              Registered Community           The word mark CELEBREX
                                                                          trade mark against             (No 852 372) for certain goods in
                                                                          which a request for dec-       class 5 (a.o. pharmaceuticals in
The statement of reasons given for the contested decision is              laration on invalidity has     the nature of anti-inflammatory
too concise. Mention is made of a divergence between the                  been introduced:               analgesics)
project as approved and the joint venture ultimately set up,
but no mention is made of any actual omission or discrepancy.
                                                                          Applicant for the Com-         G.D. Searle LLC
                                                                          munity trade mark:
As regards the assertion that no documents are extant that
prove that the joint venture in question became operational,
                                                                          Applicant for the declar-      PHYTO-ESP S.L.
and the allegation that no employees were even engaged and
                                                                          ation of invalidity of the
no turnover achieved, the applicant submits that it has shown
                                                                          Community trade mark:
that the joint venture is operational, that 12 professionals have
been retained and that business has been commenced, in
particular in the field of professional training.                         Trade mark or sign of          The national word mark CEREB-
                                                                          the applicant for declar-      RESP for certain goods in class 5
                                                                          ation of invalidity:           (pharmaceutical products a.o.)
The applicant claims compensation of the damages it has
suffered as a result of the contested decision.
                                                                          Decision of the Cancel-        Declaration of invalidity of the
                                                                          lation Division:               Community trade mark CELEB-
                                                                                REX
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the appeal by
Action brought on 13 December 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC                     Appeal:                        G.D. Searle LLC
against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                              Market                                      Grounds of claim:              Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that
                         (Case T-383/02)                                                                 there is no likelihood of confusion
                                                                                between the marks ...
                         (2003/C 44/74)
                  (Language of the case: English)                         (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2003 in Case T-59/99: Ventouris Group Enterprises SA v Commission of the European Communities (Competition Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investigations carried out at company premises other than those of the company to which the investigation decision is addressed Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Price-fixing — Proof of infringement Error of assessment of the facts — Fines — Proportionality — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
C 71/20                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.3.2004
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 11 December 2003
                      of 11 December 2003
                                                                          in Case T-59/99: Ventouris Group Enterprises SA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-56/99: Marlines SA v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Competition Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 — Investi-
                                                                          gations carried out at company premises other than those of
                                                                          the company to which the investigation decision is addressed
(Competition Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                          Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) —
Article 81(1) EC) — Price fixing — Proof of participation in
                                                                          Price-fixing — Proof of infringement Error of assessment
   a cartel — Duration — Error of assessment of the facts)
                                                                          of the facts — Fines — Proportionality — Mitigating
                                                                                circumstances)
                          (2004/C 71/34)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/35)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                          In Case T-59/99, Ventouris Group Enterprises SA, established
                                                                          in Panama (Panama), represented by M. Proestou, M. Velma-
In Case T-56/99, Marlines SA, established in Monrovia (Libe-              chou and E. Kinini, lawyers, with an address for service in
ria), represented by D.G. Papatheofanous, lawyer, with an                 Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    (Agents: R. Lyal, Triantafyllou and A. Oikonomou): Appli-
European Communities (Agents: Triantafyllou and R. Lyal):                 cation for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/271/EC
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/                    of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant               Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek Ferries) (OJ 1999
to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466 Greek Ferries) (OJ              L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
1999 L 109, p. 24), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),          composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas and
composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-Valdecasas and              J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,
P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar,          has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:
has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it:
                                                                          1.    Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Ventouris Group
                                                                                Enterprises SA at EUR 252 500;
1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
2.    Orders Marlines SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by
      the Commission, including both parties’ costs in the interlocu-     3.    Orders Ventouris Group Enterprises SA to bear its own costs
      tory proceedings.                                                         and to pay three quarters of the Commission’s costs, including
                                                                                its costs of the interlocutory proceedings, and orders the
                                                                                Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.


title: Case C-223/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Casertana Costruzioni Srl v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.
   (Case C-223/16)
   (2016/C 251/12)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Casertana Costruzioni Srl

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Provveditorato Interregionale per le opere pubbliche della Campania e del Molise, Azienda Regionale Campana per la Difesa del Suolo — A.R.CA.DI.S.

      Question referred

   Do Article 47(2) and Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, (1) as replaced by Article 63 of Directive 2014/24/EU, (2) preclude national rules which exclude, or may be construed as excluding, any possibility for an economic operator, that is to say a tenderer, of appointing another undertaking to replace the undertaking originally relied upon as ‘auxiliary undertaking’ where the latter no longer has the capacity to participate or that capacity is diminished, thus resulting in the economic operator being excluded from the tendering procedure for reasons that are neither objectively nor subjectively imputable to it?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

      (2)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case T-491/15: Action brought on 25 August 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ConnectedWork)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/44

         Action brought on 25 August 2015 — Volkswagen v OHIM (ConnectedWork)
   (Case T-491/15)
   (2015/C 337/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (Represented by: U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ConnectedWork’ — Application for registration No 13 011 267

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 June 2015 in Case R 160/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-292/09: Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Mugraby v Council and Commission

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/8

         Action brought on 27 July 2009 — Mugraby v Council and Commission
   (Case T-292/09)
   2009/C 244/13
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Muhamad Mugraby (represented by: J. Regouw and L. Spigt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               1.

               find that the Commission has failed to act on:

                           (i)

                           the applicant’s request that the Commission submit a recommendation to the Council regarding the suspension of Community assistance for Lebanon as set forth in Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1638/2006, such measures being both required and available under the said regulation;

                           (ii)

                           the applicant’s request that the Commission, as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, suspend the implementation of these programs pending the resolution of Lebanon’s continuing violation of fundamental rights, more specifically those of the applicant;

               2.

               find that the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, has failed to act on the applicant’s request to invite the Commission to recommend that the Council take specific and effective measures regarding Union assistance for Lebanon under the Association Agreement between Lebanon and the Community, in order to fulfil the parties' obligations under the Agreement;

               3.

               find that the Community, the Commission, in its function as guardian of the Treaties and as the agency directly responsible for implementing the various Union assistance programs for Lebanon, and the Council, in its function as part of the EU-Lebanon Association Council, have incurred non-contractual liability for damages suffered by the applicant as a result of their consistent failure from December 2002 onwards to effectively utilise the available resources and instruments towards effective enforcement of the human rights clause in the Association Agreement;

               4.

               order the Commission, in part as reparation in kind, to propose to the Council the suspension of the EU-Lebanon Association Agreement, pending the resolution of Lebanon’s failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to the applicant;

               5.

               order the Commission to limit the performance of current assistance programs (which are carried out and/or supervised by the Commission) to those programs that are aimed specifically at promoting fundamental rights and which do not constitute financial aid to the Lebanese authorities, pending the resolution of Lebanon’s failure to comply with Article 2 of the Association Agreement with regard to the applicant;

               6.

               order the Council to invite the Commission to make a recommendation as outlined under (4) above, and to act through the institutions of the Association Agreement to the same end;

               7.

               order the defendants to compensate the applicant’s material and moral damages, in an amount to be fixed ex aequo et bono at not less than EUR 5 000 000 and to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, Dr Muhammad Mugraby, a Lebanese human rights lawyer and activist, claims to have suffered persecution, harassment and denial of justice, by the Lebanese authorities, because of his work in defence of human rights. He has allegedly been denied the right to practise law and has been deprived from a number of fundamental rights, such as the right to private property, to a fair hearing and the access to an effective judicial remedy.
   The applicant submits that on the basis of Article 2 of the EU-Lebanon Association agreement (1), the Community should take reasonable care to prevent damages being caused by the Lebanon against individuals such as the applicant, by imposing restrictive measures against the Lebanese authorities, such as the suspension of the Association Agreement. In fact, the applicant claims that the benefits made available to Lebanon under the Association Agreement are conditional on compliance with the obligation to respect fundamental human rights and that in the event of persistent breaches of human rights, Article 2 of the Agreement serves to enable the Community to take restrictive measures against Lebanon in proportion to the gravity of the breaches. Meanwhile, the applicant claims that to this date, the Community has failed to exert any effective pressure on the Lebanese authorities to take their obligations to uphold human rights.
   The applicant contends that he has formally called upon the defendants to act on 29 April 2009, while the defendants denied its request by letters of 26 May 2009 and 29 May 2009. The applicant relies on the human rights clause contained in Article 2 of the Association Agreement in order to establish the unlawfulness of the Commission’s and the Council’s consistent failure to effectively enforce the human rights clause against Lebanon.
   Moreover, the applicant claims that the defendants have violated general principles of Community law, including the obligation to promote respect of its fundamental rights, which aim to protect the rights of individuals. He submits that there is a direct causal link between the defendant’s breach of their obligation and the damages that he has suffered and that he is thus entitled to compensation. According to the applicant, the Lebanese authorities would have most likely ceased their unlawful harassment towards the applicant, had they been faced with the alternative of losing access to Community assistance. Hence, he submits that the damages amounting to loss of income suffered by the applicant would have probably not occurred to the same extent, had the defendants acted in a timely and appropriate manner.

      (1)  Interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community, of the one part, and the Republic of Lebanon, of the other part (OJ 2002 L 262, p. 2)


title: Case T-91/07: Action brought on 19 march 2007 — WWF-UK v Council

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/30

         Action brought on 19 march 2007 — WWF-UK v Council
   (Case T-91/07)
   (2007/C 117/47)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: WWF-UK Ltd (Godalming, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Sands, QC, J. Simor, Barrister, R. Stein, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the TACs adopted in Council Regulation No 41/2006 in respect of cod in the zones covered by Council Regulation No 423/2004 establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks;

               —

               that the above provisions should nevertheless continue to have effect until replaced by a new measure;

               —

               that the Council pay the costs of this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application is brought under Article 230 EC in respect of the total allowable catches (‘TACs’) for 2007 adopted by the Council under Regulation No 41/2006 (1) (‘the TACs regulation’) for cod in zones covered by Council Regulation No 423/2004 establishing measures for the recovery of cod stocks (2) (‘the Cod Recovery Plan’), following the Commission's proposal of 5 December 2006 (3).
   In summary, the applicant submits that the Council has committed a manifest error of law in failing to adopt zero TACs, which it claims is, according to the relevant scientific advice, necessary if stocks are to increase from current levels, where they are at serious risk of collapse and ever return to safe biological limits:
   First, the applicant claims that the relevant TACs are unlawful as they have not been set in accordance with the requirements of the Cod Recovery Plan. Moreover, according to the applicant's submissions, both the Council and the Commission appear to have relied on Article 20 of the Regulation No 2371/2002 (4) (‘the 2002 regulation’) in the adoption of the relevant TACs rather than on the Cod Recovery Plan.
   Second, the applicant contends that the relevant TACs are unlawful because they do not comply with the precautionary principle as required by the Cod Recovery Plan, Articles 5(3), 4 and 2(1) of the 2002 Regulation, the Common Fisheries Policy, Article 174 EC and Articles 5 and 6 of the UN 1995 Agreement.
   Third, the applicant claims that the adoption of the relevant TACs is irrational in that the latter have been set at a level where, according to all scientific evidence available, the stocks will either remain at levels where they are at serious risk of collapse or collapse.
   Fourth, according to the applicant, the Council misused its powers by adopting TACs at levels intended to meet political and economic objectives, rather than at the levels necessary to meet the relevant objective of the Cod Recovery Plan, which is to increase cod stocks within one year, or the shortest period of time thereafter, above levels where they are at serious risk of collapse.
   Furthermore, the applicant contends that should the Cod Recovery Plan not allow for the setting of a zero TAC, the plan in itself would be unlawful since it would not comply with the precautionary principle.
   In addition, the applicant claims that the Council erred in law in not treating cod stocks in ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea) zone VII(d) as covered by the Cod Recovery Plan.

      (1)  Council Regulation No 41/2006 of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required (OJ 2007 L 15, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 70, p. 8.

      (3)  COM (2006) 774.

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).


title: Case T-846/14: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKeY) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark SPOKeY — Earlier Community word mark SPOOKY — Declaration of partial invalidity — Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Examination of evidence — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2016 — Spokey v OHIM — Leder Jaeger (SPOKeY)
   (Case T-846/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark SPOKeY - Earlier Community word mark SPOOKY - Declaration of partial invalidity - Article 53(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Examination of evidence - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 136/46)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Spokey sp. z o.o. (Katowice, Poland) (represented by: B. Matusiewicz-Kulig, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: K. Zajfert and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leder Jaeger GmbH (Siegen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 October 2014 (Case R 525/2014-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Leder Jaeger GmbH and Spokey sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Spokey sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-248/98 P: NV Koninklĳke KNP BT v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons — Power of unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
27.1.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 28/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                              (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 November 2000
                                                                                of 16 November 2000
in Case C-248/98 P: NV Koninklijke KNP BT v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)                          in Case C-279/98 P: Cascades SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
(now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons —                     (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
                 Power of unlimited jurisdiction)                           (now Article 81(1) EC) — Liability for the infringement
                                                                            — Fines — Statement of reasons — Principle of non-
                            (2001/C 28/15)                                                               discrimination)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/16)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-248/98 P: NV Koninklijke KNP BT, established in                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Amsterdam, Netherlands, represented by T.R. Ottervanger, of                                      in the European Court Reports)
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Loeff, Claeys and Verbeke, 56-58 Rue Charles
Martel, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                   In Case C-279/98 P: Cascades SA, established in Bagnolet
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,                        (France), represented by J.-Y. Art, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-309/94                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt
KNP BT v Commission [1998] ECR II-1007, seeking to have                     and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, appeal against the
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings                 judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
being, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R.                   Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of
Lyal and W. Wils), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A.               14 May 1998 in Case T-308/94 Cascades v Commission
La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporte-                [1998] ECR II-925, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
ur), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,               the other party to the proceedings being, Commission of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 European Communities (Agents: Richard Lyal and E. Gippini
on 16 November 2000, in which it:                                           Fournier) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La
                                                                            Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, President
1.    Sets aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment of       of the Chamber, P. Jann, and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
      the Court of First Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-309/94           Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
      KNP BT v Commission;                                                  on 16 November 2000, in which it:
2.    Sets the amount of the fine imposed on NV Koninkliijke KNP            1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May
      BT by Article 3 of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of                         1998 in Case T-308/94 Cascades v Commission in so far as
      13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the               it attributes to Cascades SA responsibility for the infringements
      EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard) at EUR 2 600 000;                     committed by Van Duffel NV and Djupafors AB during the
                                                                                period from mid-1986 until February 1989 inclusive;
3.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
4.    Orders NV Koninklijke KNP BT to bear its own costs and to             2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
      pay two thirds of the costs of the Commission of the European
      Communities relating to the proceedings before the Court of           3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
      Justice;
5.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear             4.    Orders that the costs are reserved.
      one third of its own costs relating to the proceedings before the
      Court of Justice.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
( 1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.


title: Case T-552/11: Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission

text:
               7.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/19

         Action brought on 24 October 2011 — Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro v Commission
   (Case T-552/11)
   2012/C 6/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Ginaikologiko kai Khirourgiko Kentro A.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action;

               —

               annul the contested debit note;

               —

               take account of the applicant’s submissions if it holds that the amounts as accepted by the applicant in its memorandum of 17 June 2011 are to be refunded;

               —

               annul the contested measure also in so far as it relates to the third instalment which has not been paid;

               —

               set off any amounts that are to be refunded against the amounts never paid by way of the third instalment, which has remained outstanding for five years;

               —

               hold that the present action constitutes an event interrupting the limitation period for the claim for payment of the third instalment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision which is contained in debit note No 3241109207 of 9 September 2011 and relates to the applicant’s participation in the ‘WARD IN HAND’ research project No 510743.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law:

               —

               misuse of power by the European Commission, in so far as it proceeded to a legally fictional equation of the non-delivery of time sheets with the non-delivery of items to be delivered, as conduct in breach of contract;

               —

               absence of a statement of reasons in the contested debit note and infringement of the general principle of law that an unfavourable measure must incorporate a statement of reasons in order for the legality of the reasoning to be reviewed, since the contested debit note does not state any reasons;

               —

               failure to take account of the evidence;

               —

               error of law and failure to state reasons, because the defendant took no account of the applicant’s actual submissions and rejected them in a wrongful manner and without stating reasons;

               —

               infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, because the defendant wrongfully failed to pay the applicant the final instalment of the programme and nullified all its research work, five years after the programme’s closure.


11.4.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 113/21
the Basic Regulation, in particular with respect to the            Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
potential impact of definitive anti-dumping measures on            removal from the register of Case T-78/94: Hermann
importers/retailers and consumers. The procedure within            Cordes v. Council of the European Union and
the meaning of Article 21 requires an active analysis of           Commission of the European Communities.
the Community interest issues, at least to the extent that
these are raised by interested parties. Once legitimate            (1) OJ C 103, 11.4.1994.
points are raised in this context, the Commission is bound
either to agree and make recommendations accordingly to
the Council for its definitive measures, or to provide a
reasonable explanation of its decision to the contrary.
Neither of these steps was taken in this case, contrary to
the legitimate expectations of the applicants.                           Removal from the register of Case T-192/95 (1)
Finally, the applicants submit that the Council's decision                                 (98/C 113/52)
to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on top of the
existing quantitative restrictions on imports of the product                      (Language of the case: English)
concerned from two (India and Pakistan) of the three
exporting countries is contrary to the principle of                By order of 5 February 1998 the President of the Third
proportionality.                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                   removal from the register of Case T-192/95: Hitachi Ltd,
                                                                   Matsushita Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric
                                                                   Corporation, NEC Corporation, Oki Electric Industry Co.
                                                                   Ltd, Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd, Sharp Corporation and
      Removal from the register of Case T-191/93 (1)               Toshiba Corporation v. Commission of the European
                        (98/C 113/49)                              Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case T-191/93: Albrecht Graf
Brockdorff-Ahlefeldt v. Council of the European Union.                   Removal from the register of Case T-215/95 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 113/53)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 2 February 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                         T-224/93 (1)                              removal from the register of Case T-215/95: Telecom Italia
                        (98/C 113/50)                              SpA v. Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)                      (1) OJ C 46, 17.2.1996.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Joined Cases T-207/93 and
T-224/93: Hans-Erdmann von Flotow and Gunda                              Removal from the register of Case T-197/96 (1)
Bergmann v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                                (98/C 113/54)
(1) OJ C 270, 19.10.1992.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
       Removal from the register of Case T-78/94 (1)               Case T-197/96: Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano
                                                                   Reggiano and Latteria Sociale Spadarotta soc. coop. arl v.
                        (98/C 113/51)
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
By order of 30 January 1998 the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First


title: Case T-515/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — English Cut (The English Cut) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark The English Cut — Earlier EU figurative and national word marks El Corte Inglés — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Reputation)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — English Cut (The English Cut)
   (Case T-515/12) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark The English Cut - Earlier EU figurative and national word marks El Corte Inglés - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Reputation))
   (2016/C 462/15)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: The English Cut, SL (Malaga, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 September 2012 (Case R 1673/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between El Corte Inglés and The English Cut.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders El Corte Inglés, SA to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-113/04: Action brought on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic Container Line AB, Grupo TMM SA De CV, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, P & Nedlloyd Container Line Limited and Sea-Land Service, Inc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/45

         Action brought on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic Container Line AB, Grupo TMM SA De CV, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, P&O Nedlloyd Container Line Limited and Sea-Land Service, Inc against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-113/04)
   (2004/C 118/98)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 March 2004 by Atlantic Container Line AB, Gothenburg (Sweden), Grupo TMM SA De CV, Tlalpan (Mexico), Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, Seoul (South Korea), Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd, Seoul (South Korea), Mediterranean Shipping Co SA, Geneva (Switzerland), Neptune Orient Lines Ltd, Singapore (Republic of Singapore), Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, Levington (United Kingdom), P&O Nedlloyd Container Line Limited, London, and Sea-Land Service, Inc, Jacksonville (USA), represented by J. Pheasant, M. Levitt and K. Nicholson, Solicitors.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               (a)

               order the Commission to pay to the applicants the sums set out in Annex A.1 to this application;

               (b)

               order the Commission to pay to the applicants interest at the rate of the European Central Bank for capital refinancing operations plus 2 %, or at such other rate as the Court considers to be just in all the circumstances, payable in relation to the period from the date on which each individual applicant's respective liability for costs in respect of its bank guarantee ceased (as set out in Annex A.1) until the date of the Court's judgment on this application;

               (c)

               order the Commission to pay to the applicants interest at such rate as the Court considers to be just in all the circumstances on such amounts as the Court orders to be paid under sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) above as from the date of the Court's judgment in this case until payment thereof;

               (d)

               order that the decision contained in or evidenced by the Commission's letter of 6 January 2004 be annulled;

               (e)

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   On 16 December 1998, the Commission imposed fines on the applicants in respect of two infringements of Article 82 EC. By judgment of 30 September 2003 (1), The Court of First Instance annulled those fines in full.
   The applicants allege that they have suffered considerable monetary loss as a direct result of the Commission's unlawful imposition of the fines. According to the applicants, this loss takes the form of the costs incurred by the applicants in providing bank guarantees in lieu of payment of the fines unlawfully imposed and in maintaining those guarantees in force from the date on which they were first obtained until the date of their cancellation. The payment of a sum equal to such costs is necessary in order to restore the applicants to the legal position in which they would have been, had the Commission not unlawfully imposed such fines.
   The applicant seeks an order requiring the Commission to take the ‘necessary measures’ required by Article 233 EC to comply with the above-mentioned judgment, by paying each of the applicants an amount equivalent to the costs incurred by each applicant respectively in the provision of its bank guarantee, together with the appropriate interest.

      (1)  Judgment of 30.9.2003 in joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98–T-214/98, Atlantic Container Line and others/Commission (not yet published in European Court Reports).


title: Case C-50/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maija T.I. Nikula (Social security — Sickness and maternity benefits — Calculation of contributions — Regulation No 1408/71 — Right of a Member State to include, in the basis for calculating contributions, the pensions or annuities paid by an institution of another Member State — Pensioner entitled to pensions and annuities payable under the legislation of two Member States)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Maija T.I. Nikula
   (Case C-50/05) (1)

   (Social security - Sickness and maternity benefits - Calculation of contributions - Regulation No 1408/71 - Right of a Member State to include, in the basis for calculating contributions, the pensions or annuities paid by an institution of another Member State - Pensioner entitled to pensions and annuities payable under the legislation of two Member States)
   (2006/C 224/17)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Korkein hallinto-oikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maija T.I. Nikula
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 33(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) — Contributions for sickness and maternity benefits payable by a recipient of pensions received under the legislation of two Member States who resides in one of those Member States and is entitled to benefits solely from the institution of that Member State — Whether pensions or annuities received from the other Member State are to be taken into account when calculating contributions
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 33(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, does not preclude, when the basis is determined for calculating sickness insurance contributions applied in the Member State of residence of the recipient of pensions paid by the institutions of that Member State responsible for the payment of benefits under Article 27 of that regulation, the inclusion in that basis of calculation, in addition to the pensions paid in the Member State of residence, also of pensions paid by the institutions of another Member State, provided that the sickness insurance contributions do not exceed the amount of pensions paid in the State of residence.

               2)

               However, Article 39 EC precludes the amount of pensions received from institutions of another Member State from being taken into account if contributions have already been paid in that other State out of the income from work received in that State. It is for the persons concerned to prove that the earlier contributions were in fact paid.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-659/11: Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/18

         Order of the General Court of 27 January 2014 — Commission v OHIM — European Alliance for Solutions and Innovations (EASI European Alliance Solutions Innovations)
   (Case T-659/11) (1)

   2014/C 78/36
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 58, 25.2.2012.