title: Case T-347/14: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Yanukovych v Council (Action for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Modification of the form of order sought — Death of the applicant — Inadmissibility — Proof that inclusion on the list is justified — Manifestly well founded action)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/44

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2016 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-347/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Modification of the form of order sought - Death of the applicant - Inadmissibility - Proof that inclusion on the list is justified - Manifestly well founded action))
   (2016/C 335/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially E. Finnegan and J.-P. Hix, and subsequently J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 implementing Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 91), and of Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1), as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2014 L 111, p. 33), and secondly, of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 16), of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 1), of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), in so far as they concern Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in their original versions, are annulled in so far as they concern Mr Viktor Viktorovych Yanukovych.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by Mrs Olga Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, in relation to the claim for annulment made in the application.

               4.

               Mrs Stanislavivna Yanukovych, as heir of Mr Viktorovych Yanukovych, shall bear her own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council in relation to the claim for annulment made in the statement of modification.

               5.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2001 in Case C-147/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Ineligible durum wheat — Quantities missing from the stockpile — Withdrawal of approval of undertakings packaging olive oil — Inadequate management and checks of premiums for sheep and goats)

text:
19.1.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 17/5
4.    Orders Oder-Plan Architektur GmbH, NCC Deutsche Bau                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      GmbH and Esbensen Consulting Engineers, jointly and sever-
      ally, to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
( 1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                                of 22 November 2001
                                                                            in Joined Cases C-541/99 and C-542/99 (references for
                                                                            preliminary rulings from the Giudice di Pace di Viadana):
                                                                            Cape Snc and Idealservice Srl (C-541/99) and between
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                Idealservice MN RE Sas and OMAI Srl (C-542/99) (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC — Meaning of ‘con-
                       of 22 November 2001                                  sumer’ — Undertaking concluding a standard contract with
                                                                            another undertaking to acquire merchandise or services solely
                                                                                for the benefit of its employees)
in Case C-147/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 17/07)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Ineligible durum wheat
— Quantities missing from the stockpile — Withdrawal of
approval of undertakings packaging olive oil — Inadequate
  management and checks of premiums for sheep and goats)                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (2002/C 17/06)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Joined Cases C-541/99 and C-542/99: references to the
                                                                            Court under Article 234 EC from the Giudice di Pace
In Case C-147/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted              (Magistrate), Viadana, (Italy) for preliminary rulings in the
by D. Del Gaizo) v Commission of the European Communities                   proceedings pending before that court between Cape Snc and
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —                  Idealservice Srl (C-541/99) and between Idealservice MN RE
application for annulment of the part concerning the Italian                Sas and OMAI Srl (C-542/99) — on the interpretation of
Republic of Commission Decision 1999/187/EC of 3 February                   Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993
1999 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the                      on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29)
Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the                 — the Court, composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur), President
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and                 of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
Guarantee Fund (OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37) — the Court (Sixth                     J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,                 Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 Novem-
N. Colneric, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and                        ber 2001, in which it has ruled:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November
2001, in which it:                                                          The term ‘consumer’, as defined in Article 2(b) of Council Directive
                                                                            93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts,
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                 must be interpreted as referring solely to natural persons.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: Case T-507/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Poland v Commission

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/44

         Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-507/15)
   (2015/C 354/54)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) No 2015/1119 of 22 June 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (notified under document C(2015) 4076) (OJ 2015 L 182, p. 39) in so far as it excludes from European Union financing the amounts of EUR 1 42  446,05 and EUR 5 5 3 75  053,74 paid by the accredited paying agency of the Republic of Poland;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Article 52(1) of Regulation No 1306/2013 (1) and breach of the principle of legal certainty and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations by applying a financial correction on the basis of incorrect findings of fact and incorrect interpretation of the law, even though the expenditure was carried out by the Polish authorities in accordance with the EU provisions.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 52(2) of Regulation No 1306/2013 by applying a flat-rate correction in an amount grossly disproportionate to the risk of possible financial loss to the EU budget.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).


title: Case C-199/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Rita Hoffmeyer and Rudolf Meyer v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Rita Hoffmeyer and Rudolf Meyer v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-199/17)
   (2017/C 221/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rita Hoffmeyer, Rudolf Meyer

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case C-137/14: Action brought on 21 March 2014  — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/16

         Action brought on 21 March 2014 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-137/14)
   2014/C 159/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Hermes, G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) and Article 25 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control), (2) by

               —

               regarding the provisions of Directive 2011/92 as not, in principle, conferring any subjective rights, and thereby largely excluding any recourse to legal action by individuals (Paragraph 113(1) of the Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung (Administrative Court Rules));

               —

               limiting the annulment of decisions on the basis of procedural errors to the complete absence of a requisite environmental impact assessment or the absence of a requisite pre-assessment (Paragraph 4(1) of the Umwelt-Rechtsbehelfsgesetz (Law on environmental appeals), ‘UmwRG’) and to cases in which the applicant proves that the procedural error was causative as regards the result of the decision (Paragraph 46 of the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (Law on administrative procedure), ‘VwVfG’) and the applicant’s legal position is affected;

               —

               limiting the right to bring proceedings and the scope of the courts’ review to objections previously raised within the period allowed for raising objections in the administrative procedures that led to the adoption of the decision (Paragraph 2(3), UmwRG and Paragraph 73(6), VwVfG) and

               —

               in proceedings brought after 25 June 2005 and concluded before 12 May 2011, restricting the right of environmental organisations to bring proceedings to legal provisions that confer rights on individuals (Paragraph 2(1), in conjunction with Paragraph 5(1), UmwRG);

               —

               in proceedings brought after 25 June 2005 and concluded before 12 May 2011, restricting the scope of the courts’ review of appeals by environmental organisations to legal provisions that confer rights on individuals (former Paragraph 2(1), in conjunction with Paragraph 5(1), UmwRG);

               —

               excluding generally any administrative proceedings initiated before 25 June 2005 from the scope of application of the UmwRG (Paragraph 5(1), UmwRG).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In essence, the following pleas in law are raised:
   The defendant has infringed the obligation of sincere cooperation both in temporal and in substantive terms. Thus, it took more than 18 months to attempt to draw the appropriate conclusions from the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 May 2011 in Case C-115/09. (3) In substantive terms, the rules adopted by the defendant are inadequate and contradict both the aforementioned case-law and the judgment of the Court of Justice in Altrip. (4).
   In relation to the judicial protection afforded to individuals the Federal Republic continues to restrict any review by the courts to compliance with rules conferring subjective rights within the meaning of the ‘Schutznormtheorie’ (protective provision theory). Further restrictions apply to the judicial protection afforded to individuals as well as that afforded to organisations. Thus the UmwRG permits annulment of decisions granting authorisation only if there is no environmental impact assessment, but not if the assessment was carried out incorrectly.
   In addition, Germany provides for annulment of a procedurally unlawful environmental impact assessment decision that has been challenged by individuals only if the applicant specifically makes out a case for the proposition that that decision would have been different if there had been no procedural error, and the procedural error affects a substantive legal position to which the applicant is entitled.
   Further, objections by organisations in judicial proceedings are precluded in so far as they have not already been raised during the administrative procedure. Lastly the new version of the UmwRG and the relevant German case-law fail, in key respects, to meet the requirements of Directive 2011/92, as determined in more detail by the Court of Justice in Trianel and Altrip.
   Furthermore, the UmwRG excludes from its temporal scope proceedings brought before the directive came into force.
   These significant restrictions are contrary overall to the objective of Directive 2011/92: to provide broad judicial protection in accordance with Article 9(2) and (3) of the Aarhus Convention.

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17.

      (3)  BUND, C-115/09, EU:C:2011:289.

      (4)  Altrip, C-72/12, EU:C:2013:712.


title: Case T-464/14 P: Order of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Nieminen v Council (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2010 and 2011 promotion procedures — Decision not to promote the appellant to grade AD 12 — Right to a fair hearing — Rights of defence — Scope of the judicial review at first instance — Manifest error of assessment — No error of law and of distortion — Appeal manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/58

         Order of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Nieminen v Council
   (Case T-464/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2010 and 2011 promotion procedures - Decision not to promote the appellant to grade AD 12 - Right to a fair hearing - Rights of defence - Scope of the judicial review at first instance - Manifest error of assessment - No error of law and of distortion - Appeal manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 389/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Risto Nieminen (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: initially, M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, and subsequently, J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 April 2014 in Nieminen v Council (F-81/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:50), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Risto Nieminen shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-305/97)

text:
28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/25
Ð the public contract appears to have been awarded                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    after 14 April 1997, the date on which the deadline
    for valid tenders expired, without the tenderers having
    been asked to confirm whether or not their price                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    remained the same, and                                               damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
                                                                         application,
Ð subject to an examination of the administrative file at
    a later stage, it must be considered to have been
    established that the successful tender is not in                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
    conformity with the whole of the obligations set out in              applicant's costs.
    the special contract documents, which necessarily
    vitiates the decision to accept that tender.                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
                                                                     arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect
                                                                     to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by SPRL Ecole de                   producer, has not been compensated for the absence of
Maîtrise Automobile against the Commission of the                    quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-303/97)
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the
                         (98/C 94/64)                                applicant are similar to those raised in Cases T-195/94
                                                                     and T-202/94 Quiller and Heusmann v. Council and
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Commission (1) and T-10/96 Lay v. Council and
An action against the Commission of the European                     Commission (2).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                   In relation to the five-year limitation period under
1997 by SPRL Ecole de Maîtrise Automobile, established               Article 43 of the Protocol on the (EC) Statute the Court of
in Luxembourg, represented by Luc Van Damme, of the                  Justice, the applicant contends that it only began to run
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           from the date when that Court held that the non-
the Chambers of Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.                  allocation of quota to the SLOM III group was illegal.
                                                                     Alternatively, the failure to provide for a SLOM III quota
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     constituted a continuing breach up to the date of its
                                                                     introduction in 1993 and the Council and the Commission
Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                     were therefore guilty of a continuing breach of the
    awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                     applicant's legitimate expectations from the end of the
    drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
                                                                     non-marketing scheme until that date.
Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
    tender.                                                          (1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994, p. 16, and
                                                                         OJ C 218, 6.8.1994, p. 22.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (2) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996, p. 23.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those relied upon in Case T-302/97.
                                                                     Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull
                                                                     against the Council of the European Union and the
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon                         Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union and the                                           (Case T-305/97)
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-304/97)                                                        (98/C 94/66)
                         (98/C 94/65)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union and              An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                       the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon,                  Communities on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull,
represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs                  represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs
Dawson & Co, of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London                  Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London
WC2A 3RZ.                                                            WC2A 3RZ.
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
    application,
Ð order the Council and/or Commission to pay the
    applicant's costs.                                             Action brought on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S.
                                                                   Rowlands and E. H. S. Rowlands against the Council of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-307/97)
The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect                                (98/C 94/68)
to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
producer, has not been compensated for the absence of                             (Language of the case: English)
quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the                  the Commission of the European Communities was
applicant are the same as those raised in Case T-304/97            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Hilsdon v. Council and Commission.                                 Communities on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S. Rowlands
                                                                   and E. H. S. Rowlands, represented by Rory Hutchings,
                                                                   Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,
                                                                   Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis against the Council             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
of the European Union and the Commission of the                        in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-306/97)                             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
                         (98/C 94/67)                                  applicant's costs.
               (Language of the case: English)                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                   the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                   and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
Communities on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
                                                                   introduction of SLOM quota.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis, represented by Rory
Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New
Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                            The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
    applicant's costs.                                             and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European
                                                                    Union and the Commission of the European Comunities
                                                                                (Case T-308/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 94/69)
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        the Commission of the European Communities was


title: Case T-269/17: Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/32

         Action brought on 8 May 2017 — Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking v Revoind Industriale
   (Case T-269/17)
   (2017/C 231/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (CSJU) (represented by: B. Mastantuono, Agent and M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Revoind Industriale Srl (Oricola, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the CSJU the amount of EUR 433 485,93 in relation to the Grant Agreement for partners No 325954 ‘ESICAPIA-Experimental Subsonic Investigation of a Complete Aircraft Propulsion system Installation and Architecture power plant optimization’, plus the amount of EUR 2 244,63 as late payment interest calculated at a rate of 3,5 % for the period between 7 February 2017 and 1 April 2017;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 41,57 per day by way of interest from 2 April 2017 until the date on which the debt is repaid in full; and

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on on the following plea in law.
   The applicant contends that the defendant has breached its contractual obligations, by failing to implement project ESICAPIA and by failing to provide CSJU with the relevant reports and deliverables, in accordance with Article II.2 Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Moreover, the defendant has failed to carry out the work to be performed as identified in Annex I therefore violating its obligations under Article II.3 lett. a) e) and h) of Annex II of the Grant Agreement.
   Accordingly, the applicant terminated the Grant Agreement on the basis of Article II.38 Annex II of the Grant Agreement and issued debit note for the pre-financing of EUR 433 485,93 that had already been paid by the coordinator to the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement. Indeed the pre-financing remains the property of the applicant until final payment.
   The facts giving rise to Revoind Industriale S.r.l.’s obligations, as beneficiary of the Grant Agreement, are widely undisputed in the present case and the defendant’s objections are generic, incomplete and lack of any supporting element, thus appear to be completely unfounded.
   Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to ask for the recovery and the reimbursement of the amount paid to the defendant as pre-financing, increased by default interest.


title: Case C-352/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany)) — Brigitte Bosmann v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen (Social security — Child benefit — Suspension of entitlement to benefits — Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Legislation applicable — Granting of benefits in the Member State of residence which is not the competent Member State)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln (Germany)) — Brigitte Bosmann v Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen
   (Case C-352/06) (1)

   (Social security - Child benefit - Suspension of entitlement to benefits - Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Legislation applicable - Granting of benefits in the Member State of residence which is not the competent Member State)
   (2008/C 171/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brigitte Bosmann

      Defendant: Bundesagentur für Arbeit — Familienkasse Aachen
   Re:
   Reference for a Preliminary Ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition Series I, Chapter 1971 (II), p. 416) — Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, Series I, Chapter 1972 (I), p. 159) — Interpretation of Article 39 EC — Interpretation of general principles — Child benefit for dependent children — Suspension of benefits paid in the State of residence — Right to benefits of the same type in the State of employment.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, does not preclude a migrant worker, who is subject to the social security scheme of the Member State of employment, from receiving, pursuant to the national legislation of the Member State of residence, child benefit in the latter State.

               2.

               It is for the referring court to determine whether the fact that a worker, in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings, returns at the end of each working day to the family residence in the Member State concerned is relevant for the purposes of deciding whether such a worker satisfies the requirements for the grant of the child benefit in question in that State pursuant to its legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Joined Cases C-393/04 and C-41/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège (Court of Appeal, Liège ), Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège) — Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA v Ville de Seraing (C-393/04) and Province de Liège (C-41/05) (State aid — Definition — Exemption from municipal and provincial taxes — Effects of Article 88(3) EC — Charges having equivalent effect — Internal taxation)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Liège (Court of Appeal, Liège ), Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Court of First Instance, Liège) — Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA v Ville de Seraing (C-393/04) and Province de Liège (C-41/05)
   (Joined Cases C-393/04 and C-41/05) (1)

   (State aid - Definition - Exemption from municipal and provincial taxes - Effects of Article 88(3) EC - Charges having equivalent effect - Internal taxation)
   (2006/C 212/06)
   Language of the cases: French
   Referring courts
   Cour d'appel de Liège, Tribunal de première instance de Liège
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Air Liquide Industries Belgium SA

      Defendants: Ville de Seraing (C-393/04), Province de Liège (C-41/05)
   Re:
   References for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Liège, Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Articles 25 EC, 87 EC and 90 EC — State aid — Exemption from a municipal tax and a provincial tax on motive force solely for motors used for the distribution of natural gas, to the exclusion of motors used in the distribution of industrial gas
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The exemption from a municipal or provincial tax on motive force granted solely in respect of motors used in natural gas stations, to the exclusion of motors used for other industrial gases, may be regarded as State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC. It is for the referring courts to establish whether the conditions relating to the existence of State aid are met.

               2.

               The fact that a tax exemption, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be unlawful in the light of Community law on State aid does not affect the legality of the tax itself, so that undertakings liable to pay such a tax cannot rely before national courts on the argument that the exemption was unlawful, in order to avoid payment of the tax or to obtain reimbursement of it.

               3.

               A tax on motive force, levied in particular on motors used for transporting industrial gas through very high pressure pipes, does not constitute a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25 EC.

               4.

               A tax on motive force, levied in particular on motors used for transporting industrial gas through very high pressure pipes, does not constitute discriminatory internal taxation for the purposes of Article 90 EC.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.

      OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 1999 in Case C-31/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München): Peter Luksch v Hauptzollamt Weiden (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Fruit and vegetables - Importation of sour cherries from a third country - Levy of a countervailing charge equal to the difference between the minimum price and the import price - Applicability to spoiled goods)

text:
C 204/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           17.7.1999
On a proper interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature, in the                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
version contained in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No
2551/93 of 10 August 1993 amending Annex I to Council
                                                                                (First Chamber)
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-
ture and on the common customs tariff, dried walnut pieces, imported
from a non-member country, which have been stored in the                                               of 28 April 1999
Community at a temperature of −24 oC and which, after thawing
out, arc cleared through customs to be admitted into free circulation
                                                                           in Case C-250/98: Commission of the European Communi-
must be classified under tariff heading 0802.
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                                                                                transpose Directive 89/594/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/15)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)                                                      (Language of the case: French)
                           of 28 April 1999
in Case C-31/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the Finanzgericht München): Peter Luksch v Hauptzollamt                                         in the European Court Reports)
                               Weiden (1)
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                        In Case C-250/98: Commission of the European Communities
Fruit and vegetables — Importation of sour cherries from a                 (Agents: Antonio Caeiro and Bernard Mongin) v French
third country — Levy of a countervailing charge equal to the               Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Anne de
difference between the minimum price and the import price                  Bourgoing) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                — Applicability to spoiled goods)                          adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                           necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of 30
                            (1999/C 204/14)                                October 1989 amending Directives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC,
                                                                           78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/EEC relating to the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence
                                                                           of formal qualifications as doctors, nurses responsible for
                                                                           general care, dental practitioners, veterinary surgeons and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     midwives, together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC
                    in the European Court Reports)                         and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions
In Case C-31/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating
the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht München (Finance Court,               to the activities of doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives
Munich), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings              (OJ 1989 L 341, p. 19), the French Republic has failed to fulfil
pending before that court between Peter Luksch and Hauptzoll-              its obligations under Directive 89/594 — the Court (First
amt Weiden — on the interpretation of Article 1 of Com-                    Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
mission Regulation (EC) No 1395/94 of 17 June 1994                         D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-
establishing a minimum import price for sour cherries (OJ                  Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
1994 L 152, p. 31) and Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)                 given a judgment on 28 April 1999, in which it:
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
L 256, p. 1) as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
2551/93 of 10 August 1993 (OJ 1993 L 241, p. 1), and in                        Directive 89/594/EEC of 30 October 1989 amending Direc-
particular Note 1 to Chapter 8 of the Combined Nomenclature                    tives 75/362/EEC, 77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rappor-                     and 80/154/EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas,
teur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón,                  certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications as doctors,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                   nurses responsible for general care, dental practitioners, veterinary
given a judgment on 28 April 1999, in which it has ruled:                      surgeons and midwives, together with Directives
                                                                               75/363/EEC,78/1027/EEC and 80/155/EEC concerning the
Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1395/94 of 17 June                  coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
1994 establishing a minimum import price for sour cherries must be             administrative action relating to the activities of doctors, vet-
interpreted as meaning that a countervailing charge may not be levied          erinary surgeons and midwives, the French Republic has failed to
in respect of sour cherries released for free circulation within the           fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Community at a low price, where their low price is attributable to
circumstances beyond the control of the importer and unconnected           2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs
with the origin of the goods, such as a significant and unexpected
deterioration of the fruit.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
( 1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.


title: Case C-417/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/25

         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-417/08)
   (2008/C 301/39)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A.A. Gilly and U. Wölker, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.


title: Case C-232/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 25 June 2009 — Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Latvijas Republikas Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 25 June 2009 — Dita Danosa v LKB Līzings SIA
   (Case C-232/09)
   2009/C 220/37
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dita Danosa

      Defendant: LKB Līzings SIA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the members of the managerial body of a capital company to be regarded as being covered by the concept of worker laid down in Community law?

               2.

               Do Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities preclude Article 224(4) of the Komerclikums, which provides that the members of the board of directors of a capital company may be removed without any restrictions, in particular, in the case of a woman, irrespective of the fact that she is pregnant?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1)


title: Case T-530/15: Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Huhtamaki and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany v Commission

text:
               7.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 406/32

         Action brought on 11 September 2015 — Huhtamaki and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany v Commission
   (Case T-530/15)
   (2015/C 406/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Huhtamaki Oyj (Espoo, Finland) and Huhtamaki Flexible Packaging Germany GmbH & Co.KG (Ronsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, C. Graf York von Wartenburg and L. Titze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1(2) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it finds that Huhtamaki Oyj infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating, for the period indicated at Article 1(2) d) of the Commission Decision, in a single and continuous infringement which consisted of several separate infringements, in the foam trays for retail food packaging sector and covering the territory of Spain, from the beginning of the infringement, and Portugal, from 8 June 2000; and

               —

               annul Article 1(3) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it finds that the Applicants infringed Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 EEA by participating, for the periods indicated at Article 1(3) c) of the Commission Decision, in a single and continuous infringement, which consisted of several separate infringements, in the foam and rigid trays for retail food packaging sector and covering the territory of Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden; and

               —

               annul Article 1(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it finds that Huhtamaki Oyj infringed Article 101 TFEU by participating, for the periods indicated at Article 1(5) d) of the Commission Decision, in a single and continuous infringement which consisted of several separate infringements, in the foam trays for retail food packaging sector and covering the territory of France; and

               —

               annul Article 2(3) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it imposes fines in the aggregate of EUR 1 0 8 06  000on the Applicants; and

               —

               annul Article 2(5) of the Commission’s Decision C(2015)4336 final of 24 June 2015 in Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 4 7 56  000on Huhtamaki Oyj; and

               —

               in the alternative, substantially reduce the fines imposed on the Applicants; and

               —

               in any case, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 101 TFEU and 53 EEA as it committed manifest errors in fact and in law, and infringed its duty to state reasons, in finding that the Applicants engaged in activities in relation to foam trays and rigid trays in ‘North-West Europe’ in the period between 13 June 2002 and 20 June 2006 that can be qualified, when looked at in isolation, respectively, as separate infringements of Articles 101(1) TFEU and 53 EEA.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Articles 101 TFEU and 53 EEA, as it committed a manifest error of assessment, and infringed its duty to state reasons, in finding that the Applicants participated in a single and continuous infringement in relation to foam trays and rigid trays in ‘North-West Europe’ during the period between 13 June 2002 and 20 June 2006.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment, its own Guidelines on the setting of fines, and the duty to state reasons, by failing to consider, when determining the fine(s) to be imposed on the Applicants, individual circumstances which warranted reductions of the fines on the Applicants.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 101 TFEU and 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 in finding Huhtamaki Oyj to be jointly and severally liable, as the ultimate group holding company and thus as indirect parent company, for its former indirect subsidiaries’ alleged participation (i) in a single and continuous infringement in the foam trays for retail food packaging sector in the territory of France from 3 September 2004 to 24 November 2005, and (ii) in a single and continuous infringement in the foam trays for retail food packaging sector in the territories of Spain and Portugal (together referred to as ‘South-West Europe’) from 7 December 2000 to 18 January 2005. Huhtamaki Oyj did not exercise decisive influence over Huhtamaki France SA or Huhtamaki Embalagens Portugal SA during the periods in question.


title: Case T-485/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J. C. Ribeiro (MISS B) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MISS B — Earlier national word mark miss H — Earlier international word mark Miss H — Earlier national and international figurative marks Miss H. — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/6

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 October 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J. C. Ribeiro (MISS B)
   (Case T-485/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MISS B - Earlier national word mark miss H - Earlier international word mark Miss H - Earlier national and international figurative marks Miss H. - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 373/09
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and P. Guimarães, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: J. C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA (Vergada, Portugal) (represented by: A. Freire Pinto, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 August 2010 (Case R 1526/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG and J. C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by OHIM;

               3.

               Orders J. C. Ribeiro, SGPS, SA to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case F-128/12: Action brought on 29 October 2012 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/73

         Action brought on 29 October 2012 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-128/12)
   2013/C 26/150
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to recover, pursuant to Article 85(2) of the Staff Regulations, all of the dependent child allowance wrongly received by the applicant and not only the allowance that the applicant wrongly received during the past five years.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 9 December 2011 in so far as it seeks, pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 85(2) of the Staff Regulations, to recover the full amount wrongly received since September 1999 and not only the amount wrongly received during the past five years on the ground that the appointing authority found that the applicant had deliberately misled the administration;

               —

               where necessary, annul the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-310/99: Action brought on 13 August 1999 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 299/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.10.1999
2. If the answers to the first question indicate that a rule such            way in which those concerned actually wish to model their
   as the [Samenwerkingsverordening — Regulation on the                      co-operation, with either the provisions on the right of
   formation of cooperative associations — 1993] is to be                    establishment or with those relating to the freedom to
   regarded as a decision of an association of undertakings                  provide services?
   within the meaning of Article 85(1) [now Article 81(1)] of
   the EC Treaty, is such a decision, in so far as it adopts            8. Does a prohibition on integrated co-operative associations
   universally binding rules, designed to safeguard the inde-                between lawyers and accountants such as the one in
   pendence and loyalty to the client of lawyers providing                   question constitute a restriction of the right of establish-
   legal assistance, on the formation of co-operative associ-                ment or the freedom to provide services, or both?
   ations such as the one in question to be regarded as having
   as its object or effect the restriction of competition within
   the common market and in that respect affecting trade                9. If it follows from the answer to the previous question that
   between the Member States? What criteria of Community                     one or both of the abovementioned restrictions exists, is
   law are relevant to the determination of that issue?                      the restriction in question justified on the ground that it
                                                                             constitutes merely a ‘selling arrangement’ within the
                                                                             meaning of Keck and Mithouard and therefore there is no
                                                                             discrimination, or on the ground that it satisfies the criteria
3. Is the term ‘undertaking’ in Article 86 (now Article 82) of               that have been developed in that respect by the Court of
   the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where an                  Justice in other judgments, in particular Gebhard?
   institution such as the Bar Association must be regarded
   as an association of undertakings, that institution must
   also be considered to be an undertaking or group of
   undertakings for the purposes of that provision, even
   though it pursues no economic activity itself?
4. If the previous question is answered in the affirmative and
   it must be held that an institution such as the Bar
   Association enjoys a dominant position, does such an                 Action brought on 13 August 1999 by the Italian Republic
   institution abuse that position if it regulates the relation-          against the Commission of the European Communities
   ships of the lawyers affiliated to it with others on the
   market in legal services in a manner which restricts
   competition?                                                                                (Case C-310/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/18)
5. If an institution such as the Bar Association is to be
   regarded as a whole as an association of undertakings for
   the purposes of Community competition law, is Article                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
   90(2) [now Article 86(2)] of the EC Treaty to be interpreted         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
   as extending to an institution such as the Bar Association           Communities on 13 August 1999 by the Italian Republic,
   which lays down universally binding rules, designed to               represented by its Agent Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted
   safeguard the independence and loyalty to the client of              by Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address
   lawyers providing legal assistance, on co-operation                  for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue
   between lawyers and members of other professions?                    Marie-Adelaïde.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
6. If an institution such as the Bar Association is to be
   regarded as an association of undertakings or an undertak-           — annul the decision of the Commission of the European
   ing or group of undertakings, do Article 3g, the second                   Communities of 11 May 1999 No C(1999)1364 final (1),
   paragraph of Article 5 and Articles 85 and 86 (now                        in so far as it is contested in the present action;
   Articles 3g, 10, 81 and 82) of the EC Treaty preclude a
   Member State from providing that (an agency of) that
   institution may adopt rules concerning inter alia co-                — in the alternative, annul the said decision in so far as it
   operation between lawyers and members of other pro-                       provides for the recovery of sums constituting incompat-
   fessions when review by the relevant public authority of                  ible aid;
   such rules is limited to the power to annul such a rule
   without the authority’s being able to adopt a rule in its            — order the Commission of the European Communities to
   stead?                                                                    pay the costs.
7. Are both the Treaty provisions on the right of establish-
   ment and those on the freedom to provide services                    Pleas in law and main arguments
   applicable to a prohibition on co-operation between
   lawyers and accountants such as that in question, or is the          1. The Commission’s decision appears to be open to challenge
   EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that such a                        on the grounds of abuse of power and inadequate (illogical)
   prohibition must comply, depending for example on the                     statement of reasons in relation to the definition of the
 ---pagebreak--- 16.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 299/17
     class of ‘young persons’ comprising the ‘weaker segment’            Action brought on 16 August 1999 by the Commission
     of the employment market. Whilst the decision quotes                of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     statistics and the observations of the Italian authorities
     which show that, given the specific characteristics of
     unemployment among young persons in Italy, and particu-
     larly in Southern Italy, that class includes persons in the                                 (Case C-312/99)
     age group up to 32 years, the Commission reached a
     different conclusion, sanctioning the extension of the class
     of ‘young persons’ only to those aged under 25, or 29 in
     the case of graduates.                                                                      (1999/C 299/19)
2. The decision appears to be invalidated by factors which are
     self-evident: unlawfulness, misuse of power and deficiency          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
     (inadequacy) of the statement of reasons as regards the             Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 August
     ‘quantification’ of the aid considered permissible.                 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                         Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                         of Carlos Goméz de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de
3. The decision appears to be open to challenge on the                   Gasperi.
     ground of the deficiency (illogicality and inadequacy) of
     the statement of reasons in relation to the ‘quantification’
     of the aid not considered permissible. The same irregulari-
     ties are to be found in relation to the measures under              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Article 15 of Law 196/97, concerning which the Com-
     mission observes that the conversion of fixed term CFLs
     (Contratti di Formazione e Lavoro or Training and Employ-
     ment Contracts) into contracts of indefinite duration does          1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
     not create additional jobs, since the jobs themselves already           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     existed, even though they were not permanent.                           Commission Directive 97/59/EC of 7 October 1997 (1)
                                                                             and Commission Directive 97/65/EC of 26 November
                                                                             1997 (2) adapting, for the third time, to technical progress
                                                                             Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the protection of work-
4. The compatibility of the measure with Community legis-                    ers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at
     lation — under which aid ‘to promote the economic                       work (3), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-
     development of areas where the standard of living is                    gations under those directives;
     abnormally low or where there is serious underemploy-
     ment’ may be considered to be compatible within the
     meaning of Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty (now Article
     87(3)(a) EC) — is not assessed in depth, with the result            2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the action.
     that the said provision has been infringed and wrongly
     applied and the statement of reasons is defective (inad-
     equate and inconsistent).
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
5. Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now Article 87 EC) has been
     infringed, or in any event the statement of reasons is
     clearly defective (inadequate) in that no account is taken of
     the effect of the aid considered incompatible upon trade            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), under
     within the Community or on competition.                             which a directive is binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                         upon each Member State to which it is addressed, imposes an
                                                                         obligation upon the Member States to comply with the
6. As to the operative part of the contested decision which              time-limits for implementation laid down in the directives.
     concerns the recovery of the aid deemed incompatible, the           Those time-limits expired on 31 March 1998 and 30 June
     statement of reasons is defective (inadequate) as regards           1998 respectively without the Italian Republic having adopted
     the necessity or at least the appropriateness of effecting          the necessary legislation to comply with the directives referred
     recovery.                                                           to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 282 of 15.10.1997, p. 33.
(1) Concerning the scheme for the grant by Italy of aid for measures     (2) OJ L 335 of 6.12.1997, p. 17.
    to promote employment.                                               (3) OJ L 374 of 31.12.1990, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2002 in Case T-21/99, Dansk Rørindustri A/S v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Continuous infringement — Boycott — Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Legitimate expectations)

text:
29.6.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 156/15
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 20 March 2002
                                                                                of 7 March 2002
in Case T-21/99, Dansk Rørindustri A/S v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                            in Case T-95/99: Satellimages TV 5 SA v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) —
Continuous infringement — Boycott — Fine — Guidelines
on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity —                        (Action for annulment — Competition — Complaint —
                      Legitimate expectations)                              Commission letter addressed to the complainant — Prepara-
                                                                                tory measure — Inadmissibility)
                           (2002/C 156/27)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/28)
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-21/99, Dansk Rørindustri A/S, established in Frede-
ricia (Denmark), represented by K. Dyekjær-Hansen, K. Høegh
et C. Karhula Lauridsen, avocats, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier and H.C. Støvlbæk) —                    In Case T-95/99, Satellimages TV 5 SA, established in Paris
application for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/                   (France), represented by E. Marissens, lawyer, with an address
EC of 21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under                        for service in Luxembourg, supported by French Republic
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-                  (Agents: initially K. Rispal-Bellanger, and, subsequently, G. de
Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) and also for                    Bergues and F. Million), v Commission of the European
reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision             Communities (Agents: B. Doherty and K. Wiedner), supported
— the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of                 by Deutsche Telekom Ag, established in Bonn (Germany),
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges;              represented by F. Roitzsch and K. Quack, with an address for
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given           service in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of the
a judgment on 20 March 2002, in which it:                                   alleged decision by the Commission of 15 February 1999
                                                                            relating to a complaint by the applicant under Article 86 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC) (IV/36.968 — Satellimages
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October                   TV 5/Deutsche Telekom), the Court of First Instance (Second
      1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC              Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-
      Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4 — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel)            rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
      in so far as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 85(1)      judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
      of the Treaty by participating in the infringement referred to in
      that article during the period April to August 1994;
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the costs
3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of               incurred by the Commission;
      the costs incurred by the Commission;
                                                                            3.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
4.    Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.


title: Case F-51/10: Action brought on 1 July 2010 — Bermejo Garde v EESC

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/42

         Action brought on 1 July 2010 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case F-51/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the vacancy notice ESC No 43/09 seeking to fill the post of Director of the Directorate for General Affairs and of all decisions taken on the basis of that vacancy notice. Secondly, an order that the defendant pay the applicant a sum in respect of damages.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the vacancy notice of the ESC No 43/09 seeking to fill the post of Director of the Directorate for General Affairs;

               —

               annul all decisions taken on the basis of the vacancy notice of the ESC No 43/09;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 1 000 in respect of damages;

               —

               order the European Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.


title: Case C-15/09: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/28

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 26 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-15/09) (1)

   2010/C 51/47

      Language of the case: Czech

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 18 September 1995 in Case T-471/93: Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - State aid - Levy on bets taken on horse-races - Transfer of resources to an undertaking established in another Member State)

text:
No C 286/ 12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 10 . 95
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
              ( First Chamber, extended composition )                                       of 18 September 1995
                        of 18 September 1995                            in Case T-471 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA v. Commission of
in Case T-49/93 : Société Internationale de Diffusion et                               the European Communities f 1 )
        d'Edition ( SIDE ) v. Commission of the European                (Competition — State aid — Levy on bets taken on
                           Communities ( 1 )                            horse-races — Transfer of resources to an undertaking
                                                                                established in another Member State)
(State aid — Articles 92 and 93 — Actions for annulment of
               measures — Aid for exports of books)                                               ( 95/C 286/29 )
                             ( 95/C 286/28 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case T-471 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA, represented by
                                                                        Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, of the Bar of
In Case T-49/93 : Societe Internationale de Diffusion et                England and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an
d'Édition ( SIDE), established in Bagneux (France),                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich v. Commission
represented by Jean-Marie Meffre, Claire Adenis-Lamarre
and Nicole Coutrelis, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             of the European Communities ( agent : Eric White ),
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 ,             supported by French Republic ( agents : Edwige Belliard,
Rue Goethe v. the Commission of the European                            Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) — application
                                                                        pursuant to Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration
Communities ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
                                                                        that the Commission 's decision of 1 8 January 1 993 rejecting
Belorgey ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 18 May 1993 declaring certain                  the applicant's complaint ( IV/34.013 ) under Articles 92 and
                                                                        93 of the EEC Treaty is void, the Court of First Instance
aids ( NN 127/92 ) granted by the French Government to
                                                                        ( First Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L.
exporters of French-language books compatible with the
                                                                        Cruz Vilaça , President, B. Vesterdorf, A. Saggio, H.
common market ( OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1993 , p. 6 ), the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities ( First                   Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio
Chamber, extended composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz                 Gonzalez, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 September
                                                                        1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Vilaça, President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, A.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 18 September 1995 in which it:                      1 . the application is dismissed;
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision of 18 May 1993                    2 . the parties, including the intervener, are to bear their
                                                                             own costs .
       declaring certain aids (NN 127/92) granted by the
       French Government to exporters of French-language
       books to be compatible with the common market, in so             (') OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 .
       far as it concerns the subsidy granted exclusively to
       CELF to offset the extra cost involved in handling small
       orders for French-language books placed by booksellers
       established abroad;
2 . dismisses the rest of the application;                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 September 1995
3 . orders the Commission to pay two-thirds of the                      in Case T-548/93 : Ladbroke Racing Ltd v. Commission of
       applicant's costs in addition to its own costs;                                  the European Communities ( J )
                                                                         (Competition — Articles 85 and 86 ofthe Treaty — Taking
                                                                         of bets on horse-races — Exclusive rights of a national
4 . orders the applicant to pay one-third of its own                    grouping of undertakings — Agreements and concerted
       costs;                                                           practices — Abuse ofdominantposition -— Article 90 ofthe
                                                                         Treaty — Lack ofCommunity interest — Past infringements
                                                                                of the competition rules)
 5 . orders the French Republic, which has intervened in the                                       ( 95/C 286/30
       proceedings, to bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
 ( J ) OJ No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                         In Case T-548/93 : Ladbroke Racing Limited, represented by
                                                                        Jeremy Lever QC and Christopher Vajda, of the Bar of
                                                                         England and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 June 1999 in Case C-211/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Niedersachsen): Paula Gómez Rivero v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security - Article 16(2), first sentence, of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Right of option - Effects)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/19
2. In the absence of full harmonisation of language requirements           The decision by a person employed in a consular post to opt, in
    applicable to information appearing on imported products, the          accordance with Article 16(2), first sentence, of Council Regulation
    Member States may adopt national measures requiring such               (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
    information to be given in the language of the area in which the       security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and
    products are sold or in another language which may be readily          to members of their families moving within the Community, as
    understood by consumers in that area, provided that those              amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2
    national measures apply without distinction to all national and        December 1996, to be subject to the social security legislation of the
    imported products and are proportionate to the objective of            sending Member State of which he is a national does not have the
    consumer protection which they pursue. They must, in particular,       effect that his spouse may no longer claim a social security advantage
    be restricted to information which the Member State makes              which, irrespective of the social cover of her spouse, is guaranteed to
    mandatory and which cannot be appropriately conveyed to                her by the legislation of the Member State in which she resides.
    consumers by means other than translation.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.
(1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 June 1999
                           of 3 June 1999
                                                                           in Case C-417/97: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-211/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                               ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
the Landessozialgericht Niedersachsen): Paula Gómez
             Rivero v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Transferable securities — Investment services — Directive
(Social security — Article 16(2), first sentence, of Regulation
                                                                                93/22/EEC — Partial implementation)
      (EEC) No 1408/71 — Right of option — Effects)
                          (1999/C 204/36)                                                             (1999/C 204/37)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               (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-211/97: reference to the Court under Article 234                 In Case C-417/97, Commission of the European Communities
EC (ex Article 177) by the Landessozialgericht Niedersachsen               (Agent: Christina Tufvesson) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
(Higher Social Court, Lower Saxony) (Germany) for a prelimi-               (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) — application for a declaration that,
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                   by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period all
between Paula Gómez Rivero and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit,                  the laws, regulations and administrative provisions, including
joined party: Federal Republic of Germany — on the interpret-              any relevant sanctions, necessary for it to comply with Council
ation of Article 16(2), first sentence, of Council Regulation              Directive 93/22/EEC of 10 May 1993 on investment services
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of                     in the securities field (OJ 1993 L 141, p. 27), the Grand Duchy
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed              of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
persons and to members of their families moving within the                 31 of that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                    of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray
(EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) —                   (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 June
the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,               1999, in which it:
C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,              1. Declared that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 June 1999, in which it                     period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions,
held that:                                                                      including any relevant sanctions, necessary for it to comply with


title: Case F-4/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure — Application lodged by fax within the period prescribed for bringing proceedings — Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post — Application lodged out of time — Manifest inadmissibility — None)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/86

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 May 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-4/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Article 34(1) and (6) of the Rules of Procedure - Application lodged by fax within the period prescribed for bringing proceedings - Lawyer’s hand-written signature different from that on the original application received by post - Application lodged out of time - Manifest inadmissibility - None)
   2013/C 225/199
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: C. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Banquero Cruz, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the Commission’s implied decision refusing the applicant’s request to forward to him all the access codes to the Internet sites accessible to all Commission officials following the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 November 2008 in Case F 41/06, annulling the Commission’s decision to retire him on grounds of invalidity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 28.