title: Case T-315/01: Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 56/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
Thus, it pleads infringement of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Regulation No 4064/89 and violation of the principle of sound
administration, inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the
Commission presents the proposals for undertakings in an                     Applicant for the Com-         TRUCCO S.p.A.
excessively summary way for the purposes of their comprehen-                 munity trade mark:
sion by third parties, who were consequently unable to assess
their real scope.                                                            The Community trade            the pictorial mark registered by
                                                                             mark applied for:              the Office as ‘Starix’ for goods in
                                                                                Class      9    —       Application
In addition, according to the applicant, the Commission                                                     No 1043090
committed various errors of law and of assessment on that
point, in breach of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of Regulation                       Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
No 4064/89, of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and of the                       mark right opposed in
principle of proportionality.                                                the opposition proceed-
                                                                             ings:
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on               Trade-mark           right     the verbal mark ‘ASTERIX’ (Reg.
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of          opposed:                       No 16147)
    30.12.1989, p. 1) (text republished in its entirety, with corrections,
    in OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).                                                Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the opposition
(2) Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on
    the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition
                                                                             sition Division:
    proceedings (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document
    number C(2001) 1461) (OJ L 162 of 19.6.2001, p. 21).                     Decision of the Board of       rejection of the appeal
                                                                             Appeal:
                                                                             Grounds of claim:              —     risk of confusion between
                                                                                the two marks;
                                                                                —     infringement of Article 74(1)
                                                                                of      Regulation       (EC)
Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Les Editions                                                                No 40/94 (1).
Albert René against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                                Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                          (Case T-311/01)
                           (2002/C 56/29)
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                        been drafted: German)
                                                                             Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah
                                                                             Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                (Case T-315/01)
12 December 2001 by Les Editions Albert René, of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, lawyer. A further party to the                                            (2002/C 56/30)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Trucco S.p.A., of
Milan (Italy).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 5 October 2001 by the                    An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in               Commission of the European Communities was brought
      the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case                  before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      No R 1030/2000-1 and order the cancellation of trade                   on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi, represented
      mark No 1043090 ‘OStarix’;                                             by Mr David Pannick QC, Mr Pushpinder Saini, Barrister, Mr
                                                                             Guy Martin and Mr Adam Tudor (Peter Carter-Ruck &
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                     Partners), of London (United Kingdom).
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 56/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 17 December 2001 by M+M Gesell-
                                                                        schaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssyte-
                                                                        me mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     grant him a Declaration that Commission Regulation
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      (EC) No. 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001 and Council
      Regulation (EC) No. 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 are,
      insofar as they relate to the applicant, void, and an Order                                (Case T-317/01)
      for annulment in this regard;
                                                                                (2002/C 56/31)
—     order that the Council and/or the Commission pay the
      applicant’s costs of this action.
                                                                        (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                        of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                                                                                been drafted: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Saudi Arabia            Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
with substantial financial interests within the European Union,         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
challenges Regulation (EC) No 2062/2001 of 19 October                   17 December 2001 by M+M Gesellschaft für Unter-
2001, amending, for the third time, Council Regulation (EC)             nehmensberatung und Informationssyteme mbH, of Frankfurt
No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and                 am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer. A further
services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and               party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
extending the freezing of funds and other financial resources           Mediametrie S.A., of Levallois Perret (France).
in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regu-
lation (EC) No 337/2000 (1), in as much as it inserted the
applicant’s name into Annex I to Council Regulation (EC)
No 467/2001. By Article 2/1 of the latter, all funds belonging          The applicant claims that the Court should:
to persons designated by the Taliban Sanctions Committee of
the United Nations are to be frozen.                                    —     annul the decision adopted on 2 October 2001 by the
                                                                              First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                              the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits that the                 No R 698/2000-1;
measures in question:
                                                                        —     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
—     Amount to an interference with property rights, protected
      as a fundamental right within the Community legal order.
—     Entitle the Council and the Commission, in violation of           Pleas in law and main arguments
      the right to a fair hearing, to freeze his assets and to
      maintain his freeze without granting him any opportunity
      to make submissions to these authorities seeking to               Applicant for the Com-         the applicant
      persuade them to release his assets.                              munity trade mark:
—     Provide, in violation of the Community Law principle of           The Community trade            the verbal mark ‘M+M EURODA-
      effective judicial control, no remedy to the Applicant by         mark applied for:              TA’ for goods and services in
      which he may seek to challenge his inclusion in the list                                         Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 (inter
      by obtaining an independent judicial assessment of the                                           alia software, market research and
      evidential basis for the interference with his rights.                                           seminars)
                                                                        Proprietor of the trade-       Mediametrie S.A.
                                                                        mark right opposed in
According to the Applicant, an independent assessment by the
                                                                        the opposition proceed-
Communty institutions or by any judicial body of the evidential         ings:
basis for the freezing of its assets would show there is no basis
for the allegations against it.
                                                                        Trade-mark            right    the Irish, French and international
                                                                        opposed:                       (effective in respect of Benelux,
                                                                                Spain, Italy and Portugal) verbal
(1) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25.                                                                    mark ‘EURODATA TV’
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 2 May 1996 in Case C-311/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC)

text:
No C 180/ 16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   Republic (Agents : Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and
                             (Fifth Chamber )                            Dimitra Tsagkaraki ) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                         by failing to adopt or to communicate to the Commission
                             of 2 May 1996                               within the prescribed period the necessary laws, regulations
in Case C-253/95 : Commission of the European                            and administrative provisions to comply with Council
        Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany                       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                         Directive 92/50/EEC)                            contracts ( OJ No L 209, 1992, p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
                                96/C 180/31 )                            Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
                  (Language of the case: German)                         President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann
                                                                         ( Rapporteur ), L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
            published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 2 May 1 996 , in which it:
In Case C-253/95 : the Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Claudia Schmidt ) v. the Federal
Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst Rôder and Bernd                      1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to                  period the necessary laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions to comply with Council
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
needed in order to comply with Council Directive                             Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of                    coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                             service contracts, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
procedures for the award of public service contracts ( OJ No
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that
L 209, 1992 , p . 1 ) and, in the alternative, by failing to                 Directive .
inform the Commission forthwith of the measures taken,
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 44 ( 1 ) of that                   2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Directive — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P.
                                                                         (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), L. Sevôn and M.
Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May 1996, in which
it :
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
       period, the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions needed in order to comply with Council
       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
       coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
       service contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that                            of 14 March 1996
       Directive.
                                                                         in Case C-31/95 P: Sergio Del Plato v. Commission of the
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                      European Communities C )
       costs .                                                           (Official — Appeal manifestly inadmissible — Lack ofpleas
                                                                                in law)
0 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/33 )
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                             of 2 May 1996
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in      Case    C-311/95 : Commission of the             European                 published in the European Court Reports)
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)
     (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC)
                              ( 96/C 180/32 )                            In Case C-31/95 P : Sergio Del Plato ( Represented by: Luigi
                                                                         Bonomi ) — appeal against the order of the Court of First
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                         Instance of the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of
                                                                         7   December     1994     in   Case  T-242/94   Del  Plato    v.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                     Commission [ 1994] ECR-SC 11-961 , seeking to have that
                                                                         order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being the
In Case C-311 /95 : Commission of the European                           Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic                   Gianluigi Valsesia ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ),


title: Case C-46/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2015 — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda. (Ambisig) v AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 5 February 2015 — Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda. (Ambisig) v AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal
   (Case C-46/15)
   (2015/C 146/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ambiente e Sistemas de Informação Geográfica Lda. (Ambisig)

      Defendant: AICP — Associação de Industriais do Concelho de Pombal

      Other party: Indice — ICT & Management, Lda

      Questions referred

               1.

               Since Portuguese legislation does not regulate the matters covered by Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, is that provision directly applicable in the Portuguese legal order in the sense that it confers on individuals a right that they may assert against contracting authorities?

               2.

               Must Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the application of rules laid down by a contracting authority which do not allow an economic operator to provide evidence of the provision of services by a declaration signed by that operator, unless the latter proves that it is impossible or very difficult to obtain a declaration from the private purchaser?

               3.

               Must Article 48(2)(a)(ii), second indent, of Directive 2004/18/EC be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the application of rules laid down by the contracting authority, which, on pain of exclusion, require the private purchaser’s declaration to contain authentication of the signature by a notary, lawyer or other competent entity?

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

      OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-298/06: Action brought on 18 October 2006 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (1000)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/26

         Action brought on 18 October 2006 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (1000)
   (Case T-298/06)
   (2006/C 310/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 August 2006 in case No R 447/2006-4; and

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘1 000’ for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41 — application No 4 372 264

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as numerals in principle, according to the applicant, are not devoid of distinctive character and can function as an indication of origin in the same way as words.
   Violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation as the trade mark applied for is not descriptive since consumers confronted with the trade mark ‘1 000’ on printed articles will not be able to deduct any information about the characteristics of the goods concerned.


title: Case T-227/13: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Bayer Intellectual Property v OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark INTERFACE — Earlier Community word mark Interfog — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Bayer Intellectual Property v OHIM — Interhygiene (INTERFACE)
   (Case T-227/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark INTERFACE - Earlier Community word mark Interfog - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH (Monheim am Rhein, Germany) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, A. Schifko and, subsequently, D. Walicka, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Interhygiene GmbH (Cuxhaven, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2013 (Case R 1688/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Interhygiene GmbH and Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of 23 January 2012 in Case E-2/11 — STX Norway Offshore AS and Others v The Norwegian State, represented by the Tariff Board (Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum rates of pay — Maximum working hours — Remuneration for work assignments requiring overnight stay — Compensation for expenses)

text:
               11.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 23 January 2012
   in Case E-2/11
   STX Norway Offshore AS and Others v The Norwegian State, represented by the Tariff Board
   (Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers — Minimum rates of pay — Maximum working hours — Remuneration for work assignments requiring overnight stay — Compensation for expenses)
   2012/C 136/05
   In Case E-2/11, STX Norway Offshore AS and Others v The Norwegian State, represented by the Tariff Board — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting lagmannsrett (Borgarting Court of Appeal, Norway), concerning the compatibility with EEA law of terms and conditions of employment provided for in a collective agreement declared universally applicable within the maritime construction industry and concerning the interpretation of Article 36 of the EEA Agreement and Article 3 of the act referred to at point 30 of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 23 January 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The term ‘maximum work periods and minimum rest periods’ set out in point (a) of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC covers terms and conditions regarding ‘maximum normal working hours’, such as those described in the request for an Advisory Opinion.

               2.

               Article 3(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 96/71/EC, as interpreted in light of Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, does, in principle, preclude an EEA State from requiring an undertaking established in another EEA State which provides services in the territory of the first State to pay its workers the minimum remuneration fixed by the national rules of that State for work assignments requiring overnight stays away from home, unless the rules providing for such additional remuneration pursue a public interest objective and their application is not disproportionate. It is for the national authorities or, as the case may be, the courts of the host EEA State, to determine whether those rules in fact pursue an objective in the public interest and do so by appropriate means.

               3.

               Directive 96/71/EC does not permit an EEA State to secure workers posted to its territory from another EEA State compensation for travel, board and lodging expenses in the case of work assignments requiring overnight stays away from home, unless this can be justified on the basis of public policy provisions.

               4.

               The proportion of the employees covered by the relevant collective agreement, before it was declared universally applicable, has no bearing on the answers to questions 1(a), (b) and (c).


title: Action brought on 17 March 1995 by Società Cementerie del Tirreno SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-87/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 137/33
transport services, only the maritime part of the service —            ( f) Finally, several procedural infringements have affected
i.e. the transport by seagoing vessel from or to a Community                   the very basis of the contested Decision, namely failure
port — is subject to the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )                      to use the consultation/conciliation procedures
No 4056/86 , whereas the provision of carrier haulage is                       provided under Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 or the
subject to the provisions of Regulation ( EEC )                                UN Code, the failure to consult the appropriate
No 1017/68 .                                                                   Advisory Committee and failure to give adequate
                                                                               reasoning pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
The applicants submit that the contested Decision should be
annulled on the basis of the following reasons :
( a ) A proper definition of the relevant market would lead
       to the conclusion that multimodal transport offered by
       them form part of the market for international                  Action brought on 17 March 1995 by Societa Cementerie
       maritime transport services as a whole. Consequently,           del Tirreno SpA against the Commission of the European
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 , and not Regulation                                           Communities
       ( EEC ) No 1017/86 , is the applicable Regulation.                                         (Case T-87/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/73
( b ) In the alternative, even if the Court should accept the
       Commission 's      contention   that   the   line 's inland
       activities are to be regarded as distinct services from the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
       viewpoint of Article 85 ( 1 ) on a market for inland
       transport services , the Commission still does not              An action against the Commission of the European
       adequately define or consider the characteristics of this       Communities was brought before the Court of First
       market, and so fails properly to assess whether the             Instance of the European Communities on 17 March 1995
       agreement has an appreciable effect on competition or           by Societa Cementerie del Tirreno SpA ('Cementir'), with its
       inter-State trade within the market.                            registered office in Rome, represented by Gian Michele
                                                                       Roberti and Antonio Tizzano, both of the Naples Bar, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
 (c ) In examining the applicability of Article 85 ( 3 ), the          Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert l er.
       Commission ignores the benefits which are brought
       about through network rationalization — and the
       consequent minimization of overall costs to the carrier         The applicant claims that the Court should :
       and thus to the shipper — or the role that a uniform
       multimodal tariff plays in allowing individual lines each       — annul in whole or in part Commission Decision
       to optimize their individual networks, while                           94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating to a
       maintaining overall uniformity of rates offered to                     proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( Cases
       shippers from any given inland point. At the same time,                IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) ( l ),
       the contested Decision pays no regard to the
       improvements in productivity or technical or economic
       progress that come about through more effective                 — annul or reduce the fine imposed on Cementir under
       container control , more effective movements of                        Article 9 of that Decision,
       containers and all other aspects of the multimodal
       service .                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ( d ) The contested Decision keeps silent about the fact that          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       few lines conferences, if any, do not have a miltimodal
       tariff. To deny liner conference's block exemption in           The applicant challenges the lawfulness of the Decision in
       Article 3 of Regulation (EEC ) No 4056/86 would                  three respects:
       render the block exemption of no or very little practical
       value to the very class of beneficiaries it was intended to         I.   Fundamental     errors    of   fact  and   law   in  the
       assist. This cannot have been the intention of the
                                                                                ascertainment and legal assessment of the alleged
       Commission in proposing its draft Regulation in 1981                     infringements.
       nor of the Council in adopting Regulation ( EEC )
       No 4056/86 .
                                                                         II . Infringement of essential procedural requirements and
                                                                                of the rights of the defence .
 (e ) The applicant's rights to defence have been violated, in
       that inter alia, the Commission relied extensively on            III. The fine imposed by the Commission was also
       evidence and arguments not relied upon in the                            unlawful and must therefore be annulled or reduced,
       statement of objections and that new allegations were                    either because the alleged infringements were totally or
       made in the Decision which did not appear in the                         partially non-existent or, in the alternative and in any
       statement of objections .                                                event, because the Commission failed correctly to
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/34           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
      determine, or state reasons for, the total amount of the        Action brought on 27 March 1995 by Expeditie- en
      fines imposed, and, in particular, the amount of the fine       Controlebedrijf Codirex BV against the Commission of the
      imposed on the applicant.                                                           European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-89/95 )
(') OJ No L 343 , 30 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                                                       ( 95/C 137/75 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 23 March 1995 by Blue Circle Industries             Communities was brought before the Court of First
pic against the Commission of the European                            Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1995
                           Communities                                by Expeditie- en Controlebedrijf Codirex BV, Rotterdam,
                                                                      represented by P. V. F. Bos and N. J. Helder, of the
                        ( Case T-88/95 )
                                                                      Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                          ( 95/C 137/74 )                             at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe .
               (Language of the case: English)                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Commission of the European                      ( a ) declare the action admissible;
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 23 March 1995                 ( b ) annul the decision or measure adopted by the
by Blue Circle Industries pic , represented by Mr Jeremy                    Commission on 14 November 1994 in relation to the
Lever QC ., Mr Nicholas Green, Ms Jessica Simor, Ms Laura                   Netherlands ( reference No REM : 15/94 );
Mc Roberts, Ms Sara Vaughan with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the chambers of Elvinger & Hoss , 15 , Cote             (c ) order the Commission to pay the costs .
d'Eich, L-1450 Luxembourg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare the Commission's Decision 94/815/EC (cases
                                                                      Between 19 February 1981 and 23 June 1983 the applicant,
    IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement ) void and annul it in              as a customs forwarding agent, prepared declarations
    its entirety,
                                                                      relating to the import of poultry sections . By reason of
                                                                      subsequently discovered fraud on the part of the importer,
                                                                      the Netherlands customs authorities demanded from the
— in the alternative annul those parts of the Decision that
    the Court considers erroneous or unsafe and reduce the
                                                                      applicant payment of the outstanding additional
                                                                      agricultural levies . The applicant thereupon lodged an
    fine imposed on Blue Circle accordingly, and
                                                                      application for reimbursement pursuant to Article 13 of
                                                                      Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 of 2 June 1979 ( 1 ).
— order the Commission to pay Blue Circle's costs .                   The Netherlands submitted that application to the
                                                                      Commission, which held, in its contested decision, that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   remission of the import duties was not justified .
The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to               The action, which has been brought under Article 173 of the
establish to the requisite legal standard , that is to a degree of    EC Treaty, is based inter alia on the following grounds:
certainty that goes beyond any reasonable doubt, that the
allegations made against it are well founded .                       — infringement of the Commission's procedural rules, in
                                                                           that the decision was not signed by the Commissioner
Secondly, the applicant maintains that the Decision was                    responsible for customs matters,
adopted on the basis of an incorrect procedure and an
incorrect approach to the evidence. In its submission, the           — infringement of the right to a fair hearing . As the party
Decision should be annulled , because the errors of                        directly entitled to the benefit of remission of
procedure — by their very nature — throw serious doubt on                  agricultural levies, the applicant should have been heard
the validity of the Decision and cannot be rectified at this               in the proceedings,
stage .
                                                                     — infringement of Article 13 of Regulation (EEC )
Subsidiarily, the applicant contests the level of the fine; it             No 1430/79 . The Commission wrongly concluded that
contends on that score that the Commission has erred in its
                                                                           no special situation had arisen within the meaning of
determination of the duration and gravity of the                           that provision. The applicant refers in that regard to the
infringements and in its finding that all of the infringements             following circumstances : discrepancy between the
were intentional and serious .
                                                                           principles underlying the applicable Netherlands rules
                                                                           and the Community rules in the matter, the acceptable
                                                                           nature of the invoice values in relation to the market


title: Case C-493/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — L.H. Piatkowski v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — grote ondernemingen Eindhoven (Freedom of movement for workers — Social security — Person simultaneously employed in one Member State and self-employed in another Member State — Person subject to the social security legislation of each of those States — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14c(b) and Annex VII — Social security contributions levied on interest paid by a company established in one Member State to a person resident in another Member State)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch) — L.H. Piatkowski v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — grote ondernemingen Eindhoven
   (Case C-493/04) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Social security - Person simultaneously employed in one Member State and self-employed in another Member State - Person subject to the social security legislation of each of those States - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14c(b) and Annex VII - Social security contributions levied on interest paid by a company established in one Member State to a person resident in another Member State)
   (2006/C 143/27)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: L.H. Piatkowski

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — grote ondernemingen Eindhoven
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch — Interpretation of Article 14c(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97 — Application of Article 14c(b) in conjunction with Annex VII, point 1 — Social security — Person simultaneously subject to the legislation of two Member States
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 and 43 EC) concerning, respectively, freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment, and Article 14c(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as not precluding Netherlands legislation which includes, in the basis for calculating social security contributions, interest such as that paid, in the case in the main proceedings, by a company established in the Netherlands to a Netherlands national resident in Belgium who is subject, under that regulation and taking into account the nature of his occupational activities, to the social security legislation of both those Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.


title: Case F-37/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2006 — Strack v Commission (Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Occupational illness — Act adversely affecting an official — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 6 December 2006 — Strack v Commission
   (Case F-37/06) (1)

   (Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Occupational illness - Act adversely affecting an official - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/108)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision rejecting the applicant's request that his illness should be acknowledged to be an occupational illness and, second, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 53.


title: Case T-466/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2008 — Osram v Council

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 September 2008 — Osram v Council
   (Case T-466/07) (1)

   (2008/C 272/96)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-427/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Italy) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Emmeci v Cotral

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture (Italy) lodged on 25 July 2013 — Emmeci v Cotral
   (Case C-427/13)
   2013/C 325/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Contratti pubblici di lavori, servizi e forniture

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emmeci Srl

      Defendant: Cotral SpA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 56 of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is not permissible for the national legislature to allow contracting authorities to prevent competitors, during the final bid phase, from viewing their rankings or the bids made by other economic operators, and to postpone disclosure of that information until the end of the auction?

               2.

               Do Article 56 of Directive 2004/17/EC and the principles of transparency and equal treatment preclude national legislation or administrative practices, such as those described in these proceedings, which provide for a five-minute ‘black-out’ in the final phase of the electronic auction, during which competitors are unable to ascertain their respective rankings?

      (1)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1).


title: Case F-9/15: Action brought on 23 January 2015  — ZZ v EMA

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/46

         Action brought on 23 January 2015 — ZZ v EMA
   (Case F-9/15)
   (2015/C 118/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysbeth)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to suspend the applicant from his duties and an application for the payment of one euro as provisional compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the EMA of 31 March 2014 to place the applicant on ‘non-active status’ for an indefinite period;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant one euro as provisional compensation in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the EMA to pay the costs.


title: Case C-25/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium), lodged on 15 January 2010 — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach e.V. v État belge — Service Public Fédéral Finances

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium), lodged on 15 January 2010 — Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach e.V. v État belge — Service Public Fédéral Finances
   (Case C-25/10)
   2010/C 100/25
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach e.V.

      Defendant: État belge — Service Public Fédéral Finances

      Question referred

   Must Articles 18 (ex Article 12 EC), 45 (ex Article 39 EC), 49 (ex Article 43 EC) and 54 (ex Article 48 EC) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union be interpreted as prohibiting the legislature of a Member State from adopting or maintaining a rule the purpose of which is to reserve the benefit of taxation at the reduced rate of 7 % to non-profit-making associations, friendly societies or national unions of friendly societies, professional unions and international non-profit-making associations, private foundations and public-interest foundations established in a Member State in which the deceased — a resident of Wallonia — actually resided or where she had her place of work at the time of death, or in which she had previously actually resided or had her place of work?


title: Case T-698/14: Action brought on 19 September 2014  — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Commission

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/28

         Action brought on 19 September 2014 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Commission
   (Case T-698/14)
   (2014/C 448/37)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (Ettelbruck, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Commission decision No DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2431467 (2014) of 11/07/2014, whereby the Commission classified the applicants’ tender in fourth position in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 1;

               —

               annul the European Commission decision DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2703722 (2014) of 31/07/2014, whereby the Commission eliminated the applicants’ tender in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 2;

               —

               annul the European Commission decision DIGIT/R/3/MB/pt 2711165 (2014) 31/07/2014, whereby the Commission classified the applicants’ tender in third position in the call for tenders at issue with respect to Lot 3;

               —

               order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants in respect of the lost opportunity to be classified in first position for the three lots of the framework contract, which they estimate at eight hundred thousand euros (EUR 8 00  000) with respect to Lot 1, four hundred thousand euros (EUR 4 00  000) with respect to Lot 2 and two hundred thousand euros (EUR 2 00  000) with respect to Lot 3, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entirety of the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants maintain that the contested decisions, by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s tender in the open call for tenders No DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029 — ESP DESIS III for three separate projects (lots), should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU, by reason of infringement of rules of EU law and, in particular, for the following three reasons:

               1.

               First, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since it provided an inadequate statement of reasons with regards to the applicants’ technical tender.

               2.

               Second, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the Financial Regulation and the rules for its application and of the tendering documents, with regard to the question of abnormally low tenders.

               3.

               Second, by reason of the Commission’s infringement of the principle of free competition, since the Commission imposed binding conditions with regard to the submission of the financial tenders and did not permit the tenderers freely to construct their financial tenders, in order to choose the most economically advantageous tender.


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2001 in Case C-351/99 P: Eridania SpA and Others v Council of the European Union and Others (Appeal — Common organisation of the market in the sugar sector — System of storage fees — Authorisation for the grant of national aid — Abolition — 1995/96 marketing year — Appeals by sugar producers — Acts of direct and individual concern to them — Provision fixing the amount of reimbursement for compensation for storage costs — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 289/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        13.10.2001
Communities (OJ 1972 L 73, p. 196), of the new Declaration                 Abruzzo SpA, established in Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise
by the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain                   SpA, established in Termoli, Italy, Società Fondiaria Industriale
and Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’             Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established in Cesena, Italy, represent-
(OJ 1983 C 23, p. 1), and of Declaration No 2 on nationality               ed by B. O’Connor, Solicitor, and I. Vigliotti, avvocato, —
of a Member State, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty on               appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the
European Union (OJ 1992 C 191, p. 98) — the Court                          European Communities (First Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                T-158/95 Eridania and Others v Council [1999] ECR II-2219,
Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,             seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                proceedings being, Council of the European Union (Agents:
12 July 2001, the operative part of which is as follows:                   I. Diez Parra and J.P. Hix), Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) and Ponteco
In order to determine whether a person is a national of the United         Zuccheri SpA, established in Pontelagoscuro, Italy — the Court
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the purposes of          (Second Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the
Community law, it is necessary to refer to the 1982 Declaration by         Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                  J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
Northern Ireland on the definition of the term ‘nationals’ which           judgment on 28 June 2001, in which it:
replaced the 1972 Declaration by the Government of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the definition of         1.    Dismisses the appeal;
the term ‘nationals’, annexed to the Final Act of the Treaty concerning
the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United            2.    Orders Eridania SpA, Industria Saccarifera Italiana Agroindis-
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European                    triale SpA (ISI), Sadam Zuccerifici, a division of SECI
Communities.                                                                     — Societh Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, Sadam
                                                                                Castigliognese SpA, Sadam Abruzzo SpA, Zuccherificio del
                                                                                Molise SpA and Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                       (SFIR) jointly to pay the costs;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 352, 4.12.1999.
           ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
                        (Second Chamber)
                          of 28 June 2001                                              ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE
in Case C-351/99 P: Eridania SpA and Others v Council of                                           (Second Chamber)
              the European Union and Others (1)
                                                                                of 28 June 2001
(Appeal — Common organisation of the market in the sugar
sector — System of storage fees — Authorisation for the
                                                                           in Case C-352/99 P: Eridania SpA and Others v Council of
grant of national aid — Abolition — 1995/96 marketing
                                                                                the European Union and Others (1)
year — Appeals by sugar producers — Acts of direct and
individual concern to them — Provision fixing the amount
of reimbursement for compensation for storage costs —                      (Appeal — Common organisation of the market in the sugar
                           Inadmissibility)                                sector — Pricing system — Regionalisation — Classification
                                                                           of Italy — 1995/96 marketing year — Appeals by sugar
                                                                           producers — Acts of direct and individual concern to them
                          (2001/C 289/10)
                                                                           — Provision fixing the derived intervention price of white
                                                                                sugar for all the zones of Italy — Inadmissibility)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/11)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Report)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-351/99 P: Eridania SpA, formerly Eridania Zuccheri-
fici Nazionali SpA, established in Genoa, Italy, Industria                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Saccarifera Italiana Agroindistriale SpA (ISI), established in                                 in the European Court Report)
Padua, Italy, Sadam Zuccerifici, a division of SECI — Società
Esercizi Commerciali Industriali SpA, established in Bologna,              In Case C-351/99 P: Eridania SpA, formerly Eridania Zuccheri-
Italy, Sadam Castigliognese SpA, established in Bologna, Sadam             fici Nazionali SpA, established in Genoa, Italy, Industria


title: Action brought on 20 November 1997 by Manuel Tomás Carrasco Benítez against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-294/97)

text:
C 26/8                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.1.98
The applicant maintains that, at the time when the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
selection procedure in issue took place, the defendant
waived its discretion under Article 31(2) of the Staff
Regulations. Furthermore, its interpretation of Article 31         Ð annul the decision of the selection board in internal
of the Staff Regulations had the effect of making it                   competition COM/T/A/97 rejecting the applicant's
impossible to apply Article 31(2).                                     candidature,
The criteria applied are not only clearly more restrictive         Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
than those provided for by the Staff Regulations and the
measures adopted for their application; they pursue a
different objective from that intended by the Community            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
legislature, namely, to allow a proper value to be attached,
upon the recruitment of an official, to experience
possessed by the person concerned which is particularly            The applicant, a grade B official possessing a university
useful to the recruiting institution.                              degree, contests the refusal by the selection board in
                                                                   competition COM/T/A/97 to admit him to the tests in that
                                                                   competition on the ground that he did not fulfil the
                                                                   condition in the notice of competition requiring candidates
It is also clear that, as a result of the decision of the
                                                                   to be classified in grades A 8 to A 4 as at the date for
Grading Committee to apply to the applicant the new
                                                                   submission of applications.
general implementing provisions adopted on 7 February
1996 instead of the very much less restrictive provisions
previously in force which were applied to other successful
                                                                   The applicant advances the following pleas in support of
candidates in the same competition, the applicant has
                                                                   his claims:
suffered discrimination and unequal treatment.
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Articles 27 and 28 of the Staff
In addition, having regard to the requirements laid down               Regulations, breach of the principle of equal treatment
by the competition notice and the specific characteristics             and infringement of the right of officials to participate
of the post to which the applicant was assigned, the                   in procedures for constituting reserve lists of assistant
administration clearly committed an error of assessment in             administrators/principal administrators. He states in
recruiting him at the basic grade.                                     that regard that a procedure for filling posts which is
                                                                       initiated by publication of a notice of internal
                                                                       competition can only be intended to achieve the
Lastly, in view of the implicit rejection by the appointing            recruitment of persons of the highest standard of
authority of the applicant's complaint, the contested                  ability, efficiency and integrity, whatever their status as
decision is vitiated by the complete absence of any                    Community servants under the Staff Regulations may
statement of reasons.                                                  be at any given point in time. Furthermore, Article 28
                                                                       of the Staff Regulations sets out an exhaustive list of
                                                                       the criteria non-fulfilment of which precludes the
                                                                       recruitment of persons as officials. In addition, the
                                                                       exclusion criterion relating to the status of candidates
                                                                       possessing the same or even higher qualifications
                                                                       constitutes a breach of the principle of equal
Action brought on 20 November 1997 by Manuel TomaÂs                    treatment.
Carrasco Benítez against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                                                                   Ð Manifest error of assessment and infringement of
                       (Case T-294/97)                                 Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as there is
                                                                       nothing in any provision of the Staff Regulations
                         (98/C 26/15)
                                                                       which authorizes a Community institution to reserve
                                                                       posts for a specific category of officials or to limit
                                                                       eligibility for recruitment to certain posts solely to
               (Language of the case: French)                          members of the temporary staff who already occupy
                                                                       the post to be filled or a post of the same grade, where
                                                                       a candidate whose application is refused possesses the
An action against the Commission of the European                       experience and qualifications required.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 20 November
1997 by Manuel TomaÂs Carrasco Benítez, residing in                Ð Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations,
London, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                       inasmuch as the contested decision disregards the
Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of                 obligation to provide a statement of reasons.
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30
Rue de Cessange.


title: Joined Cases C-129/13 and C-130/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Kamino International Logistics BV (C-129/13), Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics BV (C-130/13) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Recovery of a customs debt — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Addressee of the recovery decision not heard by the customs authorities before its adoption, but only during the subsequent objection stage — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Determination of the legal consequences of non-observance of the rights of the defence)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Kamino International Logistics BV (C-129/13), Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics BV (C-130/13) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Joined Cases C-129/13 and C-130/13) (1)

   ((Recovery of a customs debt - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Addressee of the recovery decision not heard by the customs authorities before its adoption, but only during the subsequent objection stage - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Determination of the legal consequences of non-observance of the rights of the defence))
   2014/C 292/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kamino International Logistics BV (C-129/13), Datema Hellmann Worldwide Logistics BV (C-130/13)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The principle of respect for the rights of the defence by the authorities and the resulting right of every person to be heard before the adoption of any decision liable adversely to affect his interests, as they apply in the context of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000, may be relied on directly by individuals before national courts.

               2)

               The principle of respect for the rights of the defence and, in particular, the right of every person to be heard before the adoption of an adverse individual measure must be interpreted as meaning that, where the addressee of a demand for payment adopted in a procedure for the post-clearance recovery of customs duties on imports, under Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, he has not been heard by the authorities before the adoption of the decision, his rights of defence are infringed even though he can express his views during a subsequent administrative objection stage, if national legislation does not allow the addresses of such demands, in the absence of a prior hearing, to obtain suspension of their implementation until their possible amendment. Such is the case, in any event, if the national administrative procedure implementing the second subparagraph of Article 244 of Regulation No 2913/92, as amended by Regulation No 2700/2000, restricts the grant of such suspension where there is good reason to believe that the disputed decision is inconsistent with customs legislation or that irreparable damage is to be feared for the person concerned.

               3)

               The conditions under which observance of the rights of the defence is to be ensured and the consequences of the infringement of those rights are governed by national law, provided that the rules adopted to that effect are the same as those to which individuals in comparable situations under national law are subject (principle of equivalence) and that they do not make it impossible in practice or excessively difficult to exercise the rights of defence conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness).
               The national court, which is under an obligation to ensure that EU law is fully effective, may, when assessing the consequences of an infringement of the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, consider that such an infringement entails the annulment of the decision taken at the end of the administrative procedure at issue only if, had it not been for such an irregularity, the outcome of the procedure might have been different.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-249/05: Action brought on 15 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/21

         Action brought on 15 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland
   (Case C-249/05)
   (2005/C 193/33)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Triantafyllou and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by imposing an obligation to appoint a tax representative on taxable persons not established in the country who carry out taxable transactions in Finland and are established in another Member State or in the territory of a third country with which a convention has been concluded concerning mutual assistance, the scope of which corresponds to the scope laid down in Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures (1) and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, (2) the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (3) and Articles 28 EC and 49 EC;

               2.

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under Article 21(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC the Member States may not impose an obligation to appoint a tax representative on an economic operator not established in the country who is established in another Member State. In such cases the appointment of a tax representative is always voluntary for an economic operator not established in the country.
   The Finnish system is as follows in this respect: (a) if the economic operator is a taxable person not established in Finland, the person liable to pay value added tax is the recipient of the supply (‘reversed tax liability’); (b) where an economic operator not established in Finland is given the possibility to register as a taxable person, in that case he is obliged to appoint a tax representative in Finland.
   As regards the appointment of a tax representative, the Finnish system is not in accordance with Community law. The mandatory obligation to appoint a tax representative is contrary to Article 21(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive.
   The Finnish system can give economic operators not established in the country freedom to choose to be registered as taxable persons, but Finland cannot make such a choice conditional on fulfilling a mandatory obligation, of appointing a tax representative, which is contrary to the Sixth VAT Directive and in direct conflict with the aim of Directive 2000/65/EC (4) and in conflict with the principles of the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services laid down in the EC Treaty.

      (1)  OJ L 73 of 19.3.1976, p. 18.

      (2)  OJ L 264 of 15.10.2003, p. 1.

      (3)  On the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States concerning turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.

      (4)  Council Directive of 17 October 2000 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the determination of the person liable for payment of value added tax, OJ L 269 of 21.10.2000, p. 44.


title: Case T-419/08: Action brought on 29 September 2008 — LATGA-A v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/42

         Action brought on 29 September 2008 — LATGA-A v Commission
   (Case T-419/08)
   (2008/C 313/76)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Lietuvos Autorių Teisių Gynimo Asociacijos Agentūra (LATGA-A) (Vilnius, Lithuania) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 3 of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this application the applicant seeks partial annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC) relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA. Precisely, the applicant contests the Commission findings in Article 3 of the contested decision stating that territorial delineations of the reciprocal representation mandates granted by one authors' society to another constitute a concerted practice in violation of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA.
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised by the applicant in Case T-415/08 IMRO v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament v Patrick Reynolds (Appeal — Officials — Secondment to a political group of the Parliament — Decision to terminate the secondment — Rights of the defence)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament v Patrick Reynolds (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Secondment to a political group of the Parliament - Decision to terminate the secondment - Rights of the defence)
   (2004/C 118/33)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore ) with an address for service in Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 23 January 2002 in Case T-237/00 Reynolds v Parliament [2002] ECR II-163, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: Patrick Reynolds, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Brussels (Belgium), (Lawyers: P. Legros and S. Rodrigues) with an address for service in Luxembourg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 January 2002 in Case T-237/00 Reynolds v Parliament;

               2)

               Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;

               3)

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 29.6.2002.


title: Case T-263/13: Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark holzmichel — Earlier international figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/45

      Judgment of the General Court of 1 October 2014 — Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung v OHIM — Rivella International (holzmichel)
      (Case T-263/13) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark holzmichel - Earlier international figurative marks Michel and Michel POWER - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
      (2014/C 395/55)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH (Sohland an der Spree, Germany) (represented by: A. Weiß, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Rivella International AG (Rothrist, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Spintig, S. Pietzcker and A. Coordes, lawyers)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2013 (Case R 1968/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Rivella International AG and Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  orders Lausitzer Früchteverarbeitung GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-698/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Public procurement procedure — External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS III) — Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low bids — Principle of free competition — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-698/14) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Public procurement procedure - External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems (ESP DESIS III) - Ranking of a tenderer in the cascade procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low bids - Principle of free competition - Non-contractual liability))
   (2016/C 402/42)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by: V. Christianos, I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, lawyers, and subsequently by: M. Sfyri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents, and, initially, E. Petritsi, E. Roussou and K. Adamantopoulos, and, subsequently, E. Roussou and K. Adamantopoulos, lawyers)

      Re:

   Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the Commission’s decisions to rank in third and fourth positions under the cascade mechanism the bids made by the applicants for lots Nos 1 and 3 under open call for tenders No DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029 — ESP DESIS III concerning ‘External service provision for development, studies and support for information systems’ (OJ 2013/S 19-0380314) and to exclude their bid for lot No 2 under that call for tenders and, secondly, application on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.