title: Case C-338/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-331/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/19

         Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-331/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-338/12 P)
   2012/C 295/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd and Pi-Design AG, Bodum France, Bodum Logistics A/S

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the Appeal in its entirety

               —

               annul the Contested Judgment

               —

               order Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The appellant submits that the General Court failed to state the reasons in support of the Contested Judgment to the extent that it did not address the Office’s argument referred to at paragraph 18 of the Contested Judgment.

               —

               The appellant also submits that the General Court breached Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR. It should have observed that a two-dimensional sign may be, not only applied to, but also incorporated in a three-dimensional object. Applying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR thus requires to take account of all possible manners in which it can be envisaged, on the date of filing, that the sign in question could be embodied in a three-dimensional object. The General Court distorted the evidence by ruling that the Board of Appeal had based its examination exclusively on the goods actually marketed. In fact, the Board of Appeal made it clear that its findings are primarily based on the patents submitted by Pi-Design. In any event, reference to additional material, including patents and the goods actually marketed, should not be prohibited where such material corroborate the conclusion that the features of the contested sign, as filed, are liable to achieve a technical result once incorporated in a three dimensional object. This is the only appropriate approach for preserving the legal security and the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 October 1999 in Case C-223/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten, Stockholm): Proceedings brought by Adidas AG (Free movement of goods — Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 — Prohibition of release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods — Provision of national law requiring the names of consignees of consignments detained by the customs authorities pursuant to the regulation to be kept confidential — Compatibility of the provision with Regulation (EC) No 3295/94)

text:
5.2.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 34/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann,
                                                                             J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cos-
                                                                             mas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    ment on 14 October 1999, in which it has ruled:
                       of 14 October 1999                                    On a proper construction, Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of
                                                                             22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release for
                                                                             free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure
in Case C-223/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    of counterfeit and pirated goods precludes a rule of national law
the Kammarrätten, Stockholm): Proceedings brought by                         under which the identity of declarants or consignees of imported
                            Adidas AG (1)                                    goods which the trade-mark owner has found to be counterfeit may
                                                                             not be disclosed to him.
(Free movement of goods — Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 —
                                                                             (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
Prohibition of release for free circulation, export, re-export
or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated
goods — Provision of national law requiring the names
of consignees of consignments detained by the customs
authorities pursuant to the regulation to be kept confidential
— Compatibility of the provision with Regulation (EC)
                            No 3295/94)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (2000/C 34/01)
                                                                                of 21 October 1999
                                                                             in Case C-67/98 (request for a preliminary ruling from the
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                             Consiglio di Stato): Questore di Verona v Diego Zenatti (1)
                                                                                (Freedom to provide services — Taking of bets)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                        (2000/C 34/02)
In Case C-223/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Kammarrätten i
Stockholm, Sweden, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
brought by Adidas AG — on the interpretation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,                                      in the European Court Reports)
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8) — the                    In Case C-67/98: Reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Consiglio di Stato


title: Case C-206/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 18 April 2013 — Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo
   (Case C-206/13)
   2013/C 207/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cruciano Siragusa

      Defendant: Regione Sicilia — Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo

      Questions referred

   Do Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of proportionality, as a general principle of European Union law, preclude the application of a provision of national law such as Article 167(4)(a) of Legislative Decree No 42 of 2004, under which a ‘landscape compatibility clearance’ [(autorizzazione paesaggistica)] may not be issued by way of retrospective regularisation in any cases where human activity has resulted in an increase in floor area and volume, regardless of whether a specific appraisal has been undertaken as to whether the activity in question is compatible with the features of the landscape of the particular site which merit protection?


title: Case F-84/08: Action brought on 17 October 2008 — Cerafogli v ECB

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/43

         Action brought on 17 October 2008 — Cerafogli v ECB
   (Case F-84/08)
   (2008/C 327/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Application for an order requiring the ECB to pay compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of discrimination connected with her trade union activities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation for material damage, corresponding, first, to the difference between the salary received by the applicant and the salary for band H, step 54 between 2004 and 2007, that is to say, 23 additional steps and, secondly, to the grant of a bonus of EUR 3 500 per year in respect of 2001, 2002 and 2003;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 157 000 or, in the alternative, the sum of EUR 45 000 to compensate for non-material damage;

               —

               Annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of 25 June 2008 rejecting the application for pre-litigation review and the decision of 7 August 2008 rejecting the complaint, in so far as those decisions relate to the present action;

               —

               Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.


title: Case T -421/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  10 November 2005  — Carreira v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2005 — Carreira v European Agency for Safety and Health at Work
   (Case T -421/04) (1)

   (2006/C 22/49)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.


title: Case C-223/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 16 May 2003, in the case of University of Huddersfield Higher Education Corporation against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
6.9.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 213/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           attempt to clarify the scientific and political complexities of
                                                                          this case as soon as possible, always keeping in mind the
                                                                          fundamental objective of protecting public health. The CFI’s
                                                                          findings can also be considered to be insufficiently motivated.
(1)    Error in the interpretation and application of Regulation
       2377/90 ( 2) and, in particular, Article 14 thereof
                                                                          (4) Error in the interpretation and application of
                                                                                Article 228 EC concerning the non-contractual liability
The findings of the CFI rest clearly on the interpretation that                  of the Community
Article 14 of Regulation 2377/90 gives the applicants an
enforceable right to have a decision taken on their applications          The Commission submits that the CFI committed two basic
before January 2000 and, secondly, imposes on the Com-                    legal errors. First, it failed to take into account the degree of
mission an absolute obligation to act by completing the                   discretion enjoyed by the Commission in these cases and held
scientific evaluation and by taking a final decision in all               without proper consideration that the alleged breach of the
applications concerning substances already in use in the                  principle of sound administration was ‘clear and serious’.
Member States on the date of entry into force of the Regulation           Second, it misinterpreted the provisions of Regulation 2377/
before 1 January 2000, or, failing this, to arrange for a                 90 and its relationship with other provisions of community
deferral of that deadline. The Commission submits that this               law, in particular directives 81/851 (3) and 96/22 (4), by
interpretation is a fundamental error of law that permeates the           accepting causality between the alleged damage and the
entire reasoning on which the CFI’s judgment is based.                    Commission’s ‘inaction’.
                                                                          (5)      Finally, the Commission submits that the CFI made an
                                                                          error in law in finding that the Commission is liable for
(2)    Errors of law in the interpretation and application of the         damages to Pharmacia by failing to take into account its
       principle of sound administration                                  different position compared with the position of the applicant
                                                                          Ceva.
It is submitted that the characterisation of the Commission’s
inaction by the CFI as being such that it gave rise to damages            (1 ) OJ C 45, 10/02/2001, p. 19.
for a clear and serious breach of the principle of sound                  (2 ) Council Regulation (EEC) no 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying
administration is based on the following errors regarding the                  down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum
interpretation and application of that principle:                              residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
                                                                               animal origin OJ L 224, 18/08/1990, p. 1.
                                                                          (3 ) Council Directive 81/851/EEC of 28 September 1981 on the
—     failure to assess the time taken in relation to the different            approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      procedural stages involved;                                              veterinary medicinal products OJ L 317, 06/11/1981, p. 1.
                                                                          (4 ) Council Directive 96/22/EC of 29 April 1996 concerning the
                                                                               prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain substances
—     failure to give due weight to the complexity of the                      having a hormonal or thyrostatic action and of ß-agonists, and
      progesterone file in assessing the time taken by the                     repealing Directives 81/602/EEC, 88/146/EEC and 88/299/EEC
      Commission;                                                              OJ L 125, 23/05/1996, p. 3.
—     placing undue emphasis on the time limit found in
      Article 14 of Regulation 2377/90 and its relation to the
      principle of sound administration;
—     failure to take due account of the balancing of interests
      that the Commission had to undertake.                               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
                                                                          Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of
                                                                          that court dated 16 May 2003, in the case of University
                                                                          of Huddersfield Higher Education Corporation against
                                                                                Commissioners of Customs and Excise
(3)    Misconstrual of the evidence and inadequate reasoning
                                                                                (Case C-223/03)
The Commission submits that the CFI fundamentally miscon-
strued the factual and scientific record, in the sense that the                                      (2003/C 213/15)
claimed ‘inaction’ of the Commission to place progesterone in
one of the annexes to Regulation 2377/90 before 1 January
2000 was fully justified by the prevailing circumstances of this
case and the undisputed scientific uncertainty and the potential          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for abuse of progesterone. Far from staying inactive, the                 European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties
Commission has been taking a number of concrete steps in its              Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, dated 16 May 2003,
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/10                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.9.2003
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 May 2003, for               European Communities in Case T-125/01 between José Martí
a preliminary ruling in the case of University of Huddersfield             Peix SA and the Commission of the European Communities
and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following                   was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
questions:                                                                 Communities on 23 May 2003 (fax of 22 May) by José Martí
                                                                           Peix SA, represented by R. García-Gallardo and D. Domínguez
                                                                           Pérez, lawyers.
Where:
1.     a university waives its right to exemptions from VAT in
       respect of any supplies of certain real property owned by           The applicant claims that the Court should:
       it and leases the property to a trust set up and controlled
       by the university
                                                                           1.    declare the appeal admissible;
2.     the trust waives its right to exemption from VAT in
       respect of any supplies of the real property in question
       and grants to the university an underlease of the property          2.    set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court
                                                                                of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-125/01
                                                                                José Martí Peix SA v Commission of the European
3.     the lease and underlease were entered into and carried
                                                                                Communities;
       out by the University with the sole intention of obtaining
       a fiscal advantage and had no independent business
       purpose                                                             3.    order the Commission to pay the entirety of the costs
                                                                                incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice as
4.     the lease and leaseback amounted to, and was intended                     well as those incurred in the proceedings before the Court
       by the University and the trust to be, a deferral scheme                  of First Instance.
       (that is, a scheme for the deferral of payment of VAT)
       with a built-in feature that allowed an absolute tax saving
       at a later date
       (a)   are the lease and the underlease taxable supplies for
             the purposes of the Sixth VAT Directive ( 1)?                 Pleas and main arguments
       (b) Do they qualify as economic activities within the
             meaning of the second sentence of Article 4(2) of
             the Sixth VAT Directive?                                      The Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted the
                                                                           expression ‘continuous irregularity’ referred to in Article 3 of
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 Decem-
( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              ber 1995 on the protection of the European Communities
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to            financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1). As a result of the
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                           broad construction given by the Court of First Instance to that
     basis of assessment OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1-40.
                                                                           expression, the principle of prescription is rendered devoid of
                                                                           practical effect and the interpretation is incompatible with the
                                                                           substance of that principle, which is to penalise an authority’s
                                                                           failure to take any action in respect of an irregularity. The
                                                                           point of prescription is to safeguard the principle of legal
                                                                           certainty and to guarantee the principle of sound administrat-
                                                                           ive practice. The principle of Community solidarity must be
                                                                           interpreted correctly and cannot be used in order to render the
Appeal brought on 23 May 2003 (fax of 22 May) by José                      principle of prescription inapplicable.
Martí Peix SA against the judgment delivered on 13 March
2003 (not yet published in the ECR) by the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-125/01 between José Martí Peix
                                                                           The consequences of that incorrect interpretation are serious,
   SA and the Commission of the European Communities                       inasmuch as Regulation No 2988/95 is a regulation of
                                                                           general application where expenditure is financed from the
                         (Case C-226/03 P)                                 Community budget. The Court of First Instance’s interpretation
                                                                           of the Regulation must therefore be followed at national level
                                                                           by the various authorities involved, in spite of the fact that it
                          (2003/C 213/16)                                  entails restriction of the protection enjoyed by every citizen
                                                                           vis-à-vis public authorities.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 March 2003
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-499/12: Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C and HSH Investment Holdings FSO v Commission (State aid — Banking sector — Restructuring of HSH Nordbank — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions — Action for annulment — Lack of individual concern — Minority shareholder of the aid beneficiary — Concept of distinctive interest — Partial inadmissibility — capital dilution)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 November 2015 — HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C and HSH Investment Holdings FSO v Commission
   (Case T-499/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Banking sector - Restructuring of HSH Nordbank - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market on certain conditions - Action for annulment - Lack of individual concern - Minority shareholder of the aid beneficiary - Concept of distinctive interest - Partial inadmissibility - capital dilution))
   (2016/C 007/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C Sàrl (Luxembourg); and HSH Investment Holdings FSO Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, H. Ehlers and C. Kovács, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/477/EU of 20 September 2011 on State aid granted by Germany to HSH Nordbank AG SA.29338 (C 29/09 (ex N 264/09)) (OJ 2012 L 225, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C Sàrl and HSH Investment Holdings FSO Sàrl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Séché against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-112/96)

text:
No C 269/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 9 . 96
— the Commission has manifestly misinterpreted the law in            — Appointment not in the interest of the service : The
    respect of Article 86 of the EC Treaty with the result that          applicant argues that, in disregard of Article 7 of the
    conclusions in paragraphs 30 to 37 of its decision were              Staff Regulations, the appointment of the successful
    defective .                                                          candidate did not satisfy the needs of the service but was
                                                                         decided purely for formal reasons and in the interest of
                                                                         the person concerned . After her promotion, the
                                                                         candidate appointed retained the same functions she had
                                                                         previously performed at grade A 3 , which did not
                                                                         correspond to the vacancy notice .
Action brought on 22 July 1996 by Jean-Claude Seche
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 — Sex discrimination : The lack of reasons stated for the
                       ( Case T-l 12/96 )                                decision invites the suspicion that one of the
                         ( 96/C 269/61                                   Commission's reasons was a purely sexual preference ,
                                                                         prohibited by the principle of equal treatment between
                                                                         male and female workers .
                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                     — Infringement of the principle of equal treatment: The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        applicant maintains that he was discriminated against by
Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 1996 by                  reason of his nationality, age and sex.
Jean-Claude Seche, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar , with an address for service in       — Misuse of powers and abuse of process : The
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort               appointment of the successful candidate was not
Rheinsheim .                                                             motivated in any way by the interest of the service , but
                                                                         was made firstly in the interests of the person concerned
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             and , secondly, in order to achieve the doubling of the
                                                                         number of women at A 2 level in the Commission in
— annul the Commission 's decision appointing the                        1996 .
    successful candidate on 22 May 1996 to the post of
    Principal Legal Adviser, grade A 2 , in the Legal                — Infringement of the obligation to have due regard to the
    Service ,                                                            interests of officials .
— annul the decision, implicit in the contested decision
    referred to above , not to appoint the applicant to fill the     — Breach of good faith and the principle of the protection
    post of Principal Legal Adviser in the Legal Service ,               of legitimate expectations : The applicant maintains that
                                                                         he was in a situation in which the Community
— as the legal consequence of the annulment of the above                 administration had given him reasonable grounds to
    decisions, order the Commission to amend the                         expect that he would be promoted to grade A 2 .
    applicant's career bracket with effect from 1 June
    1996 ,                                                           As regards the claim for damages, the applicant argues that
                                                                     the decisions he seeks to have annulled , and which are
— order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU 1 in                 clearly in breach of duty having regard to their
    symbolic compensation for non-material damage,                   unlawfulness, have caused him significant non-material
                                                                     damage for which the Commission must make
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            compensation .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant makes the following arguments tn support of
his action :
— Lack of comparative examination of the merits : The
    applicant questions whether the candidates ' merits were
    objectively compared before the decisions were made,             Action brought on 26 July 1996 by Biscuiterie-Confiserie
    and adds that the procedure followed offered no                  LOR and Confiserie du TECH against the Commission of
    guarantees that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                           the European Communities
    the principle of equal treatment were complied with . He                                 ( Case T-l 14/96 )
    considers, moreover, that comparison of the merits                                         ( 96/C 269/62 )
    could not have led the Commission to prefer the
    successful person 's candidature to his own .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— Failure to state reasons : The applicant maintains that the
    Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff
    Regulations, in that no reasons are stated in the                An action against the Commission of the European
    contested decisions .                                            Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case F-136/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 3 May 2016 — Kovács v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Initial proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years made by the appointing authority and accepted by the person concerned — Withdrawal by the appointing authority of its initial proposal — New proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years based on new general implementing provisions — Objection of inadmissibility — Concept of an act having adverse effect — Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/40

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 3 May 2016 — Kovács v Commission
   (Case F-136/11) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Initial proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years made by the appointing authority and accepted by the person concerned - Withdrawal by the appointing authority of its initial proposal - New proposal concerning the crediting of pensionable years based on new general implementing provisions - Objection of inadmissibility - Concept of an act having adverse effect - Article 83 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 222/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zsuzsanna Kovács (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially, D. de Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal, S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, then D. de Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and lastly, J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, D. Martin and J. Baquero Cruz, Agents, then J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent, and lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision fixing the pension rights, acquired prior to entering the service, credited to the applicant under the EU pension scheme.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Zsuzsanna Kovács shall bear her own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 24.


title: Case C-324/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Partner Apelski Dariusz v Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/18/EC — Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators — Article 48(3) — Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities — Conditions and procedures — Nature of the links between the tenderer and the other entities — Amendment of the tender — Annulment and repetition of an electronic auction — Directive 2014/24/EU)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/8

      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Partner Apelski Dariusz v Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta
      (Case C-324/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/18/EC - Technical and/or professional abilities of economic operators - Article 48(3) - Possibility to rely on the capacities of other entities - Conditions and procedures - Nature of the links between the tenderer and the other entities - Amendment of the tender - Annulment and repetition of an electronic auction - Directive 2014/24/EU))
      (2016/C 211/09)
      Language of the case: Polish

         Referring court

      Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Partner Apelski Dariusz

         Defendant: Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta

         Intervening parties: Remondis sp. z o.o., MR Road Service sp. z o.o.

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, read together with Article 44(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that:

                              —

                              they recognise the right of all economic operators, as regards a specific contract, to rely on the capacities of other entities, whatever the nature of the links existing between it and those entities, provided that it is proved to the contracting authority that the candidate or tenderer will have at its disposal the resources of those entities necessary for the performance of that contract, and

                              —

                              it is conceivable that the exercise of that right may be limited, in specific circumstances, having regard to the subject matter of the contract concerned and its objectives. Such is the case, in particular, where the capacities that a third party entity has, which are necessary for the performance of that contract, cannot be transferred to the candidate or the tenderer, so that the latter may rely on those capacities only if that third party entity directly and personally participates in the performance of that contract.

                  2.

                  Article 48(2) and (3) of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that, having regard to the subject matter of a particular contract and its objectives, the contracting authority may, in specific circumstances, for the purpose of the proper performance of that contract, expressly set out in the tender notice or the tender specifications the specific rules in accordance with which an economic operator may rely on the capacities of other entities, provided that those rules are related and proportionate to the subject matter and objectives of that contract.

                  3.

                  The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination of economic operators, set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, they preclude a contracting authority, after the opening of the tenders submitted in a public procurement procedure, from acceding to the request of an economic operator which has submitted a tender for the whole of the contract concerned, to take its offer into consideration for the purpose of awarding only certain lots of that contract.

                  4.

                  The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination of economic operators laid down in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18 must be interpreted as meaning that they require the annulment and repetition of an electronic auction in which an economic operator having submitted an admissible tender has not been invited to take part, even if it cannot be established that the participation of that operator would have altered the outcome of the auction.

                  5.

                  In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the provisions of Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18 cannot be interpreted in the light of those of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18.

         (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.


title: Case T-314/15: Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/40

         Action brought on 2 June 2015 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-314/15)
   (2015/C 279/50)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: K. Boskovits and L. Cotroni)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 23 March 2015 in relation to the State aid SA.28876 (2012/C) (ex CP202/2009) which Greece granted to the undertakings Container Terminal Port of Piraeus and Cosco Pacific Limited;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law for annulment is a claim of infringement of the rights of defence of the Hellenic Republic.

                           —

                           In support of that plea, the Hellenic Republic invokes the change in the factual and legal basis for the procedure between the decision to initiate the procedure and the decision declaring that aid had been granted.

               2.

               The second plea in law for annulment is a claim of misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(1) TFEU in relation to the concept of State aid.

                           —

                           In support of that plea, the Hellenic Republic invokes the absence of economic advantage and the absence of selectivity with respect to the measures at issue and particularly the fact that the defendant failed to define correctly the reference system of the measures at issue, failed to assess the substantially distinct legal and factual situation of the undertakings which are active in public infrastructure projects in the light of the particular characteristics of the concession agreements with that subject matter and disregarded the basic and guiding principles of the general tax system which the measures at issue manifestly serve.

               3.

               The third plea in law for annulment is a claim of erroneous, deficient, and contradictory statement of reasons with respect to the determination of State aid.

                           —

                           In support of that plea, the Hellenic Republic invokes the erroneous, deficient, and contradictory statement of reasons as regards: (a) the granting of State aid through State resources, (b) the existence of a selective advantage, (c) the comparison with similar tax related provisions with respect to concession agreements for public infrastructure projects which the Commission approved, and (d) distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law for annulment is a claim of misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 107(3) TFEU in relation to the compatibility of the aid with the internal market.

                           —

                           In support of that plea, the Hellenic Republic invokes the defendants’s erroneous assessment with respect to the existence of compatible regional aid and with respect to whether the aid was necessary and proportionate and had an incentive effect in achieving an objective of common interest.

               5.

               The fifth plea in law for annulment is a claim of erroneous quantification of the aid and infringement of the general principles of EU law at the stage of recovery.

                           —

                           In support of that plea, the Hellenic Republic invokes the erroneous methodology employed by the defendant with respect to the quantification of the aid and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2001 in Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State aid — Article 93(2), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2), second subparagraph, EC) — Obligation to recover aid granted under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter schemes — Impossible to put into effect)

text:
11.8.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 227/5
2.    The application by the competent institution of a Member State        1.    Declares that by not implementing within the prescribed period
      of Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to                  the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      a request for review of a retirement pension, thus limiting the             comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament
      retroactivity of the review to the detriment of the person                  and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council
      concerned, constitutes a serious breach of Community law if                 Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions
      those provisions are not applicable to the application in question          laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
      and if it follows from a judgment delivered by the Court of                 Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
      Justice before the decision by the competent institution that the           activities, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
      institution wrongly applied and anti-overlapping rule of that               its obligations under that directive;
      Member State, and where it cannot be inferred from that
      judgment that the retroactive effect of such a review could be        2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      limited.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                                                of 3 July 2001
                           of 21 June 2001                                  in Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
in Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State
                                                                            aid — Article 93(2), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (now Article 88(2), second subparagraph, EC) — Obligation
Failure to implement Directive 97/36/EC amending Directive                  to recover aid granted under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter
89/552/EEC — Coordination of certain provisions laid down                               schemes — Impossible to put into effect)
by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
 concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/08)
                           (2001/C 227/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communities                    (Agent: G. Rozet) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,
(Agent: K. Banks) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                       assisted by G. van Gerven and K. Coppenholle) — application
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing              for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the periods
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                prescribed for under the Maribel bis/ter scheme which was
necessary to comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European                 declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market
Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending                      by Commission Decision 97/239/EC of 4 December 1996
Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain                 concerning aid granted by Belgium under the Maribel bis/ter
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative                   scheme (OJ 1997 L 95, p. 25), notified to it on 20 December
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television                1996, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), and/or by                   under the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty
failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of                (now the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC) and Articles 2
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                  and 3 of the said decision — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La                  composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Eward (Rapporteur)                J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric
and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                   (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louter-
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in               man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
which it:                                                                   judgment on 3 July 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/6                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     11.8.2001
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed           1983, that being the Netherlands reference year), particu-
      the measures necessary to recover from the beneficiary undertak-          larly in the light of the judgment in Spagl (2): there is
      ings the aid provided for under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter           nothing to indicate that — as the Court of First Instance
      schemes which were declared unlawful and incompatible with                seeks to suggest — the Court of Justice intended to
      the common market by Commission Decision 97/239/EC of                     restrict the invalidity of Regulation No 857/84 (3) to cases
      4 December 1996 concerning aid granted by Belgium under                   in which the SLOM producers concerned were unable to
      the Maribel bis/ter scheme, the Kingdom of Belgium has                    resume production during the 1983 reference year,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of            following the expiry of their non-marketing undertakings,
      Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now the fourth paragraph of                 which had by then come to an end. Had that indeed been
      Article 249 EC) and Articles 2 and 3 of the said decision;                the intention of the Court of Justice, it would have had to
                                                                                apply that limitation expressly, since the particular case
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                           before it was precisely concerned whit a SLOM producer
                                                                                in respect of whom it had been established that he had
                                                                                produced non milk during the entire reference year,
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                      despite the fact that his non-marketing undertaking had
                                                                                expired during the course of that year (on 31 March
                                                                                1983). The interpretation arrived at by the Court of First
                                                                                Instance reflects the principal argument raised as a
                                                                                defence by the institutions in Spagl, which was manifestly
Appeal brought on 13 April 2000 by E. Bouma against the                         rejected in the judgment.
judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                          The case of Spagl was in the nature of a test case, and
Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one hand,                          was, moreover, treated as such by the Court of Justice. By
E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European                         purporting, over ten years later, to limit the scope of the
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                            judgment in Spagl by applying a speculative gloss to the
                                                                                significance of the underlying facts, the Court of First
                                                                                Instance has misconstrued the judicial task of the Court
                          (Case C-162/01 P)                                     of Justice, thereby seriously undermining the principle of
                                                                                legal certainty.
                           (2001/C 227/09)                                      The judgment in the present case directly conflicts with
                                                                                an earlier judgment delivered by the Court of First
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001                     Instance itself, in Joined Cases T-195/94 and T-202/94
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     Quiller and Heusmann.
European Communities in Case T-533/93 between, on the one
hand, E. Bouma and, on the other, the Council of the European              —    Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of the
Union and the Commission of the European Communities                            protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement
Communities on 13 April 2001 by E. Bouma, represented by                        of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance, in
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, advocaat, the other parties tot the                     assessing Mr Bouma’s compensation claims, attached
proceedings being the Council of the European Union, rep-                       significance to the fact that he did not produce any milk
resented by A.M. Colaert, and the Commission of the European                    between 31 December 1983 and 1 April 1984: it is
Communities, represented by T. van Rijn.                                        impossible to see why a defence previously rejected by
                                                                                the Court of Justice (in paragraphs 15 and 16 of its
                                                                                judgment in Mulder I, paragraph 14 of its judgment in
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     Spagl and paragraph 17 of its interim judgment in
                                                                                Mulder II) and also by the Court of First Instance (see
—     set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                                paragraph 97 of the judgment in Quiller and Heusmann)
      Instance on 31 January 2001 in Case T-533/93 (1);
                                                                                should subsequently have been accepted by the Court of
—     refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;                       First Instance.
—     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs                —    Violation of the principle of equality, the principle of the
      of the proceedings before both Courts.                                    protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of
                                                                                legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement
                                                                                of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance
                                                                                wrongly assessed the compensation claims of SLOM 83
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 producers, particularly in the light of the judgment in
                                                                                Mulder II: it is apparent that, in paragraph 23 of the
—     Breach of the principle of equality, the principle of the                 interim judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 May 1992,
      protection of legitimate expectations, the principle of                   cited by the Court of First Instance, the Court of
      legal certainty and the obligation to provide a statement                 Justice merely concluded that the four SLOM producers
      of reasons, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance                       concerned had made it sufficiently clear that they did in
      incorrectly assessed the compensation claims of SLOM                      fact intend to resume milk production. There is nothing
      83 producers (that is to say, SLOM producers whose non-                   to indicate that the Court of Justice intended to provide
      marketing undertakings expired during the course of                       an exhaustive list of the ways in which that intention


title: Joined Cases C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — Freixenet SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Applications for registration of Community trade marks representing a frosted white bottle and a frosted black matt bottle — Refusal to register — Lack of distinctive character)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 October 2011 — Freixenet SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Joined Cases C-344/10 P and C-345/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Applications for registration of Community trade marks representing a frosted white bottle and a frosted black matt bottle - Refusal to register - Lack of distinctive character)
   2011/C 362/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Freixenet SA (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu and D. Moreau, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 27 April 2010 in Case T-109/08 Freixenet v OHIM, by which that court dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2007 (Case R 97/2001-1), concerning an application for registration of a sign representing a frosted white matt bottle as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 73 and 38(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (now Articles 7(1)(b), 75 and 37(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)) — Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right to a fair hearing — Refusal to register a trade mark — Absence of distinctive character

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgments of the General Court of the European Union of 27 April 2010 in Case T-109/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted white bottle), and in Case T-110/08 Freixenet v OHIM (Frosted black matt bottle);

               2.

               Annuls the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 30 October 2007 (case R 97/2001-1) and of 20 November 2007 (Case R 104/2001-1);

               3.

               Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs both at first instance and in the appeals.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case T-134/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Polynt and Sitre v ECHA (REACH — Identification of certain respiratory sensitisers as substances of very high concern — Equivalent level of concern — Action for annulment — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Rights of the defence — Proportionality)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Polynt and Sitre v ECHA
   (Case T-134/13) (1)

   ((REACH - Identification of certain respiratory sensitisers as substances of very high concern - Equivalent level of concern - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Rights of the defence - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 198/43)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polynt SpA (Scanzorosciate, Italy); and Sitre Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: New Japan Chemical (Osaka, Japan); and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH (Kelkheim, Germany) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman, M. Bulterman and C. Schillemans, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by: K. Mifsud-Bonnici and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Decision ED/169/2012 of the ECHA of 18 December 2012 concerning the inclusion of substances of very high concern in the list of candidate substances, in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), in so far as it concerns cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (EC No 201-604-9), cis-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (EC No 236-086-3) and trans-cyclohexane-1,2-dicarboxylic anhydride (EC No 238-009-9).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Polynt SpA and Sitre Srl to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA);

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the European Commission, New Japan Chemical and REACh ChemAdvice GmbH to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Case C-124/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 25 March 2008 — I. G.A.L.M. Snauwaert and Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA v Belgian State; II. Coldstar NV v Belgian State; III. D.P.W. Vlaeminck v Belgian State; IV. J.P. Den Haerynck v Belgian State; and V. A.E.M. De Wintere v Belgian State

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België, lodged on 25 March 2008 — I. G.A.L.M. Snauwaert and Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA v Belgian State; II. Coldstar NV v Belgian State; III. D.P.W. Vlaeminck v Belgian State; IV. J.P. Den Haerynck v Belgian State; and V. A.E.M. De Wintere v Belgian State
   (Case C-124/08)
   (2008/C 142/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants:

               I.

                           1.

                           G.A.L.M. Snauwaert

                           2.

                           Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA, party incurring civil liability

               II.

               Coldstar NV, party incurring civil liability

               III.

               D.P.W. Vlaeminck

               IV.

               J.P. Den Haerynck

               V.

               A.E.M. De Wintere

      Respondent: Belgische Staat (Belgian State)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) be construed as meaning that the prescribed communication of a customs debt to the person liable for payment can be lawfully effected only after it has been entered in the accounts or, in other words, that the communication of a customs debt to the person liable for payment prescribed in Article 221(1) of the CCC should always be preceded by its entry in the accounts if it is to be lawful and to comply with Article 221(1)of the CCC?

               2.

               Should Article 221(3) of the CCC, as applicable before its amendment by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 (2), be construed as meaning that the option of lawfully communicating the amount entered in the accounts after the period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred, if that debt is the result of an act which is liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings, is available to the customs authorities only in respect of the person who is responsible for the act which is liable to give rise to criminal court proceedings?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302 p. 1).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).


title: Case C-330/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/57

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-330/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/117
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-167/07: Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2008 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 28 February 2008 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-167/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/53)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 in Case T-269/04 IDOM SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Withdrawal of application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/16

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 December 2004
   in Case T-269/04 IDOM SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Withdrawal of application for registration - No need to adjudicate)
   (2005/C 69/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case T-269/04, IDOM SA, established in Bilbao, Spain, represented by Tatiana Villate Consonni, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: Ignacio de Medrano Caballero), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the OHIM being IDOM Inc., established in New Jersey (United States), represented by Fry Heath and Spence LLP, lawyers; appeal against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 27 April 2004 (Case R 153/2003-2), concerning registration of the sign IDOM as a Community trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; Registrar, H. Jung, made an order on 13 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the appeal

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.


title: Case F-60/06: Action brought on  12 May 2006  — Stump and Camba Constenla v Court of Justice

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/35

         Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Stump and Camba Constenla v Court of Justice
   (Case F-60/06)
   (2006/C 165/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Krisztina Stump and Carmen Camba Constenla (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decisions appointing the applicants officials of the European Communities in so far as the decisions set their grade of recruitment in accordance with Article 12 or 13 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants rely upon pleas in law very similar to those put forward in Case F-12/06 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006, p. 48.


title: Case C-185/16 SA: Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 29 March 2016 — Yukos Universal Ltd v European Investment Bank

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/15

         Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order brought on 29 March 2016 — Yukos Universal Ltd v European Investment Bank
   (Case C-185/16 SA)
   (2016/C 175/17)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Yukos Universal Ltd (represented by: H. Boularbah, avocat)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to declare the grounds, amounts and arrangements for the debts which the Russian Federation holds against it;

               —

               Authorise YUL to serve interim and final garnishee orders on the European Investment Bank in respect of those debts and, de minimis, of all sums owed or which will be owed by the European Investment Bank to the Russian Federation in its capacity as issuer of bonds subscribed by the Russian Federation, including on the interest generated by those bonds and their reimbursement, in accordance with the arrangements laid down in the applicable issue contract(s) or prospectus(es) and up to an amount, in principal and interest, subject to revaluation during the proceedings, of EUR 1 690 886 892,20 (amount of the debt held by YUL against the Russian Federation);

               —

               In any event, order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs of these proceedings.


25 . 1 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 26/ 11
consists in excluding the construction industry from the            Council of the European Union and Commission of the
scope of the regional scheme for the reduction of social            European Communities .
charges in the Mezzogiorno falls outside the scope of
Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty.                                0 ) OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
By the present action, the applicant alleges that the
defendant has breached provisions of the EC Treaty and
general principles of law, in particular the principle of
non-discrimination, and that the statement of reasons of
the decision are defective .
                                                                          Partial removal from the register of T-154/96 (*)
                                                                                ( 97/C 26/20 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
           Removal from the register of T-162/95 ( ] )
                                                                    By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the Fifth
                        ( 97/C 26/19 )                              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
               (Language of the case: German)                       Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                    Antoinette Losch's name from the list of applicants in
By order of 8 October 1996 the President of the First               Case T-154/96 : Christiane Chvatal and Others v. Court of
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              Justice of the European Communities .
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-162/95 : Hubertus Freiherr von Marschalck v.                 (!) OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .


title: Case T-244/02: Action brought on 9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC (formerly known as G.D. Searle & Co) against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
12.10.2002            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 247/23
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the Commission not to include the
      applicant’s name in the list of officials most deserving of         By decision of 23 July 2001, the Commission department to
      promotion to Grade B 2 and the decision not to promote              which the applicant is posted requested that proceedings be
      him to that grade in the 2001 promotions procedure;                 initiated to recommence other proceedings allegedly initiated
                                                                          previously for a finding of professional incompetence of the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               applicant. According to the applicant, the Director General of
                                                                          DG ADMIN interpreted that request as a request to ‘initiate
                                                                          proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations’.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the documents on which his
                                                                          department based its request show the imprecise way in which
The applicant in the present case, an official at Grade B 3               it is handling the file. The file in no way demonstrates that the
working for the defendant, challenges the appointing auth-                proceedings referred to were initiated in 1994 and 1996.
ority’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 2 in the context of
the 2001 promotions procedure.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                          —      lack of precision as regards the reopening of former
of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the                         proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations or
principles of equal treatment, that officials should have
                                                                                the opening of new proceedings, without setting out the
reasonable career prospects and of the principle of sound
                                                                                applicant’s conduct complained of;
administration.
                                                                          —      infringement of the rule audi alteram partem;
                                                                          —      infringement of the principle non bis in idem;
                                                                          —      breach of the principle that legitimate expectations are to
Action brought on 12 August 2002 by J against Com-                               be protected;
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                          —      breach of the principle of proportionality;
                        (Case T-243/02)                                   —      error of assessment of the facts and misuse of powers;
                        (2002/C 247/37)                                   —      lack of statement of reasons;
                   (Language of the case: French)                         —      infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 August 2002 by J, represented
by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC
                                                                          (formerly known as G.D. Searle & Co) against the Office
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                                and Designs)
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 Feb-
      ruary 2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of                                             (Case T-244/02)
      29 December 2001;
—     annul the decision of 23 July 2001 asking DG ADMIN ‘to                                        (2002/C 247/38)
      initiate proceedings for a finding of repeated professional
      shortcomings as soon as possible’;                                                      (Language of the case: English)
—     annul the decision of 19 September 2001 concerning the
      initiation of proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff
      Regulations;                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
—     award damages to the applicant for the non-material                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 25 000;                    9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC (formerly known as
                                                                          G.D. Searle & Co), represented by Graham Farrington, Farring-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               ton & Co Solicitors, Reading (UK).
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of                 —     annul the implied rejection by the appointing authority
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                      of the request of 28 August 2001 for damages on account
      (Trademarks and Designs) of 19 June 2002;                                of the undue delay by the defendant in drawing up the
                                                                               applicant’s staff reports for the reference periods 1995-
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its                      1997 and 1997-1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                     the implied rejection of the complaint of 14 January
      Trademark number 1299809.                                                2002;
                                                                         —     award EUR 25 000 in damages by of compensation for
                                                                               non-material damage, that amount being fixed ex aequo et
                                                                               bono;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The trade mark con-          The figurative mark, presented as
cerned:                      design of capsule with yellow
                             bands          —           application
                             No 1299809
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Goods or service con-        Goods in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals
cerned:                      in the nature of anti-inflammatory          By his application, the applicant, an official of the Office de
                             analgesics)
                                                                         Contrôle de la Sécurité at Euratom, seeks an award of damages
                                                                         for the alleged delay in drawing up his staff report relating to
Decision        contested    Refusal of registration by the              the reference periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999.
before the Board of          examiner
Appeal:
                                                                         The applicant claims that, by refusing to finalise those reports
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal                     which are an essential assessment where the applicant’s career
Appeal:                                                                  is at stake, the defendant infringed Article 43 of the Staff
                                                                         Regulations, the provisions of the Guide de Notation and the
Grounds of claim:            Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b)           principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the defendant is in
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)             breach of its duty to have regard to the welfare of its officials
                                                                         and infringed the principle of sound administration.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 9 August 2002 by The Christian
                                                                         Science Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ,
                                                                         Scientist against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-
                              ties                                                                (Case T-247/02)
                        (Case T-246/02)                                                           (2002/C 247/40)
                        (2002/C 247/39)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                9 August 2002 by The Christian Science Board of Directors of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The First Church of Christ, Scientist, represented by Nicholas
European Communities on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer                  Green QC, Mark Engelman, barristers and by Geoffrey Smith
de Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges               and James Mitchiner, solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse,
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.               London (UK).


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 29 March 2001 in Case T-18/01 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Application for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)

text:
19.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/13
1.    The Commission’s application is dismissed.                          Murphy, Solicitor, against the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: P. Oliver) — application for interim
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                 measures in connection with an action under Article 230 EC
                                                                          for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 12 January
                                                                          2001 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the
                                                                          alleged infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General
                                                                          Council of the Bar of England and Wales, the President of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance made an order on 29 March 2001, the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              operative part of which is as follows:
                              INSTANCE
                                                                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                          of 29 March 2001
in Case T-302/00 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                     2.    The costs are reserved.
                   the European Communities
 (Action for interim measures — Admissibility — Urgency)
                           (2002/C 17/22)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
In Case T-302/00 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,                                         of 3 October 2001
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John
Murphy, Solicitor, against the Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: P. Oliver and R. Lyal) — application                 in Case T-60/01: Marie-Josée Bollendorff v European
for interim measures in connection with an action under                                               Parliament (1)
Article 230 EC for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
7 July 2000 rejecting the applicant’s complaint concerning the            (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
alleged infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the General                             measure — No need to adjudicate)
Medical Council — the President of the Court of First Instance
made an order on 29 March 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                                                (2002/C 17/24)
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                          In Case T-60/01: Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg, represented by L. Mosar, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against European Parliament (Agents:
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Y. Pantalis and D. Moore) — application for annulment of the
                              INSTANCE                                    decision of the Parliament to regard as irregular the absence of
                                                                          the applicant from 21 March 2000 to 30 April 2000 and to
                                                                          deduct that absence from her annual leave entitlement —
                          of 29 March 2001                                the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of
                                                                          B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
in Case T-18/01 R: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of                      H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 October 2001, the
                   the European Communities                               operative part of which is as follows:
(Application for interim measures — Admissibility —
                               Urgency)                                   1.    There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.
                           (2002/C 17/23)                                 2.    The Parliament shall bear the entire costs.
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1) OJ 2001 C 173.
In Case T-18/01 R: Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John


title: Case C-279/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Vonk Dairy Products B.V., Ittevoort v Productschap Zuivel

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/1

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in Vonk Dairy Products B.V., Ittevoort v Productschap Zuivel
   (Case C-279/05)
   (2005/C 257/02)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven of 30 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 11 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Vonk Dairy Products B.V. and Productschap Zuivel on the following questions:

               1.

               Should Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1), as applicable at the material time, be interpreted as meaning that, if variable refunds are definitively paid after acceptance of the import documents, subsequent evidence that the goods have been re-exported may lead to the conclusion that the refunds have been wrongly paid only in the event of abuse on the part of the exporter?

               2.

               If question 1 must be answered in the negative, what criteria apply to enable it to be established when the re-exportation of goods necessarily leads to the conclusion that definitively paid variable refunds were wrongly paid?

               3.

               What criteria apply to enable it to be established whether there has been a continuous or repeated irregularity as referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (2)? The College would particularly like to know whether a continuous or repeated irregularity is deemed to have occurred where the irregularity relates to a relatively small proportion of all transactions in a given period and the transactions in which an irregularity has been detected always concern different consignments.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ L 351, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ L 312, p. 1).