title: Case T-305/13: Action brought on 3 June 2013 — SACE and SACE BT v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/53

         Action brought on 3 June 2013 — SACE and SACE BT v Commission
   (Case T-305/13)
   2013/C 207/89
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: SACE SpA (Rome, Italy) and SACE BT SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa and G. Rizza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision in its entirety or, in the alternative, in part;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               Order any other measure which it deems appropriate, including any measure of enquiry.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   The present action is brought against Commission Decision C(2013) 1501 final of 20 March 2013 ordering partial recovery of aid granted to the short-term export-credit insurance company SACE BT. The case is concerned in particular with the capital injections made in 2009 by the State-owned parent company (SACE S.p.A.) and with the reinsurance coverage of which SACE BT was the beneficiary. According to the Commission, in neither case did SACE take account of the risk profile of the investments and thus did not behave as a market economy investor.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the measures at issue could not be attributed to the Italian State

                           —

                           It is submitted in this regard that the measures at issue were adopted by the Board of SACE S.p.A., not upon a direction given by the public authorities or in order to comply with State-imposed requirements, but rather in the exercise of its own full commercial and strategic autonomy, in a way consistent with purely market logic and no differently from in the majority of its business decisions, and not within the framework of any relationship entailing control, supervision, authorisation or direction on the part of the single shareholder at that time — the Ministry of Economy and Finance.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the fact that the second measure allegedly conferred an advantage on SACE BT

                           —

                           The applicants maintain in this regard that the decision of SACE S.p.A. to offer reinsurance capacity, taking advantage of opportunities afforded by a phase in the economic cycle in which insurance premiums were high, was adopted without any intention of providing SACE BT with assistance or support. Moreover, only the parent company gained any economic advantage from the reinsurance relationship. Furthermore, the Commission’s observations concerning the positive correlation between the volume of risk assumed and the rate requested are not confirmed either by the reference literature or market practice, not even so far as SACE BT in particular is concerned. Lastly, the applicants do not consider persuasive the Commission’s attempt to ‘export’ to different contexts and measures the alleged rule of thumb applied by it, without a detailed statement of reasons, in the case of the Portuguese rules on short-term export credit insurance, in order to establish that the amount of the commission paid to SACE S.p.A. should have been at least 10 % higher than that of the commission applied by private reinsurers in relation to the smaller portion of reinsurance and risk assumed by them.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the third and fourth measures did not confer an advantage on SACE BT

                           —

                           In undertaking the two recapitalisations of 2009, despite the lack of any forecasts relating to SACE BT’s future cash flow which might give grounds for expecting adequate profitability of it at least in the long term, SACE S.p.A. preserved the value of the very considerable investment that it had made at the time of the company’s formation barely five years earlier. Furthermore, SACE S.p.A. took the view that the liquidation of its subsidiary would also have exposed the entire SACE group to the risk of potential damage, in the form of massive loss in value and/or deterioration in its creditworthiness, the amount of which would have been far higher than that of the capital estimated outstanding for the end of 2009. The Commission failed to have regard to the broad margin of discretion of the public investor, substituting its own assessment for that of SACE S.p.A. solely on the basis of an incorrect theoretical reconstruction of the choice which the hypothetical prudent and well-informed private investor would have made in that set of circumstances.


title: Case T-92/12: Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (GAS)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/23

         Order of the General Court of 12 July 2012 — Gas v OHIM — Grotto (GAS)
   (Case T-92/12) (1)

   2012/C 273/43
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 126, 28.4.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 22 October 1996 in Case T-154/94: Comité des Salines de France et Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines de l'Est v. Commission of the European Communities (State aid - General regional aid scheme - Letter from the Commission concerning aid - Action for annulment - Inadmissible)

text:
7 . 12 . 96             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 370/ 11
     comply with Commission Directive 93/90/EEC of                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     29 October 1993 ( : ) concerning the list of substances
     referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13 ( 1 ) of             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) and/or by failing to            Case C-356/9 6 ( 3 ); the time-limit for transposition expired
     communicate those measures, the Kingdom of Belgium                 on 31 October 1993 .
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                        (') OJ No L 277, 10 . 1 1 . 1993 , p . 33 .
                                                                        ( ~ ) OJ , English Special Edition ( 1967 ), p. 234 .
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                       ( M See Case C-356/96 above .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Netherlands authorities — the Court of First Instance
                       of 22 October 1996
                                                                        (Third Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of:
                                                                        C. R Briët, President, B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki
in Case T-154/94 :        Comité des Salines de France et               and J. D. Cooke, Judges, J. Palacio Gonzalez,
Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines de l'Est v.                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        22 October 1996 in which it:
         Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
(State aid — General regional aid scheme — Letter from the
Commission concerning aid — Action for annulment —                      1 . dismisses the action as inadmissible ;
                            Inadmissible)
                           ( 96/C 370/25 )                              2 . orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those
                                                                              incurred by Frima B V;
                 (Language of the case: French)                         3 . orders Salt Union Ltd, Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG ,
                                                                              and Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to bear their own
                                                                              costs .
In Case T- 154/94 : Comite des Salines de France, established           (') OJ No C 161 , 11.6 . 1994 .
in Paris, and Compagnie des Salins du Midi et des Salines
de l'Est SA, established in Paris, represented by Dominique
Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, and Peter Verloop, of the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe,
supported by Salt Union Ltd, established in Cheshire                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig
Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in                                               of 22 October 1996
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden,                            in Joined Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 : Société Nationale
8 Boulevard Royal, and Südwestdeutsche Salzwerke AG,                    des Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board v.
established in Heilbronn ( Germany ), and Verein Deutsche                          Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
Salzindustrie eV, established in Bonn ( Germany ),
represented by Thomas Jestaedt and Barbel Altes,                        (Competition — Channel Tunnel — Reservation of SO % of
Rechtsanwälte, Dusseldorf, and Walter Klosterfelde and                  tunnel capacity for two railway companies — Restrictions
Karsten Metzlaff, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an                          on competition — Exemption — Access for third parties)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                                 ( 96/C 370/26 )
Philippe Dupont, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission
of the European Communities ( Agents : initially Giuliano
Marenco and Jean-Paul Keppenne, then Giuliano Marenco                               (Language of the case: English and French)
and Paul Nemitz ), supported by Frima BV, established in
The Hague ( Netherlands ), represented by Tom Ottervanger
and Gerrit Vriezen , of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address              In Joined Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 : Societe Nationale des
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos                     Chemins de Fer Français, established in Paris, represented
Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde — application for annulment of                  by Barbara Rapp-Jung and Nathalie Flandin, of the Brussels
the decision allegedly contained in a letter addressed by the           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Commission on 7 February 1994 to Comite des Salines de                  Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue d'Eich, and British
France concerning aid granted to Frima BV by the                        Railways Board, established in London , represented by


title: Case T-68/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Sphere Time v OHIM — Punch (watches)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/60

         Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Sphere Time v OHIM — Punch (watches)
   (Case T-68/10)
   2010/C 100/89
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sphere Time société anonyme (Windhof, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Punch, société par actions simplifiée (Nice, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2009 in case R 1130/2008-3 and order the defendant to confirm the validity of the challenged Community registered design; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and to enact that the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal bears the costs of the applicant related to the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design registered for ‘watches’

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Declared the contested Community design invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of Council Regulation No 6/2002, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered the challenged design as lacking individual character and as not being new; infringement of Article 61(2) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Board of Appeal has not correctly evaluated the applicant’s arguments and evidences submitted in the course of the proceedings, misinterpreted the freedom of the designer and based its decision on a false appreciation, thereby misusing its power.


title: Case C-242/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2006 — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and T. Sahin — against the judgment of the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage in Case AWB 04/45792

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, (Netherlands) lodged on 29 May 2006 — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie and T. Sahin — against the judgment of the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage in Case AWB 04/45792
   (Case C-242/06)
   (2006/C 212/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State, Netherlands
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie, T. Sahin
   Questions referred

               1(a).

               In the light of paragraphs 81 and 84 of the judgment in Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others [2003] ECR I-12301, is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 concerning the development of the Association to be construed as meaning that an alien, a Turkish national, who has complied with the rules for first admission and residence in the country and from 14 December 2000 to 2 October 2002 was legally employed by various employers, but failed to request in due time the extension of the period of validity of his residence permit, as a result of which after the expiry of the permit and at the time of the application for its extension, under national law, he was neither legally resident nor entitled to work in the country, can rely on that provision?

               1(b).

               Is the reply to Question 1(a) affected by the fact that an application for extension not lodged by an alien in due time which is received within six months of the expiry of the period of validity of the residence permit, although under national law this application is treated as an application for the grant of a first residence permit, is examined in the light of the requirements laid down for authorisation of continued residence and the alien is allowed to await the decision on the application in the country?

               2(a).

               Is the word ‘restriction’ in Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 to be understood to include the requirement upon an alien, a Turkish national, to whom Decision No 1/80 applies, to pay administrative charges in connection with the processing of an application for the extension of the period of validity of a residence permit, failing which payment his application will not be considered, in accordance with Article 24(2) of the Vw 2000?

               2(b).

               Is the reply to question 2(a) different if the amount of the charges for processing the application does not exceed the costs?

               3.

               Must Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, which also serves to implement the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (1), read in conjunction with Article 59 of that Protocol, be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the administrative charges (EUR 169.00 for the alien at the relevant time) for Turkish nationals who fall within the scope of Decision No 1/80, payable in connection with the processing of an application for the grant or extension of a residence permit, may not exceed the amount of the charge (EUR 30.00) that can be levied on nationals of the European Community for the processing of an application for examination in the light of Community law and the issue of the corresponding residence document (see Article 9(1) of Directive 68/360/EEC (2) and Article 25(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC (3))?

      (1)  JO 1972 L 293, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, EnglishSpecial Edition 1968(II), p. 485).

      (3)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory ofthe Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).


title: Case F-48/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/33

         Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-48/16)
   (2016/C 371/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J. Abiks, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision establishing the number of annuities granted in the EU pension scheme following a request to transfer pension rights and compensation for the damage caused to the applicant owing to the failure of the defendant to respect a reasonable time-limit in processing this request.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 6 November 2015 by which the Appointing Authority took the final decision to fix the amount transferred to the EU Pension Scheme at EUR 135 955,38 instead of EUR 155 237,25;

               —

               Order the defendant to compensate the loss of EUR 10 739,28 incurred to the applicant as a result of the breach of sound administration by the Commission services;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount of EUR 1 000 — to the applicant for the moral damages suffered as a result of the final contested decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-257/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Obligation of establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks ( Kesselprüfstelle ))

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-257/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Infringement of Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Obligation of establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (‘Kesselprüfstelle’))
   (2006/C 331/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Obligations laid down by national legislation to have the seat of the undertaking or an establishment within the national territory in order to be able to provide an inspection service for boilers and pressure tanks (‘Kesselprüfstelle’)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by providing in Paragraph 21(4) of the Federal law on the security measures for steam or other vapour generating boilers, pressure vessels, containers and pipes [Bundesgesetz über Sicherheitsmaßnahmen für Dampfkessel, Druckbehälter, Versandbehälter und Rohrleitungen (Kesselgesetz)] that only applicants established in Austria may be approved as boiler inspection bodies, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austriato pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 3.9.2005.


title: Case T-263/09: Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Mannatech v OHIM (BOUNCEBACK)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/46

         Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Mannatech v OHIM (BOUNCEBACK)
   (Case T-263/09)
   2009/C 205/84
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Mannatech, Inc. (Coppell, United States) (represented by R. Niebel and C. Steuer, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2009 in case R 100/2009-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “BOUNCEBACK” for goods in class 5

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the applicant’s trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its application of the legal standards laid down in the said legal provisions.


title: Case C-491/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2004/114/EC — Articles 6, 7 and 12 — Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies — Refusal to admit a person who meets the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/114 — Discretion enjoyed by the competent authorities)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/18

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany)) — Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-491/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2004/114/EC - Articles 6, 7 and 12 - Conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies - Refusal to admit a person who meets the conditions laid down in Directive 2004/114 - Discretion enjoyed by the competent authorities))
   2014/C 409/25
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 12 of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State concerned is obliged to admit to its territory a third-country national who wishes to stay for more than three months in that territory for study purposes, where that national meets the conditions for admission exhaustively listed in Articles 6 and 7 of that directive and provided that that Member State does not invoke against that person one of the grounds expressly listed by the directive as justification for refusing a residence permit.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case T-246/06: Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/26

         Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)
   (Case T-246/06)
   (2006/C 261/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Redcats SA (Roubaix, France) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Revert y Cia SA (Onteniente, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               […] Thus the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of the OHIM must be reversed.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘REVERIE’ for goods in classes 16, 20 and 24 — application No 2 146 447

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manuel Revert y Cía., SA

      Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative mark ‘REVERT’ for goods and services in classes 24, 25 and 39

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to the contested goods in class 24

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The conflicting trade marks have no similarities from a visual, phonetic and conceptual point of view for Spanish, French or English speaking consumers. The fact that the earlier trade mark and the trade mark applied for cover the same products does therefore not create a risk of confusion in the mind of the public.


title: Case T-94/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a blue background) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a blue background — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — EE v OHIM (Representation of white dots on a blue background)
   (Case T-94/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for a Community figurative mark representing white dots on a blue background - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 354/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EE Ltd (Hatfield, United Kingdom) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2013 (Case R 495/2013-1) relating to an application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing white dots on a blue background.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EE Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 May 2000 in Case T-28/00: Luis Borrego Alias v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Officials — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
7.10.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 285/9
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                cation for annulment of the decision of the selection board in
                             INSTANCE                                       competition CdR B/01/98 refusing to admit the applicant to
                                                                            the tests in that competition — the Court of First Instance
                          of 7 April 2000                                   (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
                                                                            M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
in Case T-326/99 R: Nancy Fern Olivieri v Commission of                     an order on 17 May 2000, the operative part of which is as
                   the European Communities                                 follows:
(Proceedings for interim measures — Marketing authoris-                     1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
ation for a medicinal product — Admissibility — Prima
       facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                       2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
                          (2000/C 285/17)                                   (1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-326/99 R: Nancy Fern Olivieri, resident in Toronto
(Canada), represented by P. Sands and J. Marks, Barristers, and
R. Stein, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Nathan & Noesen, 18 Rue des Glacis, v                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Wain-                                                INSTANCE
wright and H. Støvlbæk), supported by Apotex Europe Ltd,
having its registered office in Leeds (United Kingdom),
represented by P. Bogaert and M. Le Berre, of the Brussels Bar,                                      of 18 April 2000
S. Fries, Rechtsanwalt, Baden Württemberg, and G. Castle,
Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                     in Cases T-83/00 R I, T-83/00 R II, T-84/00 R and
the Chambers of A. Lutgen, 1 Rue Jean-Paul Brasseur —                       T-85/00 R: Hänseler GmbH and Others v Commission of
application for suspension of the operation of the Commission                                 the European Communities
decision of 25 August 1999 granting marketing authorisation
for the medicinal product for human use known as ‘Ferriprox’                (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of authoris-
(OJ 1999 C 270, p. 2) — the President of the Court has made                 ation for the placing on the market of medicinal products for
an order on 7 April 2000, the operative part of which is as                 human use containing the substance ‘norpseudoephredin’ —
follows:                                                                    Directive 75/319/EEC — Suspension of operation of a
                                                                            measure pending the making of the order bringing the
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.                                  proceedings for interim relief to a close)
2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                                (2000/C 285/19)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            In Cases T-83/00 R I, T-83/00 R II, T-84/00 R and T-85/00 R:
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Hänseler GmbH, established at Konstanz (Germany), applicant
                                                                            in Case T-83/00 R I, Schuck GmbH, established at Schwaig
                          of 17 May 2000                                    (Germany), applicant in Case T-83/00 R II, Laboratórios Rous-
                                                                            sel, Ltda, established at Mem Martins (Portugal), applicant in
in Case T-28/00: Luis Borrego Alias v Committee of the                      Cases T-84/00 R and T-85/00 R, Laboratoires Roussel Dia-
              Regions of the European Union (1)                             mant SARL, established at Puteaux (France), applicant in
                                                                            Case T-84/00 R, and Roussel Iberica SA, established in Barce-
(Officials — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Mani-                    lona (Spain), applicant in Case T-85/00 R, represented by
                        fest inadmissibility)                               B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for service in
                                                                            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val
                          (2000/C 285/18)                                   Sainte Croix, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and B. Wägenbaur) — application for
                                                                            suspension of operation of the Commission’s decision of
                     (Language of the case: French)                         9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of authorisation for
                                                                            the placing on the market of medicinal products for human
In Case T-28/00: Luis Borrego Alias, residing in Brussels,                  use containing the substances ‘Clobenzorex’, ‘Fenbutrazat’,
represented by J.-N. Louis, G.F. Parmentier and V. Peere, of the            ‘Fenproporex’, ‘Mazindol’, ‘Mefenorex’, ‘Norpseudoephredin’,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              ‘Phenmetrazin’ and ‘Propylhexedrin’ (C(2000) 608) — the
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck, v                   President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
Committee of the Regions of the European Union — appli-                     18 April 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-93/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007  — Konidaris v Commission (Officials — Recruitment — Post of director at Grade A2 — Rejection of application — Actions for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Lawfulness of the comparative examination of applicants — Assessment of the qualifications of the candidate appointed)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2007 — Konidaris v Commission
   (Case T-93/03) (1)

   (Officials - Recruitment - Post of director at Grade A2 - Rejection of application - Actions for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Lawfulness of the comparative examination of applicants - Assessment of the qualifications of the candidate appointed)
   (2007/C 199/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Spyros Konidaris (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision to reject the applicant's application for the post of director in the Directorate General INFSO/A: ‘Communication Services: Policy and Regulatory Framework’.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1996 by Max Kögler against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-160/96)

text:
No C 370/ 16         1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7 . 12 . 96
Action brought on 23 September 1996 by Confederazione                  The applicants point out in this respect that when a public
Nazionale Coltivatori Diretti ( COLDIRETTI) and Others                 health emergency ( foot-and-mouth disease ) occurred in
against Commission of the European Communities and                     Italy, the farmers slaughtered all the animals and refrained
                 Council of the European Union                         from exporting infected meat, thus dealing with the root of
                        ( Case T-149/96 )                              the problem . That has not been done by the United
                                                                       Kingdom, on which the Community has not imposed any
                          ( 96/C 370/34 )
                                                                       sanction likely to eliminate the problem. Instead, it has
                                                                       merely formally embargoed exports of United Kingdom
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      cattle, and has failed to do what it unarguably ought to
                                                                       have done : order the United Kingdom to resolve the
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       problem within its own borders also. According to the
Communities and Council of the European Union was
                                                                       applicants, it constitutes serious negligence to believe that
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             the spread of the disease can be halted simply by restricting
Communities on 23 September 1996 by Confederazione
                                                                       exports .
Nazionale Coltivatori Diretti ( COLDIRETTI ), established
in Rome, and Others, represented by Roberto G. Aloisio, of
the Rome Bar and Fabrizio Massoni, of tihe Brussels Bar,               As regards the alleged invalidity of Regulation No 1357/96 ,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              the applicants state that they seek its annulment only if it
of Jim Penning, 31 Grand Rue .                                         precludes the application for full compensation for the loss
                                                                       suffered. The regulation provides for the payment of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                            additional premiums to producers of cattle 'with a view to
                                                                       ensuring the future of the sector'. The applicants claim that
— order the defendants, in accordance with the second                  those provisions are invalid, in so far as they provide for the
     paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, jointly and            payment of additional premiums in respect of losses of
     severally to pay the sum due to each of the applicants            income to the producers and not in respect of the higher
     by way of compensation for damage to be assessed                  costs which they are forced to bear. In their view, payment
     during the proceedings, together with default interest at         of those additional premiums cannot deprive the injured
     the rate of 10% and taking inflation into account until           parties of their right to full compensation for all losses
     actual payment ( see Case C-308/87 Grifoni v. EAEC                suffered .
     [ 1994] ECR 1-341 ),
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1357/96 in so far as
     it limits the amount of compensation to be allocated to
     farmers and, in any event, quantifies that compensation
     by reference solely to lost income and not to increased           Action brought on 16 October 1996 by Max Kogler against
     costs ,                                                                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities
— order the defendants or the defendant held to be liable                                      ( Case T- 160/96 )
     to pay the costs of the proceedings .                                                       ( 96/C 370/35 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicants, who are the Confederazione Nazionale
Coltivatori Diretti and numerous individual owner-occupier
                                                                        An action against the Court of Justice of the European
farmers, seek compensation for damage which they claim
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
has been caused by the way in which the Community                       Instance of the European Communities on 16 October 1996
institutions responded to the collapse of the beef and veal             by Max Kogler, of Konz ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
market as a result of the outbreak of BSE ( bovine
                                                                        represented by Theo Bakes, Rechtsanwalt, of Trier ( Federal
 spongiform encephalitis, known as 'mad cow disease ') in               Republic of Germany), with an address for service in
the United Kingdom.                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Rene Weber, of Messrs
                                                                        Weber, Stein & Thiel, 3 Rue de la Loge .
 According to the applicants, the defendants did not make
 proper use of the powers and duties which they possess in
 order to avert crises and the danger of crises with harmful            The applicant claims that the Court should:
 consequences for the health of Community nationals . They
 allege that the Community institutions:
                                                                        — annul the decision of the Complaints Committee of the
 — have misused the powers available to them,                               Court of Justice of 1 July 1996 ,
 — have failed to make use in time of the repressive                    — recalculate and definitively determine the applicant's
      measures provided for by Community legislation which                  retirement pension for the period from 1 July 1991 to
      would have eradicated the epidemic,                                   30 June 1994 on the basis of the weightings for Berlin
                                                                            fixed annually by the Council,
 — have negligently underestimated the extent of the
      problem and, by failing to tackle it with the requisite
      decisiveness, have allowed infected beef and veal to              — alternatively, designate a date in the near future when
      circulate in Europe .                                                 that calculation and determination will take place .
 ---pagebreak--- 7 . 12 . 96            EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370 / 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    interpreted by case-law. He maintains that the Commission
                                                                       has not accorded the union which he represents all the
The applicant states, with regard to the admissibility of his          rights to which it is entitled, inasmuch as the practical effect
claim, that it is directed not against an act of the appointing        of the contested decision results is to prohibit it from taking
authority but against a failure to act . That failure to act           part in meetings organized between the institutions and
consists in the fact that, because the weightings have still           trade unions and staff associations, to refuse it the
not been definitively fixed, the applicant's pension for the           necessary means for properly carrying out its tasks, to deny
period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June 1994 has not yet been               it the right to disseminate information and to prohibit it
finally determined .                                                   from carrying on trade union activities during working
                                                                       hours on the Commission's premises .
Moreover, the action is also well founded since there
                                                                       The applicant also complains that the Commission has not
appears to be no reason why the principles applying to
                                                                       complied with the framework agreement and that it has
officials residing in the Federal Republic of Germany                  distorted the aims thereof.
should differ from those applying in respect of all other
countries, or why the appointing authority should refrain              Lastly, he pleads infringement of the obligation to provide a
from applying the principles clearly obtaining since June              statement of reasons arising from the second paragraph of
1994 to the preceding period as well .                                 Article 25 and Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations .
Action brought on 17 October 1996 by Gundolf Bosetti                   Action brought on 18 October 1996 by Sandro Forcheri
    against the Commission of the European Communities                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-161 /96 )                                                    ( Case T-l 62/96 )
                           ( 96/C 370/36 )                                                       ( 96/C 370/37)
                 (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                       An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 17 October 1996                Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 1996
by Gundolf Bosetti , residing in Luxembourg, represented by            by Sandro Forcheri , residing in Brussels, represented by
Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address                 Marc-Albert Lucas of the Liege Bar, with an address for
for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 Avenue du                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn ,
                                                                       21 Rue de Nassau .
Bois .
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul or declare to be unlawful the failure of the
— annul the decision of the Commission of 31 October                        Commission to second the Head of Division B/4 of
     1995 refusing to admit the independent trade union                     DG XXI to SAMCOMM on the date that he took up
     'Action et Defense — Luxembourg' to the framework                      his duties or at the very least with effect from
     agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning relations                    29 October 1992,
     between the Commission and trade unions and staff
     associations ,                                                    — annul the Commission 's decision of 12 December 1995
                                                                            refusing the applicant's request for payment of the
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                                differential allowance provided for by Article 7 ( 2 ) of
                                                                            the Staff Regulations,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — annul the Commission's decision of 24 July 1996
                                                                            granting his complaint in part, in that it fails to accept
The applicant, deputy general secretary of the trade union                  that he has, since 29 October 1992 , been performing
'Action et Defense — Luxembourg', states that on                            temporarily the duties of Head of Division XXI B/4 and
9 October 1995 that organization applied to be admitted to                  in that it therefore does not grant him the differential
the framework agreement of 20 September 1974                                allowance from 30 January 1993 and without
concerning relations between the Commission and trade                       limitation in time,
unions and staff associations . On 31 October 1995 the
competent Member of the Commission rejected the                        — order the Commission to pay him that differential
application on the ground that, as matters then stood, he                   allowance, together with interest for late payment at the
was not able to assess the extent to which the organization                 rate of 8% per annum from the date each month on
in question was a representative body.                                      which that allowance should have been paid until full
                                                                            payment,
The applicant considers that that decision disregarded
Articles 9 and 24a of the Staff Regulations of officials, as           — order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-369/07: Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Republic of Latvia v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan for the allocation of emission allowances for Latvia for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Three-month time-limit — Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 March 2011 — Republic of Latvia v Commission
   (Case T-369/07) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan for the allocation of emission allowances for Latvia for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Three-month time-limit - Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87)
   2011/C 139/29
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: initially by E. Balode-Buraka and K. Bārdiņa, and subsequently by L. Ostrovska and lastly by L. Ostrovska and K. Drēviņa, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: U. Wölker, E. Kalnins and I. Rubene, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent); and Slovak Republic (represented initially by J. Čorba, and subsequently by B. Ricziová, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by Z. Bryanston-Cross, and subsequently by S. Behzadi-Spencer, I. Rao and F. Penlington, Agents, assisted by J. Maurici, Barrister)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Latvia for the period from 2008 to 2012, under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Latvia for the period from 2008 to 2012, under Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Latvia;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1997 in Case T-110/96: Dominique-François Bareth v. Committee of the Regions (Officials - Internal competition - Refusal to appoint a successful candidate - Misuse of power - Principle of equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons)

text:
20.2.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 55/23
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,
                    of 17 December 1997                            VeÂronique Leclerq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire
in Case T-152/95: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. v.                Myson Sarl, 30 rue de Cessange, against Commission of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                  the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia
(Common organisation of the market in raw tobacco Ð                and Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for the
Management by the Commission Ð Action for                          annulment of decisions of the Selection Board in internal
compensation Ð Time bar Ð Principle of proportionality             competition COM/B/9/93, awarding to the applicants, at
               Ð Principle of equal treatment)                     the oral tests in that competition, a mark below the
                                                                   minimum required by the notice of competition and
                        (98/C 55/46)                               therefore refusing to include their names on the list of
                                                                   eligible candidates Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                (Language of the case: French)                     Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
                                                                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, administrator, for the
In Case T-152/95: Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc.,                  Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 December 1997, the
established in Kavala (Greece), represented by Edouard             operative part of which is as follows:
Didier and JoeÈl GrangeÂ, of the Paris Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos
                                                                   1. The application is dismissed.
Zeyen, 67 rue Ermesinde, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Berscheid) Ð
application for an order requiring the Commission to pay           2. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty as
compensation for the damage resulting from certain action          (1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
taken by it in managing the common organisation of the
market in raw tobacco in the period 1990 to 1991 Ð the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;
J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 17 December 1997, in which it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. dismisses the application;                                                          of 17 December 1997
                                                                         in Case T-110/96: Dominique-FrancËois Bareth v.
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                                          Committee of the Regions (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Internal competition Ð Refusal to appoint a
(1) OJ C 268, 14.10.1995.
                                                                   successful candidate Ð Misuse of power Ð Principle of
                                                                          equal treatment Ð Obligation to state reasons)
                                                                                (98/C 55/48)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 17 December 1997
                                                                   In Case T-110/96: Dominique-FrancËois Bareth, an official
       in Case T-159/95: Luigia Dricot and Others v.
                                                                   of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                   Union, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl
(Officials Ð Internal competition for advancement from             Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
Category C to Category B Ð Decision of the Board failing           Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
candidates at the oral test Ð Consistency between                  Fiduciaire Myson Sarl, 30 rue de Cessange, against
complaint and application Ð Principle of equal treatment           Committee of the Regions (Agent: Dominique Lagasse) Ð
for men and women Ð Principle of non-discrimination Ð              application for the annulment of the decision of the
Scope of the obligation to state reasons Ð Assessment of           Committee of the Regions of 20 September 1995
                          the Board)                               inasmuch as it refuses to appoint the applicant to one of
                                                                   the vacant posts referred to in the notice of internal
                        (98/C 55/47)
                                                                   competition A/02/95 and appoints other successful
                                                                   candidates to those posts Ð the Court of First Instance
                (Language of the case: French)                     (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P.
                                                                   Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
In Case T-159/95: Luigia Dricot and 29 other applicants,           for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 December 1997,
officials of the Commission of the European Communities,           the operative part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/24               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.98
1. The decision of the Committee of the Regions of                   3. The parties shall each bear their own costs.
    20 September 1995, in so far as it refuses to appoint
    the applicant to one of the vacant posts referred to in          (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
    notice of internal competition A/02/95, is annulled.
2. The decision of the Committee of the Regions of
    20 September 1995, in so far as it appoints to certain
    vacant posts referred to in notice of internal
    competition A/02/95 a number of successful
    candidates classified below the applicant on the list of           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    eligible candidates, is annulled.                                                    of 18 December 1997
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-159/94 and T-160/94: Ajinomoto Co.,
3. The Committee of the Regions is ordered to pay the                Inc. and The NutraSweet Company v. Council of the
    costs.                                                                                European Union (1)
                                                                     (Action for annulment Ð Dumping Ð Aspartame Ð
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
                                                                     Right to a fair hearing Ð Normal value Ð Reference
                                                                                country Ð Patent Ð Injury)
                                                                                (98/C 55/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 17 December 1997
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-159/94: Ajinomoto Co., Inc., established
in Case T-208/96: Eberhard Eiselt v. Commission of the               in Tokyo, represented by Mario Siragusa, of the Rome
                  European Communities (1)                           Bar, and Till Müller-Ibold, Rechtsanwalt, Frankfurt am
                                                                     Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
(Vocational training course Ð Refusal to participate Ð               Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, and T-160/94:
Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and of           The NutraSweet Company, established at Deerfield,
the principle of equal treatment Ð Claim for                         Illinois (United States of America), represented initially by
             compensation for damage suffered)                       Otto Grolig, Peter Bogaert and Koen Vanhaerents, and
                         (98/C 55/49)                                subsequently by Otto Grolig, Jean-FrancËois Bellis and
                                                                     Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Loesch, 11 rue Goethe, against Council of the European
                                                                     Union (Agents: Erik Stein, Guus Houttuin, Hans-Jürgen
In Case T-208/96: Eberhard Eiselt, an official of the                Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  of the European Communities (Agents: Eric L. White,
Ispra (Italy), represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the            Nicholas Khan, assisted initially by Mark Cran and
Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            subsequently by Fergus Randolph) Ð applications for
the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10 rue Mathias Hardt,               annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 of
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:               27 May 1991 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð application for, first, the annulment          imports of aspartame originating in Japan and the United
of a decision of the Commission refusing the applicant the           States of America (OJ L 134, 29.5.1991, p. 1) Ð the
further vocational training he requested and, secondly, the          Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
annulment of the decision of the Commission assigning                Composition), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,
him to duties which did not correspond to his                        President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M. Moura Ramos and M.
qualifications, his professional experience or to the duties         Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
for which he was initially recruited Ð the Court of First            has given a judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts,
President, P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                     1. dismisses the applications;
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             2. orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to
                                                                          pay the costs of the Council;
1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible inasmuch
    as it seeks a finding that the allocation to the applicant
                                                                     3. orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
    of duties for which he is not trained and for which he
    was not initially employed is unlawful in so far as it is
    not in the interests of the institution.                         (1) OJ C 291, 8.11.1991.
2. The remainder of the application is dismissed.


title: Case T-61/09: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Meica v OHIM — Bösinger Fleischwaren (Schinken King) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Schinken King — Earlier national word mark King — Earlier national and Community word marks Curry King — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Duty to state reasons — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2011 — Meica v OHIM — Bösinger Fleischwaren (Schinken King)
   (Case T-61/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Schinken King - Earlier national word mark King - Earlier national and Community word marks Curry King - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Duty to state reasons - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2012/C 32/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Meica Ammerländisch Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (Edewecht, Germany) (represented by: S. Russlies, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Führer and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH (Bösingen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Meica Ammerländisch Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG and Bösinger Fleischwaren GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 December 2008 (Case R 1049/2007-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Meica Ammerländisch Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-400/10: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014  — Hamas v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism — Freezing of funds — Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds — Reference to terrorist acts — Need for a decision of a competent authority for the purpose of Common Position 2001/931 — Obligation to state reasons — Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment)

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2014 — Hamas v Council
   (Case T-400/10) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Reference to terrorist acts - Need for a decision of a competent authority for the purpose of Common Position 2001/931 - Obligation to state reasons - Temporal adjustment of the effects of an annulment))
   (2015/C 056/17)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by B. Driessen and R. Szostak, and subsequently by B. Driessen and G. Étienne, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by M. Konstantinidis and É. Cujo, and subsequently by M. Konstantinidis and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for, initially, annulment of the Council Notice for the attention of the persons, groups and entities on the list provided for in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2010 C 188, p. 13); of Council Decision 2010/386/CFSP of 12 July 2010 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2010 L 178, p. 28); and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1285/2009 (OJ 2010 L 178, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decisions 2010/386/CFSP of 12 July 2010, 2011/70/CFSP of 31 January 2011, 2011/430/CFSP of 18 July 2011 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, Council Decisions 2011/872/CFSP of 22 December 2011, 2012/333/CFSP of 25 June 2012, 2012/765/CFSP of 10 December 2012, 2013/395/CFSP of 25 July 2013, 2014/72/CFSP of 10 February 2014 and 2014/483/CFSP of 22 July 2014 updating the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing, respectively, Decisions 2011/430, 2011/872, 2012/333, 2012/765, 2013/395 and 2014/72, in so far as they concern Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem);

               2)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulations (EU) No 610/2010 of 12 July 2010, No 83/2011 of 31 January 2011, No 687/2011 of 18 July 2011, No 1375/2011 of 22 December 2011, No 542/2012 of 25 June 2012, No 1169/2012 of 10 December 2012, No 714/2013 of 25 July 2013, No 125/2014 of 10 February 2014 and No 790/2014 of 22 July 2014 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing, respectively, Implementing Regulations (EU) No 1285/2009, No 610/2010, No 83/2011, No 687/2011, No 1375/2011, No 542/2012, No 1169/2012, No 714/2013 and No 125/2014 in so far as they concern Hamas (including Hamas-Izz al-Din al-Qassem);

               3)

               Orders that the effects of Decision 2014/483 and of Implementing Regulation No 790/2014 be maintained for three months from delivery of the present judgment or, if an appeal is lodged within the period prescribed in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, until the Court of Justice has given judgment on that appeal;

               4)

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5)

               Orders the Council of the European Union, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by Hamas;

               6)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-21/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Sun Microsystems Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word and figurative mark SUNPLUS — Opposition by the proprietor of the national word marks SUN — Refusal of registration)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 March 2009 — Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Sun Microsystems Inc.
   (Case C-21/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word and figurative mark ‘SUNPLUS’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the national word marks ‘SUN’ - Refusal of registration)
   2009/C 113/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd (represented by: K. Lochner and H. Gauß, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Sun Microsystems Inc. (represented by: M. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 15 November 2007 in Case T-38/04 Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) in which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action brought, by the applicant for the figurative mark ‘SUNPLUS’ for goods in Class 9, against decision R 642/2000-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 October 2003, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the opposition division which refused an application for registration of that mark in opposition proceedings initiated by the holder of the national figurative and word trade marks ‘SUN’ for goods in Class 9 — Similarity between the marks — Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-151/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP) v Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción, María del Rosario Vecino Uribe, Ministerio Fiscal (Transfers of undertakings — Directive 2001/23/EC — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Employee representatives — Autonomy of the entity transferred)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain)) — Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP) v Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción, María del Rosario Vecino Uribe, Ministerio Fiscal
   (Case C-151/09) (1)

   (Transfers of undertakings - Directive 2001/23/EC - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Employee representatives - Autonomy of the entity transferred)
   2010/C 246/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Federación de Servicios Públicos de la UGT (UGT-FSP)

      Defendants: Ayuntamiento de La Línea de la Concepción, María del Rosario Vecino Uribe, Ministerio Fiscal

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses — Obligation to preserve the status and the function of the employee representatives in an undertaking or business, where the undertaking or business preserves its autonomy following the transfer — Concept of autonomy

      Operative part of the judgment

   A transferred economic entity preserves its autonomy, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses, provided that the powers granted to those in charge of that entity, within the organisational structures of the transferor, namely the power to organise, relatively freely and independently, the work within that entity in the pursuit of its specific economic activity and, more particularly, the powers to give orders and instructions, to allocate tasks to employees of the entity concerned and to determine the use of assets available to the entity, all without direct intervention from other organisational structures of the employer, remain, within the organisational structures of the transferee, essentially unchanged. The mere change of those ultimately in charge cannot in itself be detrimental to the autonomy of the entity transferred, except where those who have become ultimately in charge have available to them powers which enable them to organise directly the activities of the employees of that entity and therefore to substitute their decision making within that entity for that of those immediately in charge of the employees.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Composition of the EFTA Court

text:
Important legal notice

|

E2000J0224(01)

Composition of the EFTA Court

Official Journal C 052 , 24/02/2000 P. 0029 - 0029

COMPOSITION OF THE EFTA COURT(2000/C 52/11)1. Composition of the CourtUpon nomination by the Government of Norway, Mr. Per Tresselt was appointed as Judge of the EFTA Court by common accord of the three Contracting Parties to the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (the ESA/Court Agreement) for the period from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005, to succeed Mr Bjørn Haug. At a public sitting of the EFTA Court on 11 January 2000, Mr Per Tresselt took the oath prescribed in Protocol 5, Article 2 of the ESA/Court Agreement.2. Election of the President of the CourtOn 11 January 2000, after the appointment of the new judge to the EFTA Court, Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson was elected as President for the EFTA Court pursuant to Article 30 of the ESA/Court Agreement for the period from 11 January 2000 to 31 December 2002.


title: Case T-49/08 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Michail v Commission (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Staff case — Officials — Staff Report — Career Development Report — 2003 Assessment period — Award of a merit mark in the absence of tasks to be carried out — Non-material loss — Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Michail v Commission
   (Case T-49/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Cross-appeal - Staff case - Officials - Staff Report - Career Development Report - 2003 Assessment period - Award of a merit mark in the absence of tasks to be carried out - Non-material loss - Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)
   2010/C 11/48
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents, and E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-67/05 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Orders that the costs be reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-483/13: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v Steluta Grigore

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/23

      Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 3 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción No 2 de Marchena — Spain) — Unicaja Banco, SA v Steluta Grigore
      (Case C-483/13) (1)

      (2015/C 016/33)
      Language of the case: Spanish
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013.


title: Case T-173/02: Action brought on 2 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio against Commission of the European Communities

text:
14.9.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 219/19
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               sels, represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer, against Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Yataganas
                           of 11 July 2002                                 and C. Berardis-Kayser) — application for the annulment of
                                                                           the decision of the Commission of 15 December 2000
                                                                           appointing the applicant and classifying him in Grade A 5,
in Case T-163/01: Juan Pedro Perez Escanilla v Com-                        step 1, with effect from 16 December 2000 — the Court of
           mission of the European Communities (1)                         First Instance (Single Judge: M. Vilaras); J. Palacio González,
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                      2002, in which it:
                 merits — Action for annulment)
                                                                           1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 15 December 2000
                          (2002/C 219/47)                                        classifying the applicant in Grade A 5, step 1, with effect from
                                                                                16 December 2000.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           2.    orders the Commission to pay the costs.
In Case T-163/01: Juan Pedro Perez Escanilla, an official of
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
not to promote the applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999
promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. García-
Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July 2002, in             Action brought on 2 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio
which it:                                                                       against Commission of the European Communities
1.     Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the                                      (Case T-173/02)
       applicant to Grade A 4 in the 1999 promotions procedure.
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                       (2002/C 219/49)
( 1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 2 June 2002 by Pierre Tomarchio,
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               residing in Nancy (France), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
                                                                           lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                           of 11 July 2002
in Case T-263/01: Petros Mavromichalis v Commission of                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July 2001
                                                                                refusing to appoint the applicant to a higher grade in the
(Officials — Prior complaint through official channels —
                                                                                category in accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff
Implied rejection — Classification in grade and step —
                                                                                Regulations;
                       Statement of reasons)
                                                                           —     annul all other connected and/or subsequent decisions;
                          (2002/C 219/48)
                                                                           —     in so far as necessary, annul the express decision which
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                               the Commission adopted on 12 February 2002 rejecting
                                                                                the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
                                                                                of the Staff Regulations;
In Case T-263/01: Petros Mavromichalis, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14.9.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         group said to comprise Erba Lautex GmbH in liquidation
                                                                        and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH aid amounting in total to
                                                                        EUR 7,834 million.
The applicant objects to the Commission’s decision to refuse
to appoint him to the higher grade in the category in
accordance with Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                        The applicant submits that the Commission’s finding that
                                                                        repayment of the capital increase constituted aid was incorrect
In support of his arguments, the applicant claims that the              and thus contravened Article 87(1) EC. The obligation on the
Commission relied on erroneous information and on contra-               State-owned vendor under the contractual clause did not
dictory arguments. By refusing to reclassify the applicant              amount to aid. Moreover, the Commission did not substantiate
despite the large number of diplomas he holds and the                   its supposition as to a 100 % level of aid intensity in connection
experience he possesses, the Commission has committed a                 with a capital increase in favour of Erba Lautex GmbH and
manifest error of assessment. Furthermore, the Commission               thus contravened Article 253 EC.
did not give valid reasons for its decision, thus infringing
Article 25(2) of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                        The applicant further submits that there is no legal basis for
                                                                        the obligation on Erba Lautex GmbH in respect of repayment
                                                                        of rescue and restructuring aid in favour of Neue Erba Lautex
                                                                        GmbH. The Commission decision is based on the erroneous
                                                                        finding that Neue Erba Lautex GmbH was not a successor
                                                                        undertaking under the terms of the exception provided for in
                                                                        footnote 10 of the Guidelines (1).
Action brought on 17 June 2002 by Rüdiger Wienberg
(Rechtsanwalt), acting as liquidator in the liquidation of
Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        The applicant maintains that the Commission’s finding that
                                                                        Erba Lautex GmbH and Neue Erba Lautex GmbH were to be
                        (Case T-187/02)                                 deemed to constitute a group was erroneous since Neue Erba
                                                                        Lautex GmbH is controlled not by Erba Lautex GmbH but by
                                                                        the liquidator. The findings that no aid has hitherto been
                        (2002/C 219/50)                                 claimed back from Erba Lautex GmbH and that the Com-
                                                                        mission decision of 20 July 1999 has thus not been implement-
                  (Language of the Case: German)                        ed are also erroneous. In consequence of the erroneous
                                                                        assumptions made by the Commission the contested decision
                                                                        was already unlawful and liable to be set aside for breach of
                                                                        Article 87(3)(c) EC in conjunction with the Guidelines.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 17 June
2002 by Rüdiger Wienberg (Rechtsanwalt), acting as liquidator           The applicant submits, in the alternative, that the Commission
in the liquidation of Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Vered-               was incorrect in its finding that the applicant and Erba Lautex
lung, Dresden, (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,          GmbH constituted a unit or group of undertakings and that
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                              therefore the ability to approve rescue and restructuring aid
                                                                        could only be assessed in favour of the group, that the
                                                                        Deggendorf doctrine was to be applied and the aid was to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             be claimed back from both members of the group. The
                                                                        Commission’s decision is said to be based on the erroneous
—     Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of                 finding that the applicant’s case did not constitute a residual
      12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal                 arrangement under the terms of the exception provided for in
      Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex Gmbh and Erba              footnote 10 of the Guidelines. By not applying that exceptional
      Lautex GmbH in liquidation;                                       provision the Commission infringed the principle of equal
                                                                        treatment and provided no objective reason for the unequal
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.                             treatment.
                                                                        (1 ) Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              firms in difficulty (OJ 1999 C 288, p. 2).
In the contested decision the Commission imposed on the
Federal Republic of Germany the obligation to reclaim from a


title: Case T-456/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014  — TAO/AFI and SFIE v Parliament and Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/43

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — TAO/AFI and SFIE v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-456/14)
   2014/C 261/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Association des Fonctionnaires Indépendants pour la Défense de la Fonction Publique Européenne/Association of Independent Officials for the Defence of the European Civil Service (TAO/AFI) (Brussels, Belgium) and Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux et Européens/Union of International and European Civil Servants (SFIE) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the present action for annulment before it admissible;

               —

               Annul the contested Regulations with all the attendant consequences in law;

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on a single plea in law alleging infringement of the prerogatives which they have as trade unions and professional associations, namely the right to consultation and the right of negotiation.
   The applicants were not consulted either at the stage of preparation of the proposals or during the stage of the negotiations in respect of the disputed Regulations.