title: Case T-27/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — EMA v Hristov (Appeal — Civil Service — Appointment — Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency — EMA — Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel — Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board — Composition of the pre-selection panel — Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board — Impartiality)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2016 — EMA v Hristov
   (Case T-27/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Appointment - Procedure for selection and appointment of the executive director of a regulatory agency - EMA - Pre-selection by a pre-selection panel - Appointment by the EMA’s Management Board - Composition of the pre-selection panel - Combination of functions as a member of the pre-selection panel and as a member of the EMA’s Management Board - Impartiality))
   (2016/C 314/29)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Medicines Agency (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Emil Hristov (Sofia, Bulgaria) (represented by: M. Ekimdzhiev, K. Boncheva and G. Chernicherska, lawyers) (applicant at first instance); and European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall, N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, and subsequently by N. Nikolova and S. Petrova, acting as Agents) (defendant at first instance)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12, EU:F:2014:245), seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside in part the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12), in so far as it annulled the decision of the Management Board of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA;

               2.

               Declares that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the request to have set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2014 in Hristov v Commission and EMA (F-2/12) in so far as it annulled the decision of the European Commission of 20 April 2011, pursuant to which the Commission proposed to the Management Board of the EMA a list of four candidates recommended by the pre-selection panel and approved by the Consultative Committee on Appointments;

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling to be given on the claim for annulment of the decision of the Management Board of the EMA of 6 October 2011 appointing the Executive Director of the EMA, in view of the heads of claim and pleas in law relied on by Mr Emil Hristov on which the Civil Service Tribunal did not adjudicate;

               4.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015.


title: Case C-174/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Steglitz v Ines Zimmermann (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Article 13A(1)(g) and (2) — Services closely linked to welfare and social security work supplied by bodies governed by public law or organisations recognised as charitable — Recognition — Conditions not applicable to organisations other than bodies governed by public law — Discretion of the Member States — Limits — Principle of fiscal neutrality)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Steglitz v Ines Zimmermann
   (Case C-174/11) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Article 13A(1)(g) and (2) - Services closely linked to welfare and social security work supplied by bodies governed by public law or organisations recognised as charitable - Recognition - Conditions not applicable to organisations other than bodies governed by public law - Discretion of the Member States - Limits - Principle of fiscal neutrality)
   2013/C 9/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Steglitz

      Defendant: Ines Zimmermann

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 13A(1)(g) and (2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of services linked to welfare and social security work that are supplied by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised as charitable — National legislation making the exemption of out-patient care services subject to certain conditions which are not applicable, however, if the services in question are supplied by certain associations approved by the State, or by members of those associations

      Operative part of the judgment

   Under Article 13A(1)(g) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, interpreted in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, the VAT exemption for out-patient services supplied by commercial service-providers may not be made subject to a condition such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by virtue of which the costs relating to those services must, during the preceding calendar year, have been borne wholly or partly by the statutory social security or social welfare authorities in at least two thirds of cases, where that condition is not capable of ensuring equal treatment in relation to the recognition, for the purposes of that provision, of the ‘charitable’ nature of organisations other than bodies governed by public law.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case F-112/13: Action brought on 27 November 2013 — ZZ v ENISA

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/26

         Action brought on 27 November 2013 — ZZ v ENISA
   (Case F-112/13)
   2014/C 85/45
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of ENISA’s executive director to terminate the applicant’s open-ended employment contract.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s administrative claim and all other earlier unlawful acts, including the act by which ENISA dismissed the applicant;

               —

               Order payment to the applicant of the sum of EUR 50 000 in compensation for the non-pecuniary harm suffered;

               —

               Order ENISA to pay the costs.


title: Case C-452/98: Action brought on 9 December 1998 by the Netherlands Antilles against the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 188/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by Antillean Rice                     Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic
Mills NV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,                    against the Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union, supported
by the Commission of the European Communities, the
Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Italian                                            (Case C-99/99)
                              Republic
                                                                                (1999/C 188/13)
                         (Case C-451/98)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                         (1999/C 188/11)                                Communities on 17 March 1999 by the Italian Republic,
                                                                        represented by Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                        Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the                Adelaïde.
European Communities on 9 December 1998 which Antillean
Rice Mills NV had previously brought before the Court of First
Instance. That action, registered under case number T-41/97,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
resulted in a declaration of inadmissibility and the Court of
First Instance has referred the case to the Court of Justice in
order that the latter Court may rule on the application for             — Annul Commission Regulation No 2815/98 (1) or at least
annulment.                                                                   Articles 1, 2(1) and the third subparagraph of 2(2), the
                                                                             third subparagraph of Article 3(2), and Article 3(3);
The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a communi-           — Order the Commission of the European Communities to
cation in OJ C 108 of 5 April 1997, p. 23.                                   pay the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        1.     The regulation does not state the legal basis on which it
                                                                        was adopted.
                                                                        2.     The regulation provides for the protection only of extra
Action brought on 9 December 1998 by the Netherlands                    virgin and virgin olive oil. That restriction is unjustified and
Antilles against the Council of the European Union,                     unacceptable. Olive oil, too, (other than extra virgin or virgin
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                    olive oil) possesses or may possess characteristics which
                ties and the Kingdom of Spain                           vary according to its geographical origin. Sound and proper
                                                                        protection of the product and the consumer requires that
                                                                        designation of origin of that product should be made possible.
                         (Case C-452/98)
                                                                        3.     The criterion applied to define the geographical origin of
                         (1999/C 188/12)                                the product is unacceptable. It is identified by reference to the
                                                                        place where the mill in which the olives were pressed is
                                                                        located, without taking any account of the place where the
                                                                        olives themselves were produced.
An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 9 December 1998 which the
Netherlands Antilles had previously brought before the Court
of First Instance. That action, registered under case number            4.     The regulation makes an exception of the names of
T-179/97, resulted in a declaration of inadmissibility and the          brands or firms whose registration was applied for before
Court of First Instance has referred the case to the Court of           1 January 1999 purportedly in accordance with the relevant
Justice in order that the latter Court may rule on the application      directive. Not only does the regulation, unlike the directive,
for annulment.                                                          make no to reference to good faith, it also makes it possible to
                                                                        apply for registration even after publication of the regulation,
                                                                        thus legitimizing out and out abuses.
The pleas in law and main arguments are set out in a communi-
cation in OJ C 228 of 26 July 1997, p. 25.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1998 L 349, p. 56.


title: Case T-352/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — City of Brussels v Commission

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/30

         Action brought on 29 June 2016 — City of Brussels v Commission
   (Case T-352/16)
   (2016/C 314/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: City of Brussels (Belgium) (represented by: M. Uyttendaele and S. Kaisergruber, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare its application admissible and well founded;

         consequently:

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Articles 37 and 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of recitals 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), and of Annex I to that regulation, and alleging misuse and abuse of powers by the European Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 5a(3) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23), of recital 3 of Council Decision 2006/512/EC of 17 July 2006 amending Decision 1999/468/EC laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 11), of recital 25 of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 and Article 5(3) of that regulation, and alleging that the Commission lacked competence to adopt the contested regulation and misused its powers.


title: Case T-155/09: Action brought on 15 April 2009 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/42

         Action brought on 15 April 2009 — Maxcom v OHIM — Maxdata Computer (maxcom)
   (Case T-155/09)
   2009/C 153/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Maxcom sp. z o.o. (Tychy, Poland) (represented by: P. Kral, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG (Marl, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2009 in Case R 1019/2008-2, served upon the applicant on 16 February 2009;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: graphic trade mark ‘maxcom’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Maxdata Computer GmbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘max’ registered in Germany for services in Classes 38 and 42 and certain goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in relation to goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal brought by the applicant

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009) (1)

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


title: Case T-275/13: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators — Choice of second language from three languages — Language of communication with the candidates to the competition — Regulation No 1 — Article 1d(1), Article 27, first paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality)

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2015 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-275/13) (1)

   ((Languages - Notice of open competition for the recruitment of administrators - Choice of second language from three languages - Language of communication with the candidates to the competition - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27, first paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 059/13)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by P. Gentili and S. Fiorentino, avvocati dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall, B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogado del Estado)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and B. Beutler, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists for administrations to fill vacant posts in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics (OJ 2013 C 75 A, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists for administrations to fill vacant posts in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Italian Republic;

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear their own costs relating to their interventions.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-517/14 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Agriculture — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications — Registration of the designation ‘Edam Holland’ — Producers using the name ‘Edam’ — Absence of a legal interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/14

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 — Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie
   (Case C-517/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Agriculture - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications - Registration of the designation ‘Edam Holland’ - Producers using the name ‘Edam’ - Absence of a legal interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2016/C 038/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. (represented by: M. Loschelder and V. Schoene, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima, J. Guillem Carrau and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: B. Koopman and M. Bulterman, acting as Agents), Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie (represented by: P. van Ginneken and G. Béquet, advocaten)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Schutzgemeinschaft Milch und Milcherzeugnisse e.V. shall pay the costs.

               3.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Nederlandse Zuivelorganisatie shall bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26 of 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-90/00: Action brought on 18 April 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 163/32              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
Grounds of claim:            — joinder of five appeal cases by          The application is based on the following pleas in law:
                                  the Board of Appeal without
                                  the consent of the party con-
                                                                        — The Council committed a manifest error of assessment in
                                  cerned
                                                                            determining the date for the retroactive application of the
                             — misapplication of Article 4 of               regulation. As it is stated in recital 134 of the regulation,
                                  Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  the anti-dumping proceedings were terminated in order to
                             — misapplication of Article                    respect the principle of non-discrimination with regard to
                                  7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No             imports from other third countries. The applicant submits
                                  40/94                                     that this discrimination has existed since the expiry of the
                                                                            original measures against Japan on 4th December 1997.
                             — misapplication of Article                    The retroactive termination of the proceedings should
                                  7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No             therefore apply from that date onwards.
                                  40/94
                                                                        — The Council has failed to provide sufficient reasoning for
                                                                            its determination of the date by which the contested
                                                                            regulation should apply.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 22, 21.1.2000, p. 1.
Action brought on 14 April 2000 by Europe Chemi-Con
(Deutschland) GmbH against the Council of the European
                             Union
                         (Case T-89/00)
                        (2000/C 163/63)
                                                                        Action brought on 18 April 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Case T-90/00)
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 14 April 2000 by Europe Chemi-Con                                                (2000/C 163/64)
(Deutschland) GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany), represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos and Mr. Juan José Gutiérrez
Gisbert, of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the last indent of Article 3 of Council Regulation              European Communities on 18 April 2000 by Lars Bo Rasmus-
    (EC) No 173/2000 in so far as it does not state that                sen, residing at Dalheim, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
    the retroactive effect of the regulation shall apply from           represented by Michel Karp and Joëlle Choucroun, of the
    4 December 1997 onwards;                                            Luxembourg Bar.
— order the Council to bear the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — annul the decision of the Commission of 2 August 1999
                                                                            to apply Article 85 of the Staff Regulations to the mission
                                                                            undertaken by the applicant from 7 to 11 March 1998 to
The applicant seeks the annulment of Article 3 of Council                   Dublin;
Regulation (EC) No 173/2000 of 24 January 2000 terminating
the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of certain
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay token damages of one franc as
large aluminium electrolytic capacitors originating in Japan,
                                                                            compensation for the non-material damage suffered;
the Republic of Korea and Taiwan(1). It challenges the date
which the Council fixed for the retroactive application of the
regulation, namely 28 February 1999.                                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/33
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Tamara Zaur-Gora
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant contests the decision of the appointing authority
to reduce the amount of the daily allowance in respect of a                                       (Case T-95/00)
mission to Dublin.
                                                                                (2000/C 163/66)
In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward two pleas
in law:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— breach of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations on recovery
     of undue payment. The appointing authority has not                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     proved that the applicant had been aware that there was            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     no due reason for paying the expenses of his mission;              European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Tamara Zaur-
                                                                        Gora, residing at Lodelinsart (Belgium), represented by Jean-
— incorrect interpretation of Point VIII of the Guide on                Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
     Missions.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — annul the decision of the selection board in competition
                                                                             COM/C/2/99 rejecting the application submitted by the
                                                                             applicant;
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Territorio                       — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación
Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                          Communities
                                                                        The applicant has worked for the Commission since 1 October
                         (Case T-92/00)                                 1997, initially as a member of the auxiliary staff, then as a
                                                                        member of the interim staff and then once again as a member
                        (2000/C 163/65)                                 of the auxiliary staff. During the period when she was working
                                                                        as a member of the interim staff, she submitted her application
                                                                        as a candidate in open competition COM/2/99. The annex to
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       the notice of competition provided that the age limit laid down
                                                                        in it was not applicable to candidates who had possessed, for
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               an uninterrupted period of more than one year, the status of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              an official or servant of the European Communities as at the
European Communities on 19 April 2000 by the Territorio                 date marking the deadline for submission of applications. On
Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación                that basis, her application to take part in the competition was
Foral de Alava, established in Vitoria, Spain, represented by           rejected.
Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, lawyers.
                                                                        In support of her claims, the applicant puts forward the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             following pleas:
— annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999                   — infringement of the principles of sound administration and
     inasmuch as it declares the fiscal measures provided for in             proper staff management;
     Normas Forales de Alava Nos 22/1994 and 24/1996 to be
     incompatible with the common market and requires the               — the commission in the present case of a manifest error of
     Spanish State to effect recovery in respect thereof;                    assessment, as well as abuse of process.
— order the Commission to pay all the costs.                            In the applicant’s view, the duties performed by her may be
                                                                        regarded as permanent tasks to be carried out in the public
                                                                        service of the Community, since the formal nature of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         contracts concluded by her with the Commission and the
                                                                        classification applied to them by the parties had no effect on
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put            those de facto circumstances. Consequently, the contracts
forward in Case T-127/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v                   concluded since 22 May 1997 must be regarded, according to
Commission (1).                                                         the applicant, as having been entered into with a member of
                                                                        the temporary staff, having regard to the nature of the tasks to
                                                                        be carried out and the circumstances in which she has
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999, p. 41.                                        performed her duties since that date.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2002 in Case T-291/01: Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Actions for failure to act — Action devoid of purpose — No need to give judgment — Payment of costs)

text:
22.2.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 44/29
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 18 November 2002
                      of 4 November 2002
                                                                            in Case T-190/99 DEP: Sniace SA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-90/99: Salzgitter AG v Commission of the                                                    (Taxation of costs)
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/57)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(ECSC — State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure
provided for in Article 6(5) of Decision 2496/96/ECSC —
                      No need to adjudicate)
                                                                            In Case T-190/99 DEP: Sniace SA, established in Madrid,
                                                                            represented by J.L. Baró Fuentes, M.A. Gómez de Liaño y
                                                                            Botella and F. Rodriguez Carretero, Lawyers, against Com-
                          (2003/C 44/56)                                    mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and
                                                                            J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                            be paid by the defendant to the applicant following the order
                                                                            of the President of the Fifth Chamber, Enlarged Composition,
                   (Language of the case: German)                           of the Court of First Instance of 4 April 2001 in Case T-190/
                                                                            99 Sniace v Commission — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of M.R. García-Valdecasas, President,
                                                                            and P. Lindh. R.M. Moura Ramos, J.D. Cooke and H. Legal,
                                                                            Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 18 November
                                                                            2002, in which it:
In Case T-90/99: Salzgitter AG, established in Salzgitter                   Fixes the total costs to be paid by the Commission to the applicant in
(Germany), represented by J. Sedemund, lawyer, with an                      Case T-199/99 at EUR 14 300.
address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and
P. Nemitz) — application for the annulment of Commission                    (1 ) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
Decision SG (99) D/1542 of 3 March 1999 to initiate the
procedure provided for under Article 6(5) of Commission
Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing
Community rules for State aid to the steel industry (OJ 1996
L 338, p. 42) with regard to aid under the German Zonal
Border Development Areas Act to Salzgitter AG, Preussag
Stahl AG and iron and steel subsidiaries of the ‘SAG — Stahl                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
und Technologie’ Group (OJ 1999 C 113, p. 9) — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),                                          of 27 November 2002
composed of V. Tiili, President, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi,
A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 4 November 2002, the operative part of which is                 in Case T-291/01: Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsge-
as follows:                                                                 sellschaft mbH and Others v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Actions for failure to act — Action devoid of purpose — No
1.    There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application.                    need to give judgment — Payment of costs)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/58)
2.    Each of the parties will bear its own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-291/01: Dessauer Versorgungs- und Verkehrsge-
                                                                            sellschaft mbH, a company established in Dessau, Germany,
                                                                            Neubrandenburger Stadtwerke GmbH, established in Neu-
                                                                            brandenburg, Germany, Stadtwerke Tübingen GmbH, estab-
                                                                            lished in Tübingen, Germany, Stadtwerke Uelzen GmbH,
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/30                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
established in Uelzen, Germany, represented by D. Fouquet,                  Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
Lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities                      Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application                                   Internal Market (OHIM)
for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to
examine non-notified aid granted by the Federal Republic of
Germany to nuclear power station operators — the Court                                              (Case T-353/02)
of First Instance (First Chamber, Enlarged Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Azizi. R.M. Moura
Ramos, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 27 November 2002, in which it:                                                      (2003/C 44/60)
1.     Held that there was no need to give judgment in the action;
                                                                            (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                            Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application in Spanish)
2.     Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
                                                                            Beltrán S.A. of Santander (Spain), represented by Natalia Moya
                                                                            Fernández.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        of 6 December 2002                                  —     annul the decision of 6 August 2002 of the Second Board
                                                                                of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (OHIM) in Case R-407/2001 and the corrigendum
     in Case T-275/02 R: D v European Investment Bank                             of 16 September 2002 thereto;
(Procedure for interim relief — Extension of probationary                   —     reject Opposition B 35073 in its entirety;
period — Admissibility of the main action — Urgency —
                                 None)
                                                                            —     uphold the claims of the applicant and direct the relevant
                                                                                Opposition Division of OHIM to proceed to register the
                           (2003/C 44/59)                                         mark in question;
                    (Language of the case: French)                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-275/02 R: D, an agent of the European Investment
Bank, residing in Luxembourg, represented by J. Choucroun,                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
European Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and P. Mou-
sel) — application for suspension of operation of the decisions
of the European Investment Bank first extending the applicant’s             Applicant for the Com-         Duarte y Beltrán S.A.
period of probation and second dismissing him — the                         munity trade mark:
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
6 December 2002, in which he:                                               Community trade mark           INTEA — application no 99 747
                                                                            applied for:                   for certain goods in classes 3, 16
                                                                                and 21
1.     Dismisses the application for interim measures;
2.     Orders that costs are reserved.                                      Proprietor of the trade        MIRATO S.p.A.
                                                                            mark or sign invoked in
                                                                            the opposition pro-
                                                                            cedure:


title: Case T-390/16: Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Grupo Osborne v EUIPO — Ostermann (DONTORO dog friendship)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/15

      Action brought on 22 July 2016 — Grupo Osborne v EUIPO — Ostermann (DONTORO dog friendship)
      (Case T-390/16)
      (2016/C 364/11)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain) (represented by: J. Iglesias Monravá, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniel Ostermann (Leipzig, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘DONTORO dog friendship’ — EU trade mark application No 11 112 381

         Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2016 in Case R 2002/2015-1

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision granting the European Union Trademark No 11 112 381‘DONTORO dog friendship’ (fig.) in Cls. 18, 20 and 35;

                  —

                  refuse the registration of the European Union Trademark No 11 112 381‘DONTORO dog friendship’ (fig.) in Cl. 35 in the ‘wholesale and retail sale services also through the Internet, garments, shoes and textile products’ and therefore refuse its registration in Classes 25 and 35 in the mentioned services;

                  —

                  order to whoever opposes this appeal to pay the court’s costs.

         Plea in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-76/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) — Community figurative mark Golden Elephant Brand — Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT — Reference to the national law governing the earlier trade mark — Common-law action for passing-off)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/4

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 November 2011 — Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd
   (Case C-76/11 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(4) and 52(1)(c) - Community figurative mark Golden Elephant Brand - Application for a declaration of invalidity based on a non-registered national figurative mark GOLDEN ELEPHANT - Reference to the national law governing the earlier trade mark - Common-law action for passing-off)
   2012/C 109/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Tresplain Investments Ltd. (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, acting as Agent) Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough QC)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 in Case T-303/08 Tresplain Investments Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the proprietor of the Community figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’, for goods in class 30, against Decision R 889/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 7 May 2008, annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division which had rejected an application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark, brought by the proprietor of the unregistered national figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, for goods in class 30 — Interpretation and application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Tresplain Investments Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case C-501/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2010 — Public Prosecutor’s Office v Raffaele Russo

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere (Italy) lodged on 19 October 2010 — Public Prosecutor’s Office v Raffaele Russo
   (Case C-501/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/60
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Public Prosecutor’s Office

      Defendant: Raffaele Russo

      Questions referred

   Can freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services be restricted in a national system founded on the grant of a limited number of licences and consequently of police authorisations which, inter alia:

               1.

               tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure which unlawfully excluded some operators;

               2.

               actually safeguards acquired rights (prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

               3.

               provides that the licence may lapse, including where the licence holder carries on, even indirectly, cross-border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence, with the consequent forfeiture of appreciable guarantee deposits?


title: Case T-74/15: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg, Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Services for development, study and support for information systems (ESP DESIS III) — Requests for supply of services issued as part of the same lot — Reopening to competition mechanism — Rejection of the tenderers’ tenders — Award criteria — Obligation to state reasons — Abnormally low offer — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg, Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-74/15) (1)

   ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Services for development, study and support for information systems (ESP DESIS III) - Requests for supply of services issued as part of the same lot - Reopening to competition mechanism - Rejection of the tenderers’ tenders - Award criteria - Obligation to state reasons - Abnormally low offer - Non-contractual liability))
   (2017/C 078/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented initially by I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, and subsequently by M. Sfyri, C.-N. Dede and D. Papadopoulou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by L. Cappelletti and F. Moro, acting as Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers, and then by F. Moro, acting as Agent, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers, and finally by F. Moro and S. Delaude, acting as Agents, and by P. Wytinck and B. Hoorelbeke, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, first, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decisions, contained in the letters of 8 and 12 December 2014, rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants for Request for Quotation No DESIS III 000455-6000494078-REQ-01 relating to the development of the interactive profiling tool prototype and for Request for Quotation No DESIS III 000485-6000494078-REQ-01 relating to the development of the EuroGroups Register interactive module in the context of Lot 4 of Call for Tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029 (OJ 2013 S 219-380314) and, second, application pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking damages for the harm allegedly caused to the applicants due to the loss of opportunity to perform the second contract at issue.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission, contained in the letter of 8 December 2014, rejecting the tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE for the Request for Quotation with reference DESIS III-000455-6000494078-REQ-01, development of an interactive module, in the context of Lot No 4 of the Call for Tenders DIGIT/R2/PO/2013/029;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case F-98/09: Action brought on 20 November 2009 — Whitehead v European Central Bank

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/82

         Action brought on 20 November 2009 — Whitehead v European Central Bank
   (Case F-98/09)
   2010/C 24/157
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sarah Whitehead (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      The subject matter and description of the proceedings

   An appeal against the decision dated 8 January 2009 awarding the applicant a salary increase of 2 points for the purpose of the Annual Salary and Bonus Review (ASBR) for the year 2008, received on 15 January 2009, as well as against the salary statement of 15 January 2009 implementing this decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Central Bank dated 8 January 2009 on the Appellant's ASBR 2008, served upon her on 13 or 14 January 2009 (during her absence);

               —

               annul the Appellant's salary statement of 15 January 2009, implementing this decision;

               —

               as a consequence, order the payment of the amount of her salary representing the difference between the challenged 2008 ASBR and the ASBR which should have been granted to her, as of 15 January 2009 until complete payment, plus late interest at the rate equal to the margin lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

               —

               in the case that the organisation of a new 2008 ASBR procedure would be found to entail excessive difficulties, order the award of the equivalent of 3 salary points to compensate the material prejudice;

               —

               in any case, order the compensation of the moral prejudice suffered evaluated ex aequo et bono at EUR 10 000;

               —

               order that the European Central Bank pays all the costs.


title: Case C-303/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13 July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13 July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers
   (Case C-303/05)
   (2005/C 271/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Arbitragehof (Court of Arbitration) (Belgium) of 13 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States compatible with Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union, under which framework decisions may be adopted only for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States?

               2.

               Is Article 2(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, in so far as it sets aside verification of the requirement of double criminality for the offences listed therein, compatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and, more specifically, with the principle of legality in criminal proceedings guaranteed by that provision and with the principle of equality and non-discrimination?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.


title: Case C-349/10 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2010 by Claro, S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 28 April 2010 in Case T-225/09 Claro, S.A. v OHIM and Telefónica, S.A.

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/29

         Appeal brought on 9 July 2010 by Claro, S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 28 April 2010 in Case T-225/09 Claro, S.A. v OHIM and Telefónica, S.A.
   (Case C-349/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 234/48
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Claro, S.A. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and Castán Pérez-Gómez, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Telefónica, S.A.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should take cognisance of the appeal lodged and the supporting documents, declare the appeal against the judgment of the Fifth Chamber of the General Court of 28 April 2010 in Case T-225/09 lodged in time and in the required form and, via the appropriate procedure, and set aside the judgment under appeal and grant the form of order sought by Claro, S.A.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   Erroneous interpretation made by the General Court of Article 59 of the Community trade mark regulation. The appeal is based on the premise that, contrary to the arguments of the General Court (and of the Board of Appeal earlier in the proceedings), the submission of the statement of the grounds for the appeal does not constitute a requirement for the admissibility of the appeal, but constitutes a mere procedural requirement. By its ground of appeal the appellant also claims that that misinterpretation on the part of the General Court (and the Board of Appeal earlier in the proceedings) entailed an infringement of the principle of continuity in terms of their functions between the various departments of OHIM, set out in Article 62(1) of Regulation No 40/94. (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-158/01: Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Alexandre Tilgenkamp against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.10.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/27
The applicant contends that the decision means that in future            kamp, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by Eric
almost all sales packaging in Germany will bear its mark, with           Boigelot, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
the result that, together with its disposal partners, the applicant
will bear the costs of the disposal of packaging for which it
will receive no licence fee. Indiscriminate designation of almost        The applicant claims that the Court should:
all packaging in Germany with the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’
would, it argues, destroy both the indication-of-origin function
and the appeal function of that mark and thereby jeopardise              —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 13 Sep-
the efficacy of the applicant’s system. At almost the same time                tember 2000 filling at Grade A 1 the post of Deputy
it would lead to a total dilution of the mark, and the recognised              Director General responsible for coordination of Director-
signal effect of the mark would be destroyed in a very short                   ates C, D and E of the Directorate-General for Agriculture
time. The applicant submits that the total dilution of the mark                (COM/094/00);
would imperil the authorisation of its system and claims
protection against revocation of that authorisation.                     —     set aside the appointment of another person to the post
                                                                               of Deputy Director General responsible for coordination
                                                                               of Directorates C, D and E of the Directorate-General for
                                                                               Agriculture (COM/094/00), which involved in particular
The applicant argues that there is no infringement of Article 82               the rejection of the application which the applicant had
inasmuch as the conditions for the legal exemption under                       submitted for the vacant post;
Article 86(2) EC are satisfied. The applicant submits that it is
entrusted with the operation of a service of general economic
interest and that accordingly the rules governing competition,           —     annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s com-
including those of Article 82 EC, apply to it only in so far as                plaint;
their application does not obstruct the performance, under
commercially acceptable conditions, of the particular tasks              —     in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs,
assigned to it. By destroying, in particular, the signal effect of             together with the expenses and fees of counsel consulted
the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’, the decision has the effect of                     by the applicant for the purpose of bringing the present
endangering in such a way the functional efficacy of the                       action.
applicant’s system.
The applicant concludes by arguing that there has been a                 Pleas in law and main arguments
breach of Article 3 of Regulation No 17, contending inter alia
that an obligation such as that laid down in Articles 3 and 4
of the contested decision to grant a temporally unlimited                The applicant claims that the Commission took account of the
compulsory licence to use the mark ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ without             nationality of applicants in making the appointment to the
payment of a licence fee is disproportionate and at variance             post of Deputy Director General, thereby infringing Articles 7,
with the case-law of the Court of Justice.                               25, 27, 29 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                         Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Léon Rappe against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Alexandre Tilgenkamp
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-160/01)
                         (Case T-158/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/65)
                         (2001/C 289/64)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (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 17 July 2001 by Léon Rappe,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                residing in Orp-Jauche, Belgium, represented by Jean-Noël
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Louis and Véronique Peere, Lawyers, with an address for
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Alexandre Tilgen-                service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-176/15: Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/35

         Order of the General Court of 16 June 2016 — Golparvar v Council
   (Case T-176/15) (1)

   (2016/C 314/49)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 6.7.2015.


title: Case F-92/08: Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Bertolete and Others v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/75

         Action brought on 4 November 2008 — Bertolete and Others v Commission
   (Case F-92/08)
   (2009/C 44/133)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marli Bertolete (Woluwé-Saint-Lambert, Belgium) and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision establishing the new calculation of the applicants' salaries in enforcement of the judgments delivered by the Civil Service Tribunal on 5 July 2007 in Cases F-24/06, F-25/06 and F-26/06.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the authority responsible for concluding contracts of employment on 18 July 2008 rejecting the complaints presented by the applicants challenging a decision adopted on 23 January 2008 establishing a new calculation of the applicants' salaries in enforcement of three judgments given by the European Union Civil Service Tribunal on their application on 5 July 2007 and challenging also the corrective multiples which were later applied to them, as well as the pay slips sent to the applicants pursuant to the decision of 23 January 2008 for the months of February, March and April 2008;

               —

               Inasmuch as it is necessary, annul also the decision against which the applicants brought their complaints;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-134/11: Action brought on 15 December 2011 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/23

         Action brought on 15 December 2011 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-134/11)
   2012/C 65/44
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations following the withdrawal of a transfer proposal accepted by the applicants after a reasonable period had elapsed in order to benefit from the possibility of transferring their pension rights

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 9 March 2011 rejecting the applicants’ request for assistance in order that they could have access to all relevant information to decide, as necessary, to transfer their pension rights;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay EUR 500 per month of delay in the sending of an offer, in good and due form, of transfer of the applicants’ pension rights, with effect from the date when the PMO decided to withdraw the offer accepted by the applicants and pension funds, namely 25 January for the first applicant and 5 February for the second applicant, or, at the very latest, with effect from the rejection on 9 March 2011 of their request for assistance;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-573/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 98(2) — Annex III, points 3 and 4 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Medical treatment using oxygen — Reduced VAT rate — Oxygen cylinders — Standard rate of VAT — Oxygen concentrators)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel de Liège — Belgium) — État belge v Oxycure Belgium SA
   (Case C-573/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 98(2) - Annex III, points 3 and 4 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Medical treatment using oxygen - Reduced VAT rate - Oxygen cylinders - Standard rate of VAT - Oxygen concentrators))
   (2017/C 144/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge

      Defendant: Oxycure Belgium SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 98(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Annex III, points 3 and 4, thereto, read in the light of the principle of fiscal neutrality, does not preclude national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the standard rate of value added tax is applicable to the supply or rental of oxygen concentrators, while that legislation provides for the application of the reduced value added tax rate on the supply of oxygen cylinders

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-141/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Södertörns Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Torsten Hörnfeldt v Posten Meddelande AB
   (Case C-141/11)
   2011/C 152/29
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Södertörns Tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Karl Torsten Hörnfeldt

      Defendant: Posten Meddelande AB

      Questions referred

   The Tingsrätt asks the Court of Justice of the European Union to answer the following questions concerning the interpretation of the general principle of law on the prohibition of age discrimination and of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation: (1)

               1.

               Can a national rule which, like the 67-year rule, gives rise to a difference of treatment on grounds of age be legitimate even if it is not possible to determine clearly from the context in which the rule has come into being or from other information what aim or purpose the rule is intended to serve?

               2.

               Does a national retirement provision such as the 67-year rule, to which there is no exception and which does not take account of factors such as the pension which an individual may ultimately receive, go beyond what is appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the aim pursued?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


               11.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/20

         Designation of the judge to replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures
   2009/C 270/08
   On 7 October 2009, in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal decided that, for the period from 1 October 2009 to 30 September 2010, Judge S. GERVASONI, President of the First Chamber, will replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures in the event of the President's absence or his being prevented from attending.


title: Case T-69/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — NK Rosneft a.o. v Council

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/15

         Action brought on 12 February 2015 — NK Rosneft a.o. v Council
   (Case T-69/15)
   (2015/C 228/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: NK Rosneft OAO (Moscow, Russia); RN-Shelf-Arctic OOO (Moscow); RN-Shelf-Dalniy Vostok ZAO (Yuzhniy Sakhalin, Russia); RN-Exploration OOO (Moscow); and Tagulskoe OOO (Krasnoyarsk, Russia) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul article 1(1) of Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP of 4 December 2014 (‘the second Amending Decision’), amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and Decision 2014/659/CFSP amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1);

               —

               annul article 1(3)-(8) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 of 4 December 2014 (‘the second Amending Regulation’) amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, and amending Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (2);

               —

               further or alternatively, annul Council Decision 2014/872/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 in so far as they apply to the applicants; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on nine principal pleas in law. By these pleas the applicants submit that the Council was not competent to adopt, or, if it had competence, could not lawfully adopt, the Second Amending Measures.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures fail to provide reasons sufficient to permit review of legality and infringe the applicants’ defence rights and rights to effective judicial protection.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the aim pursued by the Second Amending Measures is not a legitimate CFSP aim.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures are in breach of the Union’s international law obligations under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia and/or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Regulation does not disclose a rational connection between the aims of the Decision and the means for giving effect thereto.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Regulation does not give proper effect to the provisions of the Decision in material respects.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures are contrary to the principle of equal treatment and non-arbitrariness.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures are disproportionate to the aim of the Decision and, in consequence, unduly encroach upon Union legislative competences and entail a disproportionate interference with the Applicants’ fundamental rights.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures entail a misuse of powers.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Second Amending Measures offend against the principle of legal certainty owing to the lack of clarity of key terms.

      (1)  OJ L 349, 5/12/2014, p. 58.

      (2)  OJ L 349, 5/12/2014, p. 20.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 1997 in Case C-190/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 93/72/EEC and 93/101/EC)

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/7
flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7), the Federal Republic of           Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
Treaty, Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: C.                  D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges;
Gulmann (Rapporteur) President of the Chamber, M.                    N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and            given a judgment on 11 December 1997, in which it:
L. Sevón, Judges; Advocate-General: N. Fennelly,
Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 11 December             1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                          prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with
1. By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                          Ð Commission Directive 93/72/EEC of 1 September
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                              1993 adapting to technical progress for the 19th
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/
                                                                              time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
     EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                              approximation of the laws, regulations and
     habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Federal
                                                                              administrative      provisions   relating    to    the
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              classification, packaging and labelling of
     under Article 23 of that Directive.
                                                                              dangerous substances, and
2. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay                      Ð Commission Directive 93/101/EC of 11 November
     the costs.                                                               1993 adapting Directive 67/548/EEC to technical
                                                                              progress for the 20th time,
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                          the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Article 2(1) of those Directives;
                                                                     2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 11 December 1997
in    Case   C-190/97: Commission of the European
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
           Directives 93/72/EEC and 93/101/EC)                                             of 16 December 1997
                          (98/C 55/11)                               in    Case   C-316/96: Commission of the             European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Directives 93/53/EEC, 93/54/EEC, 93/113/EC and
                                                                     93/114/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the prescribed
                                                                                periods)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                              (98/C 55/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-190/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of
Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,                            published in the European Court Reports)
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 93/72/EEC of                        In Case C-316/96: Commission of the European
1 September 1993 adopting to technical progress for the              Communities (Agent: Paolo Ziotti) v. Italian Republic
19th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the                        (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Oscar
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative            Fiumara) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing
provisions relating to the classification, packaging and             to bring into force within the prescribed periods the laws,
labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 258, 16.10.1993,             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
p. 29), and Commission Directive 93/101/EC of                        comply with Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June
11 November 1993 adapting Directive 67/548/EEC to                    1993 introducing minimum Community measures for the
technical progress for the 20th time (OJ L 13, 15.1.1994,            control of certain fish diseases (OJ L 175, 19.7.1993,
p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its               p. 23), Council Directive 93/54/EEC of 24 June 1993
obligations under those Directives Ð the Court (Fifth                amending Directive 91/67/EEC concerning the animal


title: Judgment of the court of first instance of 19 February2004 in Case T-19/03: Spyridoula Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice(Officials — Open competitions — Non-admission to the oral test)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/63

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 19 February 2004
   in Case T-19/03: Spyridoula Konstantopoulou v Court of Justice (1)

   (Officials - Open competitions - Non-admission to the oral test)
   (2004/C 106/128)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-19/03: Spyridoula Konstantopoulou, residing in Ioannina (Greece), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, against Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss) – application for annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition LA/14 of the Court of Justice of 23 October 2002 – the Court of First Instance (fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ No C 83 of 5. 4. 2003.


title: Case T-727/15: Action brought on 14 December 2015 — Justice & Environment v Commission

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/41

         Action brought on 14 December 2015 — Justice & Environment v Commission
   (Case T-727/15)
   (2016/C 059/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Association Justice & Environment, z.s. (Brno, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Podskalská, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the decision of the European Commission, Directorate General for Environment, dated 19 August 2015, reference number Ref GestDem No 2015/4284, by which a request for access to documents has been refused and the decision of the Secretary General on behalf of the European Commission dated 15 October 2015, reference number Ares(2015)4311297, by which a confirmatory application has been declined, null and void; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant contends that the contested decisions are unlawful because they are contrary to: (i) Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 255 TEC); (ii) Article 4 (2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1); (iii) Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (2); and (iv) The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) in conjunction with the Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (2005/370/EC) (3)

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 2001, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ L 264, 2006, p. 13).

      (3)  OJ L 124, 2005, p. 1.


               23.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/72

         Action brought on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-7/04)
   (2004/C 319/14)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 1 September 2004 by the Kingdom of Norway, represented by Ketil Bøe Moen, assistant advocate, Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), and Ingeborg Djupvik, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as agents, c/o The Attorney General (Civil Affairs), Oslo.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority's Decision 148/04/COL dated 30 June 2004; and

               2.

               Order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               EFTA Surveillance Authority Decision 148/04/COL of 30 June 2004 (the ‘Decision’) concerns environmental tax measures in Norway.

               —

               In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority found, inter alia, that four Norwegian tax measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) EEA.

               —

               In the Decision, the EFTA Surveillance Authority ordered recovery of the aid constituted by two of these tax measures, based on the premise that the alleged aid schemes became new aid as from 1 January 2002.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority has violated Article 61(1) EEA.

               —

               The relevant tax measures are not new aid.

               —

               There is no legal basis for recovery of the alleged aid from the applicants.


title: Case T-47/10: Action brought on 27 January 2010 — Akzo Nobel e.a. v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/54

         Action brought on 27 January 2010 — Akzo Nobel e.a. v Commission
   (Case T-47/10)
   2010/C 100/80
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH (Düren, Germany), Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V. (Amersfoort, Netherlands), Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Swaak, and Marc van der Woude, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               to annul Articles 1 (1) and (2) of the contested decision in whole or in part, and/or

               —

               reduce the fines imposed by Articles 2 (1) and (2) of the contested decision, and/or

               —

               declare that Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V. cannot be held liable for the infringements before 1993, that Akzo Nobel N.V. cannot be held liable for the infringement for the period between 1987 to 1998, neither individually nor jointly with undertakings belonging to the Elementis group;

               —

               condemn the Commission to costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission Decision of 11 November 2009 (Case No COMP/38.589 — Heat Stabilisers) in so far as the Commission found the applicants liable for an infringement of Article 8l EC (now Article 101 TFEU) and Article 53 EEA by colluding to fix prices, allocating markets through sales quotas, allocating customers and exchanging commercially sensitive information in particular on customers, production and sales in the tin stabilisers sector. Alternatively, the applicants seek a substantial reduction of the fine imposed upon it.
   The applicants submit that in attributing liability to them, the Commission has made several errors in law and in fact and they put forward three pleas in law in support of their claims.
   In the first plea, the applicants argue that the Commission violated the principles of administrative diligence, reasonable delay and the rights of defence in conducting their investigation into the alleged tin stabilisers and ESBO/esters infringements. The delay in the Commission’s investigation does not constitute a suspension under Article 25(6) of Regulation 1/2003 (1). Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission violated their rights of defence by not granting access to all exculpatory and incriminatory documents in their file.
   In the second plea, the applicants submit that the Commission failed to establish the existence of the infringements and the applicants’ liability for their entire alleged duration. In subsidiary order, the applicants argue that the Commission failed to prove the existence of the infringement during part of the alleged period which should have a downward effect on the calculation of the fine. The Commission breached the ten year prescription rule provided for in Article 25 of Regulation 1/2003 and is time barred from imposing any fine on the applicants.
   The applicants’ third plea is subsidiary in nature and only relevant if the Court considers that the Commission is not time barred to act against the applicants and/or that the violations set out in the first plea should not lead to the annulment of the entire Decision. First, the Commission wrongfully attributed liability to Pure Chemicals Ltd and Akzo Nobel N.V. for the conduct of the Akcros J.V. as the latter is solely liable for its anti-competitive conduct. Second, the Commission is time barred to act against Akzo Nobel Chemicals GmbH and Akzo Nobel Chemicals B.V. for the period preceding the J.V. The applicants submit that the Commission should have allocated the liability separately to the applicants and (companies of) the Elementis group for the JV period. Furthermore, the Commission wrongly double counted the JV’s turnover in the Commission’s calculation of the fines.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 March 2005 in Case T-192/98 Comité des industries du coton and des fibres connexes de l'Union européenne (Eurocoton) v Council of the European Union (Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt a Commission proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Absence of simple majority necessary for the adoption of a regulation — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 17 March 2005
   in Case T-192/98 Comité des industries du coton and des fibres connexes de l'Union européenne (Eurocoton) v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Dumping - Failure by the Council to adopt a Commission proposal for a regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - Absence of simple majority necessary for the adoption of a regulation - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2005/C 132/40)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-192/98: Comité des industries du coton and des fibres connexes de l'Union européenne (Eurocoton), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by C. Stanbrook, QC, and A. Dashwood, Barrister, against Council of the European Union (Agent: S. Marquardt, assisted by G.M. Berrisch, lawyer), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (Agent: initially M. Ewing, subsequently K. Manji) — action for annulment of the Council's decision of 5 October 1998 to reject the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19) and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of these fabrics originating in Turkey, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 21 September 1998 (document COM (98) 540 final) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh, P. Mengozzi, I. Wiszniewska-Białecka and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the Council's decision of 5 October 1998 to reject the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia and Pakistan, definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 773/98 (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19) and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of imports of these fabrics originating in Turkey, submitted by the Commission of the European Communities on 21 September 1998 (document COM (98) 540 final).

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.