title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura, Rome, by order of that court of 4 April 1996 in the case of Antonio Stinco against Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) (Case C-132/96)

text:
No C 180/22             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 6 . 96
Is the stamp tax having the characteristics mentioned above                Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) on the
to be regarded as a turnover tax in the terms of Article 33 of             interprétation of Artide 46 ( 2 ) ( a ) of Régulation ( EEC ) No
the said Sixth Directive ( ! ), subject to a possible derogation           1408/71 (') in order to ascertain :
under Article 378 of the Act annexed to the Treaty of
Accession ( 2 ) or any other Community legal provision ?                  whether, in order to determine the amount of an Italian pro
                                                                          rata pension , the INPS ( national social security institution )
C ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              must base its calculations on the ' notional ' or theoretical
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          pension alone or on the ' notional ' or theoretical pension
      turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax : uniform          supplemented to meet the statutory minimun .
      basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ).
( 2 ) Documents concerning the accession of the Portuguese                 (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
      Republic to the European Communities , OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 .
      1985 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello,
                                                                          Ancona, by order of that court of 11 April 1996 in the case
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                      of Finanze dello Stato against Foods Import SRL
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 8 February                                            ( Case C-133 /96 )
 1996      in   the   case     of    Carlos   Mora      Romero    v.
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/48 )
             Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz
                          ( Case C-131 /96 )                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            ( 96/C 180/46 )                               European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
                                                                           ( Court of Appeal ) Ancona , of 11 April 19 96 , which was
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 , for a
European Communities by an order of the                                   preliminary ruling in the Case of Finanze dello Stato against
Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 8 February                Foods Import SRL on the following questions :
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 24 April
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Carlos Maria               1 . Is the list given in Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
Romero v . Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz on the                       3796/81 of 29 December 1981 ( 1 ) ( and repeated in
following question :                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3333/83 of 4 November
                                                                                1983 ( 2 )), Annex VI to which reproduces Chapter 3 of
                                                                                the Common Customs Tariff in which cod appears
Are Articles 6 , 48 and 51 of the Treaty establishing the                       under heading 03.02 A. I and fillets of cod under
European Community and Article 7 of Council Regulation                          heading 03.02 . A. II, supplemented by the mention
( EEC ) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers                           Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac,
within the Community ( 1 ) to be interpreted as permitting the                  exhaustive or illustrative and, accordingly, is the dried
legislature of a Member State to extend the period for                          cod scientifically classified as Molva molva covered by
drawing orphan's benefit beyond the age of 25 years only in                     that list ?
respect of those persons whose education and training has
been prolonged beyond the age of 25 years through
fulfilment of the duty of military service in accordance with             2 . Does Article 20 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
the laws of the State ?                                                         3796/81 , suspending certain Common Customs Tariff
                                                                                duties , apply only to the three sub-species of cod referred
                                                                                to in Question 1 ( Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida,
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 .                         Gadus ogac) to the exclusion of other sub-species such
                                                                                as Molva ?
                                                                          3 . In any event, since the Court of Justice established by its
                                                                                judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 that,
                                                                                where the three requirements specified in Article 5 ( 2 ) of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura, Rome, by                     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 ( 3 ) are satisfied ,
order of that court of 4 April 1996 in the case of Antonio                      debtors are entitled to non-recovery of duties not
Stinco against Istituto Nazionale délia Previdenza Sociale                      collected, in what circumstances is that provision to be
                                 ( INPS )                                       applied, that is to say, what conduct on the part of the
                         ( Case C-132/96 )                                      creditor and the debtor is to be regarded as decisive with
                                                                                respect to the right to non-recovery of duties not
                            ( 96/C 180/47 )                                     collected ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    (') OJ No L 379 , 31 . 12 . 1981 , p . 1 .
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              ( 2 ) OJ No L 313 , 14 . 11 . 1983 , p . 1 .
( Magistrate's Court ) Rome, of 4 April 1 996 , which was                 (■') OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Antonio Stinco against


title: Case T-305/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/41

      Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)
      (Case T-305/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/80)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy (Westerburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Loos, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DIPTYQUE SAS (Paris, France)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2010 in Case R 1217/2009-1 or amend it in so far as the applicant was unsuccessful;

                  —

                  order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark DYNIQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 41 and 44.

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DIPTYQUE SAS

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark DIPTYQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 4 and 35

         Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed in part.

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-24/01 P: Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 108/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted                 Pleas in law and main arguments
      as meaning that the application of the system introduced
      by that legislation excludes the allocation and official
      notification of individual reference quantities for pro-           —     The Court of First Instance manifestly erred in law by
      ducers or does it exclude the official redistribution among              having regard exclusively to the conditions of free
      its producers by the Member State of the global quantity                 competition: where contracts are concluded at the level
      which that State is guaranteed?                                          of prices on the world market, the burden of proof with
                                                                               regard to free competition must be less onerous. There is
(4) May Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3950/92 be                      no reason to adhere to the clearly formalistic rule
      interpreted as meaning that no official notification of                  requiring competition between at least three undertakings
      individual reference quantities need be given to producers,              independent of each other if that will not lead to markedly
      or does the allocation of an individual reference quantity               different results. The Court of First Instance therefore
      exclude individual notification to those producers?                      displayed an erroneous conception of the law in failing
                                                                               to attach primary importance to the condition relating to
                                                                               the world market price, or at least in not allowing that
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                                condition to influence its assessment of the burden of
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                                 proof with regard to free competition.
                                                                         —     The Court of First Instance displayed an erroneous
                                                                               conception of the law in ruling that the principle of free
                                                                               competition was not complied with at the time when the
                                                                               riders to the contracts were entered into:
Appeal brought on 22 January 2001 by Glencore Grain                            —     Community law does not require three offers to be
Ltd against the judgment delivered on 8 November                                     made in respect of each contract concluded;
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases
T-485/93, T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glen-
core Grain Ltd and the Commission of the European                              —     in arriving at its conclusion concerning the require-
                          Communities                                                ment of free competition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                                laid down a rule lacking any foundation as regards
                                                                                the objective and purpose of both Council Decision
                        (Case C-24/01 P)                                             91/658/EEC (1) (‘the Decision’) and Commission
                                                                                Regulation (EEC) No 1897/92 (2) (‘the Regulation’).
                                                                                Neither of those acts requires, for the purposes of
                        (2001/C 108/06)                                              approval pursuant to Article 4 of the Regulation,
                                                                                that each contract must involve offers from at least
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                               two other independent suppliers which must be
2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                         comparable to the offer accepted;
ties (Second Chamber) in Joined Cases T-485/93, T-491/93,
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Glencore Grain Ltd and the
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                —     without making any express statement to that effect,
M.-J. Jonczy and H. van V1iet) was brought before the Court                          the Court of First Instance nevertheless appears to
of Justice of the European Communities on 22 January 2001                            require each supplier to comply with the obligation
by Glencore Grain Ltd, represented by P.V.F. Bos and J.G.A. van                      imposed on the Russian authorities, in their capacity
Zuuren, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                        as the recipient of the loan, requiring consideration,
the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue Carlo Hammer.                                       ‘upon being officially notified ... of the new contrac-
                                                                                tual terms ..., [of] the responses, favourable or
                                                                                unfavourable, given by at least three independent
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                          undertakings’. That rule was laid down solely in
                                                                                Annex 2-A to the loan agreement concluded by the
—     rule that, in its judgment of 8 November 2000, the                             Community. That subsequent shifting of obligations
      Court of First Instance infringed Community law and/or                         from one party to the other is wrong in law, since
      procedural rules;                                                              rules of which third parties (such as Glencore in the
                                                                                present case) are unaware cannot be invoked against
—     rule that the Court of First Instance should have awarded                      those third parties;
      the damages applied for, and accordingly refer the
      case back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration, or alternatively itself award the appellant               —     the Court of First Instance erred in its determination
      the damages sought;                                                            of the case by failing to take into account the
                                                                                Commission’s own administrative practice and the
—     allow, on appeal, the claims made by the appellant.                            obligations flowing therefrom;
 ---pagebreak--- 7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 108/5
      —      the Court of First Instance displayed an incorrect         —     refer the application for damages back to the Court of
             conception of the law by incorrectly weighing the                First Instance in order for the case to be argued and for
             evidence adduced with regard to free competition.                that application to be allowed;
             The Court of First Instance should have found that
             the Commission had obtained evidence of 7 written          —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
             offers and that 5 of those 7 offers led to the                   action and all the costs incurred by the appellant.
             conclusion of separate contracts.
—     Infringement of Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure           Pleas in law and main arguments
      of the Court of First Instance, on account of the failure
      by that Court to take evidence of its own motion from             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
      witnesses.                                                        Case C-24/01 P (1).
—     The Court of First Instance should have awarded the
                                                                        (1) See p. 4 of this Official Journal.
      damages applied for, and the case should therefore be
      referred back to the Court of First Instance for further
      consideration; alternatively, the Court of Justice should
      itself award those damages to the appellant.
(1) OJ 1991 L 362, p. 89.
(2) OJ 1992 L 191, p. 22.                                               Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                (Case C-30/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/08)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Appeal brought on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 January
Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on                 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
8 November 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court                      represented by Mr R. Wainwright, acting as Agent, with an
of First Instance of the European Communities in Cases                  address for service in Luxembourg.
T-494/93 and T-61/98 between Compagnie Continentale
(France) and the Commission of the European Communi-                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                ties
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing in respect of Gibraltar to adopt the
                        (Case C-25/01 P)                                      laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary
                                                                              to comply with Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June
                                                                              1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and
                         (2001/C 108/07)                                      administrative provisions in relation to the classification,
                                                                              packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1) as
                                                                              amended by Directive 88/302/EEC (2), Directive
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 November                        91/410/EEC (3), Directive 92/32/EEC (4), Directive 92/69/
2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                  EEC (5), Directive 93/21/EEC (6), Directive 93/67/EEC (7)
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-485/93,                            Directive 93/72/EEC (8), Directive 93/101/EC (9), Directive
T-491/93, T-494/93 and T-61/98 between L. Dreyfus & Cie                       93/105/EC (10), Directive 94/69/EC (11), Directive 96/54/
S.A., Glencore Grain Ltd, Compagnie Continentale (France)                     EC (12) and Directive 97/69/EC (13), Council Directive
and the Commission of the European Communities was                            87/18/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the harmonisation
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  of the laws, regulations and administrative practice
ties on 19 January 2001 by Compagnie Continentale (France),                   relating to the application of good laboratory practice
represented by P.V.F. Bos and P. Chabrier, with an address for                and verification of their application for tests on chemical
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 Rue                     substances (14), Council Directive 93/12/EEC of 23 March
Carlo Hammer.                                                                 1993 relating to the sulphur content of certain liquid
                                                                              fuels (15) as amended by Directive 98/70/EC (16), Council
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   Directive 79/113/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
                                                                              approximation of the laws in the Member States relating
                                                                              to the determination of the noise emission of construction
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                plant and equipment (17) as amended by Directive
      8 November 2000;                                                        81/1051/EEC (18) and Directive 85/405/EEC(19), Council
                                                                              Directive 84/533/EEC of 17 September 1984 on the
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 1 April 1993;                        approximation of the laws in the Member States relating


title: Case C-100/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Legislation on the keeping and marketing of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/17

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-100/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Protection of species of wild fauna and flora - Legislation on the keeping and marketing of birds born and bred in captivity legally placed on the market in other Member States)
   2009/C 267/29
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and R. Troosters, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne, acting as Agent, G. Van Calster, avocat)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC — Protection of species of wild fauna and flora — Prohibition to keep certain birds legally brought to the market in other Member States

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC by

                           —

                           making the import, keeping and sale of specimens of birds born and bred in captivity that were brought to the market legally in other Member States subject to restrictive conditions that require the market participants concerned to alter the marking of the birds so as to comply with the special Belgian legislative requirements, and failing to recognise the marking accepted in other Member States or certificates issued in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein; and

                           —

                           denying traders the possibility to receive exemptions from the prohibition to keep indigenous European birds which were brought to the market legally in other Member States.

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Sandro Forcheri against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-162/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370 / 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    interpreted by case-law. He maintains that the Commission
                                                                       has not accorded the union which he represents all the
The applicant states, with regard to the admissibility of his          rights to which it is entitled, inasmuch as the practical effect
claim, that it is directed not against an act of the appointing        of the contested decision results is to prohibit it from taking
authority but against a failure to act . That failure to act           part in meetings organized between the institutions and
consists in the fact that, because the weightings have still           trade unions and staff associations, to refuse it the
not been definitively fixed, the applicant's pension for the           necessary means for properly carrying out its tasks, to deny
period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 has not yet been               it the right to disseminate information and to prohibit it
finally determined .                                                   from carrying on trade union activities during working
                                                                       hours on the Commission's premises .
Moreover, the action is also well founded since there
                                                                       The applicant also complains that the Commission has not
appears to be no reason why the principles applying to
                                                                       complied with the framework agreement and that it has
officials residing in the Federal Republic of Germany                  distorted the aims thereof.
should differ from those applying in respect of all other
countries, or why the appointing authority should refrain              Lastly, he pleads infringement of the obligation to provide a
from applying the principles clearly obtaining since June              statement of reasons arising from the second paragraph of
1994 to the preceding period as well .                                 Article 25 and Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
Action brought on 17 October 1996 by Gundolf Bosetti                   Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Sandro Forcheri
    against the Commission of the European Communities                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-161 /96 )                                                    ( Case T-l 62/96 )
                           ( 96/C 370/36 )                                                       ( 96/C 370/37)
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                       An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1996                Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 1996
by Gundolf Bosetti , residing in Luxembourg, represented by            by Sandro Forcheri , residing in Brussels, represented by
Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                 Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address for
for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 Avenue du                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn ,
                                                                       21 Rue de Nassau .
Bois .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul or declare to be unlawful the failure of the
— annul the decision of the Commission of 31 October                        Commission to second the Head of Division B/4 of
     1995 refusing to admit the independent trade union                     DG XXI to SAMCOMM on the date that he took up
     'Action et Defense — Luxembourg' to the framework                      his duties or at the very least with effect from
     agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning relations                    29 October 1992,
     between the Commission and trade unions and staff
     associations ,                                                    — annul the Commission 's decision of 12 December 1995
                                                                            refusing the applicant's request for payment of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                                differential allowance provided for by Article 7 ( 2 ) of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — annul the Commission's decision of 24 July 1996
                                                                            granting his complaint in part, in that it fails to accept
The applicant, deputy general secretary of the trade union                  that he has, since 29 October 1992 , been performing
'Action et Defense — Luxembourg', states that on                            temporarily the duties of Head of Division XXI B/4 and
9 October 1995 that organization applied to be admitted to                  in that it therefore does not grant him the differential
the framework agreement of 20 September 1974                                allowance from 30 January 1993 and without
concerning relations between the Commission and trade                       limitation in time,
unions and staff associations . On 31 October 1995 the
competent Member of the Commission rejected the                        — order the Commission to pay him that differential
application on the ground that, as matters then stood, he                   allowance, together with interest for late payment at the
was not able to assess the extent to which the organization                 rate of 8% per annum from the date each month on
in question was a representative body.                                      which that allowance should have been paid until full
                                                                            payment,
The applicant considers that that decision disregarded
Articles 9 and 24a of the Staff Regulations of officials, as           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 370/ 18           I EN 1              Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7 . 12 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Bernard Connolly
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-163/96 )
The applicant, Deputy Head of Division B/4 ( Common
Customs Tariff) of DG XXI, states that, by a memorandum                                        ( 96/C 370/38 )
of 29 October 1992, his immediate superior asked him to
take on , forthwith and until further notice, the duties of
Head of Division B/4, because he had to spend all of                                   (Language of the case: French)
his own time on the workload inherent in his duties as
head of SAMCOMM ( Sanctions Assistance Missions
Communication Centre ). Since 29 October 1992, the                    An action aganst the Commission of the European
applicant has therefore been performing the duties of Head            Communities was brought before the Court of First
of Division, as recorded in the two staff reports drawn up            Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 1996
since that date .                                                     by Bernard Connolly, resident at Everberg ( Belgium ),
                                                                      represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul Van
                                                                      Gehuchten, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
On 18 October 1995 , the applicant requested the                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
Commission to appoint him formally as temporary Head of               Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
Division and to grant him the differential allowance
provided for by Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations . That
request was rejected. In response to the complaint lodged             The applicant claims that the Court should :
by. the applicant against that rejection, the Commission
gave him the temporary posting, but only from 1 August                — annul the suspension decision of 27 September 1995 ,
1996 .
                                                                      — annul the opinion of the Disciplinary Board of
The applicant's main plea contesting that decision is that                 7 December 1995 ,
Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations was infringed . He
contends      that all    the material  conditions  under that
provision for the grant of a temporary posting were met               — annul the appointing authority's decision of 16 January
from 29 October 1992 since, first, it has never been                       1996 , imposing on him the sanction of removal from
disputed that there continued to be an A 3 post in                         post, without reduction or withdrawal of pension
Division XXI/B/4 after the Head of Division had been                       rights,
assigned to SAMCOMM and, secondly, it is from that date
that the applicant was called upon by the appointing
authority, in this case his immediate superior, to take on a          — set aside the express rejection on 12 July 1996 of his
temporary posting. He claims, therefore, that the temporary                preliminary appeal of 7 March 1996 against the
posting should have taken effect on 29 October 1992 and                    opinion of the Disciplinary Board and the appointing
that he should have been paid the differential allowance                   authority's decision, referred to above,
from 30 January 1993 .
                                                                      — allow his claim for compensation by ordering the
Should the view be taken that the memorandum from his                      Commission to pay him Bfrs 7 500 000 , subject to
immediate superior cannot be regarded as a decision of the                 upward or downward adjustment in the course of the
appointing authority calling upon him to take on a                         proceedings, in respect of material damage, and Bfrs
temporary posting, the applicant claims in the alternative                 1 500 000 , subject as above, in respect of non-material
that the failure to assign him temporarily to the post of                  damage, in compensation for the loss and damage he
Head       of   Division    XXI/B/4  from  29   October    1992            has suffered by reason of the alleged irregular and
constitutes an infringement of Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Staff                unlawful conduct,
Regulations . Since all the requisite material conditions were
 satisfied, the Commission committed a manifest error in its
assessment of the circumstances of the case and breached its          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 duty to have regard for his interests by failing to take the
necessary decision .                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant points out, finally, that the Commission                Mr Connolly, who, in disciplinary proceedings brought
 should have seconded the Head of Division XXI/B/4 to
                                                                       against him for publishing a book without prior
 SAMCOMM, inasmuch as he manifestly satisfied the                      authorization , has already challenged the decisions taken to
 conditions for a secondment in the interests of the service
                                                                       suspend him under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and
 within the meaning of the first indent of subparagraph ( a )          to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board ( ] ), and has
 of the first paragraph of Article 37 of the Staff Regulations         also sought the annulment of the Board's opinion ( 2 ), asks
 ( official directed to serve temporarily in a post outside his        the Court, in the present case, to annul the Commission's
 institution ).                                                        decision of 16 January 1996 imposing on him the
                                                                       disciplinary sanction of removal from post without loss of
                                                                       pension rights .


title: Case T-500/13: Order of the General Court of 14 May 2014  — Seatech International and Others v Commission

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/33

         Order of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Seatech International and Others v Commission
   (Case T-500/13) (1)

   2014/C 235/44
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case T-39/08: Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of information technology services relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of an internet portal — Rejection of a tender and award of the contract to another tenderer — Selection criteria — Award criteria — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 8 December 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
      (Case T-39/08) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of information technology services relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of an internet portal - Rejection of a tender and award of the contract to another tenderer - Selection criteria - Award criteria - Non-contractual liability)
      (2012/C 25/88)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and N. Bambara, Agents, assisted by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

         Re:

      First, application for annulment of the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, improvement, promotion and maintenance of the Commission’s internet portal for ‘e-learning’ (elearningeuropa.info) (OJ 2007 S 87), and awarding the contract to another tenderer, and, second, application for damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the Commission Decision of 12 November 2007 rejecting the tender submitted by the Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in open call for tenders EAC/04/07 relating to the hosting, management, enhancement, promotion and maintenance of the European Commission’s internet portal on eLearning (elearningeuropa.info), and awarding the contract to another tenderer;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the application for damages;

                  3.

                  Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis.

         (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 January 2000 in Case C-285/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover): Tanja Kreil v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Equal treatment for men and women — Limitation of access by women to military posts in the Bundeswehr)

text:
4.3.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 63/9
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT
                        of 11 January 2000                                                          (Fourth Chamber)
in Case C-285/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                                              of 12 November 1999
from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover): Tanja Kreil v
                Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1)
                                                                           in Case C-453/98 P: Eugénio Branco Ld.a v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Equal treatment for men and women — Limitation of access
        by women to military posts in the Bundeswehr)
                                                                           (Appeal — European Social Fund — Reduction in financial
                                                                           assistance — Certification by the Member State — Misap-
                          (2000/C 63/16)                                   praisal of the facts — Legitimate expectations — Legal
                                                                                certainty — Proportionality)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                     (2000/C 63/17)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-285/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verwaltungs-                                       in the European Court Reports)
gericht Hannover, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Tania Kreil
and Bundesrepublik Deutschland — on the interpretation of                  In Case C-453/98 P: Eugénio Branco Ld.a, established in Lisbon
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                     (Portugal), represented by B. Belchior, of the Bar of Vila Nova
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men                 de Gaia, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
and women as regards access to employment, vocational                      Chambers of J. Schroeder, 6 Rue Heine — appeal against the
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976                    judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
L 39, p. 40), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court,                 Communities (Third Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in Case
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho            T-142/97 Branco v Commission [1998] ECR II-3567, seeking
de Almeida and L. Sevón, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-              to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), G. Hirsch,                proceedings being the Commission of the European Com-
H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola,                       munities (Agents: T. Figueira and K. Simonsson) — the Court
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,            (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of
has given a judgment on 11 January 2000, in which it has                   the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
ruled:                                                                     Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           made an order on 12 November 1999, the operative part of
                                                                           which is as follows:
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and
women as regards access to employment, vocational training and             1. The appeal is dismissed.
promotion, and working conditions precludes the application of
national provisions, such as those of German law, which impose a
general exclusion of women from military posts involving the use of        2. Eugénio Branco Ld.a is ordered to pay the costs.
arms and which allow them access only to the medical and
military-music services.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case C-291/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Germany)) — Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Biometric passport — Fingerprints — Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 — Article 1(2) — Validity — Legal basis — Procedure for adopting — Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right to respect for private life — Right to the protection of personal data — Proportionality)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen (Germany)) — Michael Schwarz v Stadt Bochum
   (Case C-291/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Biometric passport - Fingerprints - Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 - Article 1(2) - Validity - Legal basis - Procedure for adopting - Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to respect for private life - Right to the protection of personal data - Proportionality)
   2013/C 367/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michael Schwarz

      Defendant: Stadt Bochum

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Gelsenkirchen — Validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States (OJ 2004 L 385, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 (OJ 2009 L 142, p. 1), as amended (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 127), in the light of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Right of a person to be issued with a passport without his fingerprints being taken

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the question referred has revealed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2252/2004 of 13 December 2004 on standards for security features and biometrics in passports and travel documents issued by Member States, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case F-88/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Van Asbroeck v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/50

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Van Asbroeck v Commission
   (Case F-88/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/90
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marc Van Asbroeck (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application: (1) for annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's claim for the partial setting aside of the Commission's decision of 22 October 2008 concerning the introduction of an indemnity in favour of officials who changed category before 1 May 2004; (2) that he be reclassified, with retrospective effect from 1 May 2004, in Grade D*4/8; and (3) that his career be reconstituted in accordance with the promotions, annual adaptations and advances in step affecting him since that time.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commission to adopt an express position on the table drawn up by the applicant to compare his actual salary progression with the salary progression he would have enjoyed if he had not changed category before 1 May 2004;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's claim for the setting aside of the third sentence of Article 1(3) of the Commission's decision of 22 October 2008 concerning the introduction of an indemnity in favour of officials who changed category before 1 May 2004; reclassify the applicant with retrospective effect from 1 May 2004, in Grade D*4/8; reconstitute the applicant's career in accordance with the promotions, annual adaptations and advances in step affecting him since that time; and, in so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Commission to pay a sum provisionally fixed at EUR 13 218,24 by way of compensation for financial loss, plus interest for delay at the statutory rate dating from the judgment to be given;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/1

      (2010/C 288/01)
      Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

            OJ C 274, 9.10.2010

         Past publications

         OJ C 260, 25.9.2010

         OJ C 246, 11.9.2010

         OJ C 234, 28.8.2010

         OJ C 221, 14.8.2010

         OJ C 209, 31.7.2010

         OJ C 195, 17.7.2010

      These texts are available on:
      EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-211/10: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Strålfors v OHIM (ID SOLUTIONS) (Action for annulment — Application initiating proceedings — Formal requirements — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/38

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Strålfors v OHIM (ID SOLUTIONS)
   (Case T-211/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Application initiating proceedings - Formal requirements - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2010/C 234/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Strålfors AB (Malmö, Sweden) (represented by: M.S. Nielsen, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 January 2010 (Case R 1111/2009-2), concerning an application for registration of word sign ID SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Strålfors AB shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case C-534/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others v Fipa Group Srl, Tws Automation Srl, Ivan Srl (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 191(2) TFEU — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities — Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare and Others v Fipa Group Srl, Tws Automation Srl, Ivan Srl
   (Case C-534/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 191(2) TFEU - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - National legislation under which no provision is made for the administrative authorities to require owners of polluted land who have not contributed to that pollution to carry out preventive and remedial measures, and the sole obligation imposed concerns the reimbursement of the measures undertaken by those authorities - Whether compatible with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the precautionary principle and the principles that preventive action should be taken and that environmental damage should be rectified at source as a matter of priority))
   (2015/C 138/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero della Salute, Ispra — Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale

      Respondents: Fipa Group Srl, Tws Automation Srl, Ivan Srl

      Intervening parties: Comune di Massa, Regione Toscana, Provincia di Massa Carrara, Comune di Carrara, Agenzia regionale per la protezione ambientale della Toscana (ARPAT), Ediltecnica Srl, Versalis SpA, Edison SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in cases where it is impossible to identify the polluter of a plot of land or to have that person adopt remedial measures, does not permit the competent authority to require the owner of the land (who is not responsible for the pollution) to adopt preventive and remedial measures, that person being required merely to reimburse the costs relating to the measures undertaken by the competent authority within the limit of the market value of the site, determined after those measures have been carried out.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case C-141/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 3 February 2000 in the case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against Finanzamt für Körperschaften I

text:
C 176/12                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.6.2000
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               Article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 imposed a clear obligation
                                                                          on Member States to take penal or administrative action
                                                                          against any person responsible for a breach of the control
(1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1991 to 1996             and conservation rules. The obligation to impose effective
                                                                          sanctions was made even clearer in Article 31 of Regulation
    — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for           2847/93, which required that the sanctions should be capable
          the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,                   of depriving those responsible of the economic benefits
                                                                          of their infringements, and, further, that they should be
                                                                          proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement so as to
    — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as               have a deterrent effect. The United Kingdom has failed to
          required by the relevant Community Regulations,                 impose such sanctions.
    — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
          quota was exhausted, and
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983
    — in failing to take administrative or penal action against               establishing a Community system for the conservation and
                                                                              management of fishery resources (OJ L 24, 27.01.1983, p. 1).
          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or             (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992
          against such other person as was responsible for such               establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture
          infringement,                                                       (OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
                                                                          (3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-
                                                                              lishing certain control measures for fishing activities (OJ L 207,
    the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations                29.07.1987, p. 1).
    imposed on it by (i) Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)                 (4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993
    No 170/83 (1) or Article 9(2) of Regulation 3760/92 (2)                   establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries
    (from 1 January 1993) and of Article 1(1) of Regulation                   policy (OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1).
    (EEC) No 2241/87 (3) or Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93 (4)
    (from 1 January 1994); (ii) of Article 11(2) of Regulation
    (EEC) No 2241/87 or Article 21 of Regulation 2847/93;
    (iii) Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2241/87 or Article 31
    of Regulation 2847/93;
(2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           hof by order of that court of 3 February 2000 in the
                                                                          case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                                Finanzamt für Körperschaften I
The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate detailed
rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas allocated to it,
contrary to Article 5(2) of Regulation 170/83 and Article 9(2)                                      (Case C-141/00)
of Regulation 3760/92, with effect from 1 January 1993.
                                                                                (2000/C 176/21)
It has been established that the United Kingdom fishermen
frequently exceeded the quotas which were set for them in the
relevant Community regulations and it can only be concluded               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
either that the detailed rules were not appropriate for the               European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
proper utilisation of the quotas or that the United Kingdom               (Federal Finance Court) of 3 February 2000, received at the
did not check that those rules were being complied with.                  Court Registry on 14 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                          the case of Ambulanter Pflegedienst Kügler GmbH against
                                                                          Finanzamt für Körperschaften I on the following questions:
Furthermore, the United Kingdom did not ensure compliance
with Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article                 1. Does the tax exemption provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(c)
1(1) of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 2 of Regulation 2847/93                    of Regulation 77/388/EEC (1) apply only where the medical
from 1 January 1994).                                                          care is provided by an ‘individual’ or is it independent of
                                                                               the legal form of the person providing the care?
In all the cases of overfishing mentioned by the Commission
the United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under                   2. If the exemption is also applicable to capital companies,
Article 11 of Regulation 2241/87 (Article 21 of Regulation                     does it cover wholly or partially the activities of a capital
2847/93 from 1 January 1994) to prohibit the fishery pro-                      company in the form of out-patient nursing (therapeutic
visionally when the quota allocated to it was deemed to have                   treatment, general care and domestic help) which is
been exhausted.                                                                provided by qualified nurses?
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 176/13
3. Do the abovementioned services fall within the scope of             represented by J.F. Pasquier, Legal Adviser, and G. Valero
    Article 13(A)(1)(g) of Regulation 77/388/EEC and can a             Jordana, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
    taxable person rely on that provision?                             for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                       Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1. Declare that:
                                                                           — by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that,
                                                                                within 10 years following the notification of this
                                                                                Directive, the quality of bathing water conforms to the
                                                                                limit values set in accordance with the directive,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                       contrary to Article 4(1) of the directive;
hof by order of that court of 5 April 2000 in the criminal
           proceedings against Matthias Hoffmann                           — by failing to carry out sampling operations, the mini-
                                                                                mum frequency of which is laid down in the Annex in
                                                                                respect of all parameters and all bathing waters,
                        (Case C-144/00)                                         contrary to Article 6(1) of the directive; and
                        (2000/C 176/22)                                    — by failing to carry out the sampling operations for
                                                                                ‘total coliform’, the French Republic has failed to take
                                                                                all the measures necessary to comply with Directive
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          76/160/EEC (1) its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                          and 6 of the directive;
5 April 2000, received at the Court Registry on 17 April 2000,
for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against
                                                                           the French Republic has failed to take all the measures
Matthias Hoffmann on the following questions:
                                                                           necessary to comply with its obligations under Directive
                                                                           76/160/EEC and has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1. Is Article 13(A)(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive                   Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of that directive.
    77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —             2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
    assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) to be interpreted as
    meaning that the term ‘other [recognised] cultural bodies’
    used therein also covers a soloist who supplies cultural           Pleas in law and main arguments
    services?
                                                                       — The Commission finds that a substantial number of
2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative:                   bathing areas in 1995 did not conform to the obligations
                                                                           concerning water quality more than 10 years after those
                                                                           obligations entered into force. Moreover, the results avail-
    Do restrictions arise from the heading ‘... activities in the          able for the subsequent years, like those for 1995, do not
    public interest’ chosen in Article 13(A), for example where            conform to water quality standards. Since the directive
    performances by soloists serve primarily commercial pur-               imposes on the Member States a clear and unconditional
    poses?                                                                 obligation as to the result to be achieved, namely as regards
                                                                           ensuring that the value limits are complied with, the
                                                                           Commission finds that the French Republic has failed to
                                                                           fulfil its obligations under the directive.
                                                                       — Despite the fact that sampling is clearly and uncon-
                                                                           ditionally required to be carried out by the competent
                                                                           authorities of the Member States under Community law,
Action brought on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of                       no steps have yet been taken to remedy the complaint that
 the European Communities against the French Republic                      sampling has been carried out insufficiently frequently in
                                                                           respect of all French parameters and bathing waters.
                        (Case C-147/00)                                    Finally, the Commission considers that it is unjustified to
                                                                           calculate and present to the public a figure relating to
                        (2000/C 176/23)                                    conformity arrived at by taking account only of the such
                                                                           parameters as have been correctly measured. The method
                                                                           used by the French authorities amounts to ignoring the
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               fact that certain areas which have been incorrectly sampled
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April                   could well not be in conformity with the absolute value
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        limits laid down by the directive.


title: Case C-286/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — European Parliament v European Commission (Action for annulment — Article 290 TFEU — Concepts of ‘amending’ and ‘supplementing’ — Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 — Article 21(3) — Scope of the power conferred on the European Commission — Need to adopt a separate legislative act — Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 — European Parliament v European Commission
   (Case C-286/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Article 290 TFEU - Concepts of ‘amending’ and ‘supplementing’ - Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 - Article 21(3) - Scope of the power conferred on the European Commission - Need to adopt a separate legislative act - Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014))
   (2016/C 156/10)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, A. Troupiotis and M. Menegatti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk, M. Konstantinidis and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Michoel and Z. Kupčová, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 275/2014 of 7 January 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 1316/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Connecting Europe Facility;

               2.

               Orders that the effects of Delegated Regulation No 275/2014 be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, which may not exceed six months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new act intended to replace it;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-90/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2008 — Tomorrow Focus v OHIM — Information Builders (Tomorrow Focus) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus — Earlier Community figurative mark FOCUS — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 December 2008 — Tomorrow Focus v OHIM — Information Builders (Tomorrow Focus)
   (Case T-90/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Tomorrow Focus - Earlier Community figurative mark FOCUS - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Tomorrow Focus AG (Munich, Germany) (represented initially by U. Gürtler, then by J. Berlinger)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by G. Schneider, then by G. Schneider and S. Schäffner, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Information Builders (Netherlands) BV (Amstelveen, Netherlands)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2006 (Case R 116/2005-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Information Builders (Netherlands) BV and Tomorrow Focus AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Tomorrow Focus AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2001 in Case T-353/00 R: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European Parliament (Interlocutory proceedings — Measure adopted by the Parliament — Termination of the term of office of an MEP as a result of the application of national law — Admissibility — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
5.5.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 134/23
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                 of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and F. Siredey-
                              INSTANCE                                       Garnier) — application for, first, suspension of execution of
                                                                             the Commission Decision of 13 September 2000 rejecting
                         of 16 January 2001                                  TotalFina Elf’s proposal in relation to approval of the applicants
                                                                             as concessionaires of six motorway service stations and,
in Case T-328/00 R: Mario Costacurta v Commission of                         second, a direction that the Commission order TotalFina Elf to
                          the Communities                                    suspend execution of the undertaking set out in point 36
                                                                             of the annex ‘undertakings proposed by TotalFina’ to the
                                                                             Commission Decision of 9 February 2000 authorising the
(Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Admissibility of                 acquisition of Elf Aquitaine by TotalFina, in so far as it concerns
                           the main action)                                  the six service stations whose transfer to the applicants was
                                                                             proposed to the Commission by TotalFina Elf on 12 August
                           (2001/C 134/50)                                   2000, the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                                                                             order on 17 January 2001, the operative part of which is as
                                                                             follows:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;
In Case T-328/00 R: Mario Costacurta, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-                   2.    The decision as to costs is reserved.
bourg, represented by M. Petit, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers,
74 Val Sainte-Croix, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for, first, stay of execution of the implied decision rejecting the
applicant’s request lodged on 23 June 2000 and, second, a
declaration that the applicant is to be temporarily reassigned               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of                                               INSTANCE
Officials of the European Communities, the President of the
Court has made an order on 16 January 2001, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                                                         of 26 January 2001
1.     The application for interim relief is dismissed;                      in Case T-353/00 R: Jean-Marie Le Pen v European
                                                                                Parliament
2.     The decision as to costs is reserved.
                                                                             (Interlocutory proceedings — Measure adopted by the Parlia-
                                                                             ment — Termination of the term of office of an MEP as a
                                                                             result of the application of national law — Admissibility —
                                                                                Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                                (2001/C 134/52)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 17 January 2001
                                                                             In Case T-353/00 R: Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing at Saint-Cloud
in Case T-342/00 R: Petrolessence and Société de Gestion                     (France), represented by F. Wagner, lawyer, v European
de Restauration Routière (SG2R) v Commission of the                          Parliament (Agents: H. Krück and C. Karamarcos), supported
                      European Communities                                   by the French Republic (Agents: D. Wibaux and G. de Bergues)
                                                                             — application for annulment of the decision taken by the
(Procedure for interim relief — Competition — Concen-                        President of the European Parliament in the form of a
tration — Admissibility — Urgency — Balancing of inter-                      declaration dated 23 October 2000 — the President of the
                                   ests)                                     Court of First Instance made an order on 26 January 2001, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
                           (2001/C 134/51)
                                                                             1.    Operation of the decision taken by the President of the European
                                                                                Parliament in the form of a declaration dated 23 October
                     (Language of the case: French)                                2000 is suspended inasmuch as it constitutes a decision of the
                                                                                European Parliament by which the Parliament took formal note
                                                                                of the termination of the applicant’s term of office as a member
In Case T-342/00 R: Petrolessence, Société de Gestion de
                                                                                of the European Parliament.
Restauration Routière (SG2R), established in Nancy (France),
represented by F. Puel, of the Hauts-de-Seine and Brussels Bars,             2.    The costs are reserved.
and M. Troncoso Ferrer, of the Pamplona and Brussels Bars,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
C. Kaufhold, 24 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, against Commission


title: Case F-124/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 February 2013 — Labiri v EESC (Civil Service — Duty to provide assistance — Article 12a of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Administrative inquiry)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 February 2013 — Labiri v EESC
   (Case F-124/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Duty to provide assistance - Article 12a of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Administrative inquiry)
   2013/C 114/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vassilliki Labiri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Arsène and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, and M. Troncoso Ferrer and F.-M. Hislaire, lawyers)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the decision to terminate without further action the administrative inquiry initiated as a result of the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 18 January 2010 of the Secretary General of the European Economic and Social Committee;

               2.

               Orders the European Economic and Social Committee to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Labiri.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011, p. 34.


title: Removal from the register of T-153/94

text:
4.7.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 209/45
Action brought on 11 May 1998 by Luciano Mammarella                terms of insurance cover. The Commission thereupon
   against the Commission of the European Communities              offered and agreed to a financial settlement in respect of
                       (Case T-74/98)                              the various claims made by the applicant in his pleadings.
                        (98/C 209/92)
                                                                   With the passage of time, the applicant's condition
                                                                   resulting from the accident sustained in 1962 (classed as
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     9Ð10 % invalidity) seriously deteriorated, the degree of
                                                                   invalidity rising to 20 % which, under the common Rules
                                                                   on insurance against the risk of accident, triggers the right
An action against the Commission of the European                   to a review. Accordingly, the applicant asked the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  administration to apply Article 22 of those Rules in his
Instance of the European Communities on 11 May 1998                case. The implied refusal of that request led him to bring
by Luciano Mammarella, represented by Giuseppe                     the present proceedings.
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.                                                     In support of his claims, the applicant pleads:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Ð Infringement of Article 73(2)(c) of the Staff
                                                                       Regulations and Article 22 of the Rules, in so far as
                                                                       the initial relationship between the applicant and the
Ð confirm that the relationship between the Commission
                                                                       Commission cannot be classed as a works contract, for
    and the applicant during the period from 1962 to
                                                                       the purposes of Italian private law, but must be
    1964 was an employment relationship, subject at the
                                                                       recognised as a contract of employment. The
    very least to the employment conditions laid down for
                                                                       applicant's duties could not be governed by a contract
    temporary staff,
                                                                       of the kind provided for local staff since they were not
                                                                       manual or service duties' within the meaning of
Ð annul the Commission's refusal to grant the applicant                Article 4 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
    insurance cover in respect of accident and the                     Servants, but rather the kind of duties performed by a
    aggravation of any consequent invalidity,                          member of the scientific and technical staff or similar.
Ð declare that the applicant is due damages equivalent to          Ð Breach of the principle of non-discrimination and of
    the amount provided for in the case of 20 %                        the duty to have regard for the applicant's welfare. On
    permanent invalidity as a result of accident,                      that point, the applicant maintains that his unlawful
                                                                       classification led to a lack of insurance cover in the
                                                                       event of the invalidity which was determined at the
    and, in any event,                                                 time and which has deteriorated now that he is an
                                                                       official of the Commission. This is clear evidence of
                                                                       discrimination, given his rightful insurance situation
Ð award the applicant costs.                                           and that of all his colleagues.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, who is an official on the scientific and
technical staff of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra
contests the administration's decision to regard the work                   Removal from the register of T-153/94 (1)
performed by him between 1962 and 1964 as that of an                                       (98/C 209/93)
outside contractor, on the basis of contracts which were
systematically renewed. Although such agreements had the
appearance of works contracts, in the applicant's view                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
they amounted to a genuine and proper contract of
employment in so far as the detailed rules for their
implementation disclose all the essential characteristics:         By order of 4 May 1998 the President of the Fourth
continuous service, compliance with working hours,                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
obedience to instructions from superiors, employee status,         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
fixed remuneration and positioning within the Centre's             Case T-153/94: Pell Nederland B.V. and Internationale
organisational hierarchy.                                          Controle Maatschappij I.C.M. BV. v. Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities.
On that basis, the applicant brought judicial proceedings          (1) OJ C 161, 11.6.1994.
on 18 January 1975 under Article 1 of Italian Law No 533
of 11 August 1972 seeking regularisation of the service
provided during the period specified above, particularly in


title: Case T-591/10: Order of the General Court of 26 February 2013 — Castiglioni v Commission (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Public works contracts — Tender procedure — Construction, restructuring and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure at the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site — Selection criteria — Rejection of the tender submitted by one tenderer and a decision to award the contract to another tenderer — New pleas in law — Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/34

         Order of the General Court of 26 February 2013 — Castiglioni v Commission
   (Case T-591/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Public works contracts - Tender procedure - Construction, restructuring and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure at the Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site - Selection criteria - Rejection of the tender submitted by one tenderer and a decision to award the contract to another tenderer - New pleas in law - Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 114/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Castiglioni Srl (Busto Arsizio, Italy) (represented by: G. Turri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Delaude and N. Bambara, and subsequently by S. Delaude and F. Moro, Agents, and by D. Gullo, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2010 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure ISM/2010/C05/004/0C concerning a multiple framework agreement for works to construct, restructure and maintain buildings and infrastructure at the Commission’s Joint Research Centre’s Ispra site, of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and of the contract notice and, second, an application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Castiglioni Srl is ordered to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.2011.


title: Case C-355/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/33

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 16 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-355/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/69)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case C-679/13: Action brought on 19 December 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/31

         Action brought on 19 December 2013 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-679/13)
   2014/C 52/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: F. Drexler, A. Caiola and M. Pencheva, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Implementing Decision 2013/496/EU of 7 October 2013 on subjecting 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures; (1)

               —

               maintain the effects of Council Decision 2013/496/EU, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in the prescribed manner;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First, the Parliament notes that the preamble to the contested decision refers to the following legal bases: Article 8(3) of Council Decision 2005/387/JHA of 10 May 2005 on the information exchange, risk-assessment and control of new psychoactive substances (2) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Parliament concludes that the Council refers implicitly to Article 34(2)(c) of the former Treaty of the European Union.
   The Parliament puts forward two pleas in support of its action for annulment.
   First, the Parliament claims that the Council bases its decision on a legal basis [Article 34(2)(c) UE] which has been repealed since the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. Therefore, the contested decision can no longer be based solely on Decision 2005/387/JHA. The latter is a secondary legal basis and is therefore illegal.
   Secondly, and in view of the above, the Parliament considers that the decision-making process suffers from infringements of essential procedural requirements. On the one hand, if Article 34(2)(c) EU had been applicable, the Parliament should have been consulted before the adoption of the contested decision in accordance with Article 39(1) EU. However, the Parliament contends that that was not the case. On the other hand, given that the provisions to be applied are those resulting from the Lisbon Treaty, the Parliament contends it should have been involved in the legislative procedure in any event. The Parliament argues, indeed, that if subjecting the 5-(2-aminopropyl)indole to control measures is an essential element of Decision 2005/387/JHA, the legislative procedure would be that described in Article 83(1) TFEU, namely the ordinary legislative procedure. Alternatively, if Decision 2013/496/EU is considered to be a uniform requirement for the implementation of Decision 2005/387/JHA or as a measure supplementing or modifying a non-essential element of that decision, the procedure to follow would be that provided for in Articles 290 and 291 TFEU for the adoption of implementing acts or delegated acts. In any event, as the Parliament was not involved in the adoption of the contested decision, it suffers from an infringement of an essential procedural requirement.
   Finally, in the event that the Court decides to annul the contested decision, the Parliament considers it appropriate, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, to maintain the effects of the contested decision, until such time that it is replaced by a new act adopted in the prescribed manner.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 272, p. 44.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 127, p. 32.