title: Action brought on 7 March 1995 by Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français (SNCF) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-79/95)

text:
No C 119/28           IENI                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13 . 5 . 95
3 , order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in the           Action brought on 7 March 1995 by Société Nationale des
      present proceedings.                                             Chemins de Fer Français (SNCF) against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                <Case T-79/95 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                            ( 95/C 119/54 )
The applicants contend that it is improper and illegal for the                        (Language of the case: Frertch)
Commission, in determining whether or not to grant
requests for refunds of anti-dumping duties by importers
associated with exporters, to include the anti-dumping duty            An action against the Commission of the European
whose refund is sought in the costs deducted from the resale           Communities was brought before the Court of First
price for the purpose of arriving at a reconstructed export            Instance of the European Communities on 7 March 1995 by
price, for the following reasons:                                      Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Français ( SNCF), a
                                                                       French public undertaking whose registered office is in
                                                                       Paris ( France ), represented by Barbara Rapp-Jung,
(a ) Applying this rule is illegal because it leads to the             Rechtsanwàltin, Frankfurt am Main, and Nathalie Flandin,
       finding of a dumping margin where in reality none               of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       exists, or to the finding of a higher margin than that          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Elvinger, 31 Rue
       which exists, with the result that refunds of those duties      d'Eich.
       which should be granted are not granted, or are granted
       in an amount less than that which should be
       granted.                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1 , annul the Commission Decision of 13 December 1994
(b ) This infringes the principles of proportionality, in that
       it imposes an excessive burden on th importers by                   relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
       causing them to bear the anti-dumping duty in an                    Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement ( IV/32.490
       amount which is greater than what is necessary to fulfil            — Eurotunnel );
       the legitimate objective of eliminating dumping with
       respect to the imports in question.                             2, in the alternative, annul the Decision in so far as
                                                                           conditions are attached to it (Article 2 A);
(c) It brings about discrimination between associated and
       independent importers.                                          3 , order the defendant to pay' the costs .
( d ) Application of the rule constitutes a breach of the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       EC's obligations under the GATT and the GATT
       anti-dumping code to levy anti-dumping duties only in           The applicant states that on 29 July 1987 a usage contract
       the amount necessary to offset or prevent dumping and           for the use of the fixed link (the Tunnel) between the United
       to refund duties paid on a given importation if the             Kingdom and France was concluded by the concessionaires
       amount of such duties exceeds the amount of the                 for the Tunnel ( France Manche SA and Channel Tunnel
       dumping for such importation.                                   Group Ltd ) of the first part and Société Nationale des
                                                                       Chemins de Fer Français and British Railways Board (BR) of
                                                                       the second part; the subject-matter of the contract consists
(e) The Commission's implementation from 1 January                     essentially of an agreement between the concessionaires and
       1995 of a different rule whereby full refunds are               SNCF and BR on the allocation of paths to SNCF and BR.
       granted to related importers upon the making of a               The contract was notified to the Commission in order to
       'single jump' demonstrates that the insurmountability           obtain a declaration of non-applicability of the prohibition
       of the obstacles invoked by the Commission to justify           in Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 . The
       its previous policy was unfounded.                              Commission decided to exempt the contract for a period of
                                                                       30 years; it attached to the exemption, however, conditions
                                                                       to be borne by SNCF and BR alone and obligations for all
The applicants maintain that the provisions of Article 2(8 )           the parties to the contract.
( b) of Regulation (EEC ) No 2423/88 are inapplicable under
Article 184 of the Treaty in so far as they require                    The applicant challenges the Decision, raising the following
anti-dumping duties paid to be included in the costs                   pleas in law:
deducted from the resale price to customers for the purpose
of calculating export price. They therefore ask the Court to
annul the contested Decision in so far as it denied refunds as          I. Breach of essential procedural requirements
a result of applying such provisions.
                                                                            1 . Infringement of the regulations applying the
                                                                                competition rules: the applicant considers that,
                                                                                contrary to the Commission's view, Regulation
                                                                                No 17 is not applicable to the usage contract.
 ---pagebreak--- 13 . 5 . 95           | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 119/29
     2 . Infringement of the rights of the defence: the                         ( f) the Decision does not comply with the
          applicant submits that the Commission failed to                             legislative framework ensuring the economic
          respect its right of access to the file, its right to a                     viability of trans-European networks;
          hearing and its right to the observance of time
          limits .                                                              (g) the Decision takes no account of the objective
                                                                                necessity of technical cooperation.
     3 . Breach of the principles of the proper                             3 . Misuse of power: the applicant argues that the
          administration of the competition rules: the                          Commission may, on the basis of Article 8 of
          applicant considers that by attaching to its decision                 Regulation No 17 and Article 13 of Regulation
          to grant exemption conditions which disregard                         (EEC )    No      1017/68 ,  attach  conditions    and
          freedom of contract and seriously harm the                            obligations to a decision to grant exemption, but
          economic balance of the contract, the Commission                      that its power in this field is discretionary, not
          failed to respect the principle of minimum                            unlimited . It considers that the Commission exceeds
          intervention . It also submits that the Commission
                                                                                its powers if it upsets the economic balance of a
          was wrong to give retroactive effect to the                           contract and the market conditions within which it
          conditions of the exemption; such retroactive effects                 is to be applied so substantially that a well-informed
          conflict with the Community provisions according                      trader would not have concluded it in that way of his
          to which an exemption can be revoked only in                          own volition. That is the case with the usage
          clearly defined circumstances, circumstances which                    contract .
          are not present in this case .
                                                                            4. Breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: the applicant
II. Breach of substantive provisions of Community law                           submits that the Decision does not comply with the
                                                                                requirements of the case-law with respect to
                                                                                statements of reasons for decisions having adverse
     1 . Breach of the principle of protection of legitimate                    effect.
          expectations: the applicant submits that traders are
          entitled to require the public authorities to take
          account of the good faith in which they took
          decisions in the previous legal context which
          continue to have effect in a new legal context; those
          decisions     are   entitled  to   some     transitional
                                                                       Action brought on 8 March 1995 by British Railways Board
          protection, the nature and duration of which must               against the Commission of the European Communities
          take account of the actual possibilities for the
          traders concerned to adapt their decisions to the                                      (Case T-80/95 )
          new legal context. That was not done by the                                             ( 95/C 119/55 )
          Commission in the present case.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     2. The contested Decision was adopted in breach of
          Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, Article 2 of              An action against the Commission of the European
          Regulation ( EEC ) No 1017/68 and Article 53 ( 1 ) of        Communities was brought before the Court of First
          the EEA Agreement, for the following reasons:                Instance of the European Communities on 8 March 1995 by
                                                                       British Railways Board, represented by Mr Thomas Sharpe
          (a ) the Decisions contains a delimitation of the            and Mr Alexandre R. M. Nourry, with an address for service
                reference markets which is incorrect in fact and       in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Jean Hoss,
                law;                                                   Elvinger & Hoss, Avocats à la Cour, 15 Côte d'Eich, BP 425 ,
                                                                       1450 Luxembourg.
          ( b ) the object of the usage contract is not a sharing      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                of markets within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 )
                of the EC Treaty, Article 2 of Regulation ( EEC )      — annul Commission Decision 94/894/EC of 13 December
                No 1017/68 and Article 53 ( 1 ) of the EEA                  1994 (*) in its entirety, or
                Agreement;
                                                                       — alternatively, annul Article 2 .A of the Decision, and
          (c) the effect of the contract is not a sharing
                of markets within the meaning of those                 — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .
                provisions;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
          ( d ) the Decision takes no account of the weight of
                intermodal competition;                                The applicant challenges the legality of the Decision on the
                                                                       following grounds:
          (e ) the Decision takes no account of the contract's         1 . The Decision is based on an incorrect and incomplete
                pro-competitive object and effects;                         assessment of the facts and vitiated by manifest error in


title: Case F-99/14: Action brought on 29 September 2014  — ZZ v Council

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/40

         Action brought on 29 September 2014 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-99/14)
   (2014/C 448/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The partial annulment of two of the Council’s Staff Notes in so far as they link entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses from the place of employment to the place of origin and of the travelling time to the expatriation or foreign residence allowance and an order that the defendant pay damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 270 TFEU, the decision contained in Staff Note (‘SN’) 13/14 (Decision No 2/2014) of 9 January 2014, which amended the regime applicable to travelling time, following the applicability from 1 January 2014 of the provision in Article 7 of Annex V to the Staff Regulations, and Staff Note (‘SN’) 9/14 (Decision No 12/2014), which amended the travel expenses regime following the applicability from 1 January 2014 of the provision in Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union, published in the Official Journal No L 187 of 29 October 2013. The application for annulment is limited to the part of the SN which links entitlement to travel expenses and to travelling time to the expatriation or foreign residence allowance and to Article 6 of the SN 9/14 which introduced new criteria for the determination of the place of origin;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 1 69  051 ,96 in respect of the material harm suffered and EUR 40  000 in respect of the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages plus default interest at the rate of 6,75 in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.


title: Case C-4/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen, Germany) — Hasan Güzeli v Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Aachen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Refusal to extend a Turkish worker's residence permit)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen, Germany) — Hasan Güzeli v Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Aachen
   (Case C-4/05) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association - Freedom of movement for workers - Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Refusal to extend a Turkish worker's residence permit)
   (2006/C 326/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Aachen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hasan Güzeli

      Defendant: Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Aachen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Aachen — Interpretation of Article 10(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council — Non discrimination against Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force as regards conditions of employment — Refusal to extend the residence permit putting an end to the employment of a seasonal Turkish worker in possession of a work permit of unlimited duration
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC Turkey Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker can rely on the rights conferred upon him by that provision only where his paid employment with a second employer complies with the conditions laid down by law and regulation in the host Member State governing entry into its territory and employment. It is for the national court to make the requisite findings in order to establish whether that is the case in respect of a Turkish worker who changed employer prior to expiry of the period of three years provided for in the second indent of Article 6(1) of that decision.
   The second sentence of Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 must be interpreted as meaning that it is intended to ensure that periods of interruption of legal employment on account of involuntary unemployment and long term sickness do not affect the rights that the Turkish worker has already acquired owing to preceding periods of employment the length of which is fixed in each of the three indents of Article 6(1) respectively.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 05.04.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 September 2014 in Case E-3/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/12/EC on airport charges)

text:
               23.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 24 September 2014
   in Case E-3/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2009/12/EC on airport charges)
   (2015/C 131/06)
   In Case E-3/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith, of the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, namely Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 65a of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2009 on airport charges), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-787/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — ECB v Cerafogli (Appeal — Civil service — ECB Staff — Access to documents — Documents relating to the dispute between the parties in the proceedings — Partial refusal of access — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Plea of illegality)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2016 — ECB v Cerafogli
   (Case T-787/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - ECB Staff - Access to documents - Documents relating to the dispute between the parties in the proceedings - Partial refusal of access - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Plea of illegality))
   (2016/C 462/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Central Bank (represented initially by E. Carlini, M. López Torres and F. Malfrère, and subsequently by E. Carlini and F. Malfrère, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Currall and G. Gattinara, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 September 2014 in Cerafogli v ECB (F-26/12, EU:F:2014:218) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Maria Concetta Cerafogli;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-443/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — F.P. Jeltes, M.A. Peeters, J.G.J. Arnold v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Social security for migrant workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 71 — Wholly unemployed atypical frontier workers who have maintained personal and business links in the Member State of last employment — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 65 — Right to benefit in the Member State of residence — Refusal to pay by the Member State of last employment — Admissibility — Relevance of the judgment of the Court of 12 June 1986 in Case 1/85 Miethe — Transitional provisions — Article 87(8) — Concept of ‘unchanged situation’ )

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — F.P. Jeltes, M.A. Peeters, J.G.J. Arnold v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-443/11) (1)

   (Social security for migrant workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 71 - Wholly unemployed atypical frontier workers who have maintained personal and business links in the Member State of last employment - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 65 - Right to benefit in the Member State of residence - Refusal to pay by the Member State of last employment - Admissibility - Relevance of the judgment of the Court of 12 June 1986 in Case 1/85 Miethe - Transitional provisions - Article 87(8) - Concept of ‘unchanged situation’)
   2013/C 156/12
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: F.P. Jeltes, M.A. Peeters, J.G.J. Arnold

      Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Amsterdam — Interpretation of Article 45 TFUE, Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968, on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), Article 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) and Articles 65 and 87(8) of European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of 29 April 2004, on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Wholly unemployed frontier worker — Right to benefit from the Member State of residence — Worker who has maintained personal and business links in the Member State of last employment and whose prospects of re-integration into working life are greatest there — Member State which refuses, on the basis of its national legislation and on the ground only of residence in the territory of another Member State, to grant unemployment benefit to that worker

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               After the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, the provisions of Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004 are not to be interpreted in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 June 1986 in Case 1/85 Miethe. With regard to a wholly unemployed frontier worker who has maintained close personal and business links with the Member State where he was last employed of such a kind that his prospects of reintegration into working life are greatest in that State, Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004 must be understood as allowing such a worker to make himself available as a supplementary step to the employment services of that State, not with a view to obtaining unemployment benefit in that State but only in order to receive assistance there in finding new employment.

               2.

               The rules on the freedom of movement for workers, contained in particular in Article 45 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding the Member State where the person was last employed from refusing, in accordance with its national law, to grant unemployment benefit to a wholly unemployed frontier worker whose prospects of reintegration into working life are best in that Member State, on the ground that he does not reside in its territory, since, in accordance with Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, the applicable legislation is that of the Member State of residence.

               3.

               The provisions of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, should be applied to wholly unemployed frontier workers who, taking into account the links they have maintained in the Member State where they were last employed, receive unemployment benefit from that Member State on the basis of its legislation, pursuant to Article 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 592/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008.
               The concept of ‘unchanged situation’ within the meaning of Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004 as amended by Regulation No 988/2009 must be assessed in the light of national social security legislation. It is for the national court to establish whether workers such as Ms Peeters and Mr Arnold satisfy the conditions provided for in that legislation in order to be able to claim resumption of payment of the unemployment benefit which was paid to them under that legislation, in accordance with Article 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Regulation No 592/2008.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case T-212/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Miquel Alimentació Grup (Gourmet) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark Gourmet — Earlier national word and figurative marks GOURMET and Gourmet — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Aldi v EUIPO — Miquel Alimentació Grup (Gourmet)
   (Case T-212/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Gourmet - Earlier national word and figurative marks GOURMET and Gourmet - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 038/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher and N. Bertram, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Eberl and M. Fischer, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Miquel Alimentació Grup, SA (Vilamalla, Spain) (represented by: C. Duch Fonoll and R. Niebel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 February 2015 (Case R 0314/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Miquel Alimentació Grup and Aldi.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Aldi GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 April 2003 in Case T-258/02: Hendrikus Boukes v European Parliament (Officials — Action for annulment — Action now devoid of purpose — No need to give a decision)

text:
19.7.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 171/27
agreement between Vice-President Kinnock and the trade                      1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
unions and staff associations of the Commission concerning
the resources available to staff representatives and the rules on           2.    Each party shall pay its own costs.
the resources available to staff representatives from 1 January
2002 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed
of B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal,                (1 ) OJ C 247 of 12.10.02.
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 31 March 2003,
the operative part of which is as follows:
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
2.     Each party shall pay its own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.02.                                                                            of 3 April 2003
                                                                            in Case T-258/02: Hendrikus Boukes v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment ( 1)
                                                                            (Officials — Action for annulment — Action now devoid of
                                                                                purpose — No need to give a decision)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/46)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                          of 31 March 2003
in Case T-227/02: André Hecq v Commission of the                            In Case T-258/02: Hendrikus Boukes, a former official of the
                    European Communities ( 1)                               European Parliament, residing in Waldbredimus (Luxem-
                                                                            bourg), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg, against the European Parliament
   (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Inadmissibility)                   (Agents: H. von Hertzen and L. G. Knudsen) — application for
                                                                            annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the
                                                                            European Parliament of 4 January 2002 refusing to treat his
                           (2003/C 171/45)                                  marriage to a person of the same sex, contracted under the
                                                                            Netherlands Law of 21 December 2000, as falling within the
                                                                            definition of marriage for the purpose of the Staff Regulations
                                                                            and to grant him all the rights, privileges and immunities
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            arising from the applicable Community provisions — the
                                                                            Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,
                                                                            President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                            Registrar, made an order on 3 April 2003, the operative part
                                                                            of which is as follows:
In Case T-227/02: André Hecq, Secretary-General and rep-
resentative of the Syndicat des Fonctionnaires Internationaux
et Européens (SFIE), residing in Mondercange (Luxembourg),                  1)    There is no longer any need to give a decision on the present
represented by L. Vogel and D. Amatulli, lawyers, against the                     action.
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)
— application for the annulment of the Commission decision                  2)    There is no need to give a decision on the Kingdom of the
of 15 June 2001, approving the agreement between Vice                             Netherlands’ application to intervene.
President Kinnock and the trade unions and staff associations
of the Commission concerning the resources available to staff               3)    The Parliament shall pay both the applicant’s and its own costs.
representatives and the rules on the resources available to staff
representatives from 1 January 2002 — the Court of First
Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President              (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.02.
and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 31 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows:


title: Case T-9/04: Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
3.4.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 85/27
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the             Decision of the Oppo-         rejection of the opposition
      Commission.                                                         sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of      partial rejection of the application
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003.                                                    Appeal:                       in respect of goods and services in
                                                                                Classes 9 and 35. For the rest,
                                                                                dismissal of the appeal lodged by
                                                                                the applicant
                                                                          Grounds of claim:             —     The trade mark opposed is a
                                                                                well-known mark;
Action brought on 1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert
René S. à r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                              —     The trade mark opposed is
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                            also       protected   against
                                                                                exploitation outside the area
                                                                                of similarity in respect of
                         (Case T-336/03)                                                                      goods and services;
                          (2004/C 85/53)                                                                —     There is a significant simi-
                                                                                larity between the marks.
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                       been drafted: German)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            Action brought on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuccio
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
1 October 2003 by Les Éditions Albert René S. à r.l., of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat. A further party to the                                        (Case T-9/04)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Orange A/S, of
Copenhagen.                                                                                (2004/C 85/54)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the decision adopted on 14 July 2003 by the
      Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      No R 559/2002-4;                                                    ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 13 January 2004 by Luigi Marcuc-
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                  cio, represented by Alessandro Distanto, avvocato.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     Annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting
Applicant for the Com-         Orange A/S                                       his request;
munity trade mark:
                                                                          —     Declare that on 29 October 2001, the applicant, then in
The Community trade            the verbal mark ‘MOBILIX’ for                    the service of the Angola Delegation, was the victim of
mark applied for:              goods and services in Classes 9,                 an accident at work, which occurred therein;
                               16, 35, 37, 38 and 42 — Appli-
                               cation No 671 396                          —     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
mark right opposed in
the opposition proceed-                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
ings:
Trade-mark right               the national verbal and Com-               The applicant takes issue with the defendant’s refusal to treat
opposed:                       munity mark ‘OBELIX’ for goods             as an accident at work, with the consequential benefits
                               and services in, inter alia, Class-        provided for in the Staff Regulations in relation to insurance
                               es 9, 16, 28, 35, 41 and 42                against risks of occupational accidents and diseases, the
 ---pagebreak--- C 85/28               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           3.4.2004
incident in which he was the victim on 29 October 2001,                  letter that no further action would be taken on their complaint.
whilst he was carrying out his functions at the Angola                   The applicants complained to the European Ombudsman
Delegation. That incident occurred when his hands came into              about the Commission’s treatment of their complaint to it.
contact with a whitish powder of an as yet unknown chemical-             The European Ombudsman’s decision was issued on 18 July
toxicological nature.                                                    2002. On 2 July 2003 the applicants lodged a fresh complaint
                                                                         with the Commission alleging new infringements relating to
                                                                         the same case. However, the Commission decided to continue
The applicant asserts that that incident affected his psychologi-        financing the project.
cal and physical well-being, adversely affecting his social life.
In support of those claims, the applicant alleges an absolute            The applicants claim that they should be awarded compen-
failure to state reasons and a breach of the regulations cited           sation, pleading non-material damage resulting from the
above.                                                                   Commission’s treatment of their complaints. More specifically,
                                                                         they plead that the Commission withheld information from
                                                                         them and misled them with regard to the progress of the case.
                                                                         That is to say, while initially and after receipt of their first
                                                                         complaint the Commission officials considered that Greece
                                                                         had not complied in the present case with the rules laid down
                                                                         by Directive 85/337, they subsequently changed their view
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Ermioni Komnin-                    and decided to fund the project, without, however, informing
ou and 16 others against the Commission of the European                  the applicants of that decision. In addition, the applicants allege
                          Communities                                    that the Commission’s rejection of their original complaint is
                                                                         based on a statement of reasons that is manifestly contrary to
                         (Case T-42/04)                                  Community law. They further submit that in its handling of
                                                                         their original complaint the Commission did not observe
                        (2004/C 85/55)                                   fundamental rules of impartiality, since the case was assigned
                                                                         to an official who subsequently engaged in political activity in
                                                                         Greece. Finally, the applicants plead that the Commission failed
                   (Language of the Case: Greek)                         to take the necessary measures to remedy the abovementioned
                                                                         forms of maladministration despite the fact that the European
                                                                         Ombudsman found infringements on the part of the Com-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                mission and despite the second complaint which the applicants
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               submitted.
European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Ermioni
Komninou, Grigorios Dokos, Donatos Pappas, Vasilios Pappas,
Aristidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa,         (1) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment
Alexandra Dokou, Leonidas Grepis, Nikolaos Grepis, Fotios                    of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
Dimitriou, Zois Dimitriou, Petros Polosis, Despina Polosi,                   environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40).
Konstantinos Polosis and Thomas Polosis, resident in Parga, in
the prefecture of Preveza, Greece, represented by Pericles
Stroumpos, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
—     allow the present application for compensation;                           Removal from the register of Case T-273/99 (1)
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay to each applicant the sum of EUR 200 000 with                                            (2004/C 85/56)
      interest prescribed by law at a rate of 8 % from the
      judgment of the Court of First Instance until payment;
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
—     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ entire costs.
                                                                         By order of 18 December 2003 the President of the Second
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Chamber (Extented Composition) of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
In 1995 the applicants submitted a complaint to the European             register of Case T-273/99: Autoservice J. Van Deursen B.V. v
Commission, alleging infringement by the Greek authorities of            Commission of the European Communities.
Directive 85/337 (1) in relation to the planning and construc-
tion of a biological sewage treatment plant in Preveza. By
                                                                         (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
decision No C(1998) 2297 of 28 July 1998, the Commission
decided to finance that project from the Cohesion Fund. On
20 April 1999 the Commission informed the applicants by


title: Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of Justice

text:
20.11.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 333/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Decision adopted by the Court at its general meeting on                Assignment of Judge F. Macken
                      14 September 1999
                                                                       Judge F. Macken is assigned to the Third and Sixth Chambers
                        (1999/C 333/01)
In accordance with Article 10(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the        Appointment of the Presidents of the Cham-
Court of Justice of the European Communities at its general            bers
meeting on 14 September 1999, appointed Mr Nial Fennelly
as First Advocate General for the period from 7 October 1999
to 6 October 2000.                                                     In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the
                                                                       Court has appointed for a period of one year starting on
                                                                       7 October 1999:
                                                                       — Judge L. Sevón as President of the First Chamber,
                                                                       — Judge R. Schintgen as President of the Second Chamber,
Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of                     — Judge J.C. Moitinho de Almeida as President of the Third
                             Justice                                        and Sixth Chambers,
                                                                       — Judge D.A.O. Edward as President of the Fourth and Fifth
                        (1999/C 333/02)                                     Chambers.
Following her appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by Decision of the Representatives
of the Governments of the Member States of 15 September
1999 (1), with effect from the taking of the until 6 October
2003, Mrs Fidelma Macken took the oath before the Court on             Composition of the Chambers
5 October 1999.
                                                                       1.     The composition of the Chambers for the same period
(1) OJ 1999 L 248, p. 32.                                              has been determined as follows:
                                                                       First Chamber
                                                                       Mr Sevón, President of the Chamber,
                                                                       Messrs Jann and Wathelet, Judges.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on
                        6 October 1999
                                                                       Second Chamber
                        (1999/C 333/03)
                                                                       Mr Schintgen, President of the Chamber,
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
the following decisions at its meeting of 6 October 1999:              Messrs Hirsch and Skouris, Judges.


title: Case C-458/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — Italian Republic v European Commission (Appeal — Aide granted by the Italian authorities in favour of newly listed companies — Legislation granting fiscal advantages)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/4

      Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 November 2011 — Italian Republic v European Commission
      (Case C-458/09 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Aide granted by the Italian authorities in favour of newly listed companies - Legislation granting fiscal advantages)
      (2012/C 25/06)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri and P. Gentili, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, D. Grespan and E. Righini, Agents)

         Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere and H. Leppo, Agents)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of 4 September 2009 in Case T-211/05 Italy v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) dismissed the application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/261/EC of 16 March 2005 on aid scheme C 8/2004 (ex NN 164/2003) implemented by Italy in favour of newly listed companies (OJ 2006 L 94, p. 42)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs

                  3.

                  Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs;

         (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-282/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 5(6) — Rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers — Directive 2002/21/EC — Article 4(1) — Right of appeal against a decision of a national regulatory authority — Meaning of ‘undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority’ — Article 9b — Transfer of individual rights to use radio frequencies — Reallocation of rights to use radio frequencies following the merger of two undertakings)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/3

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 January 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission
      (Case C-282/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 5(6) - Rights of use for radio frequencies and numbers - Directive 2002/21/EC - Article 4(1) - Right of appeal against a decision of a national regulatory authority - Meaning of ‘undertaking affected by a decision of a national regulatory authority’ - Article 9b - Transfer of individual rights to use radio frequencies - Reallocation of rights to use radio frequencies following the merger of two undertakings))
      (2015/C 107/03)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Verwaltungsgerichtshof

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

         Respondent: Telekom-Control-Kommission

         Intervening parties: Hutchison Drei Austria Holdings GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria Holdings GmbH, Hutchison Drei Austria GmbH, formerly Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH and Orange Austria Telecommunication GmbH, Stubai SCA, Orange Belgium SA, A1 Telekom Austria AG, Bundesministerin für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 4(1) and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Article 5(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, must be interpreted as meaning that an undertaking, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, may be regarded as a person ‘affected’, for the purposes of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, where that undertaking, which provides electronic communications networks or services, is a competitor of the undertaking or undertakings party to a procedure for the authorisation of a transfer of rights to use radio frequencies provided for in Article 5(6) and the addressees of the decision of the national regulatory authority, and where that decision is likely to have an impact on that first undertaking’s position on the market.

         (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-87/08: Action brought on 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/23

         Action brought on 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-87/08)
   (2008/C 92/45)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek, Agent)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all such laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/73/EC of 10 August 2006 implementing Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards organisational requirements and operating conditions for investment firms and defined terms for the purposes of that Directive (1), or in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53(1) of that directive;

               —

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive into the domestic legal order expired on 31 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 241, p. 26.


title: Case T-326/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — G. & C. v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/37

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — G. & C. v Commission
   (Case T-326/08)
   (2008/C 272/74)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: G. & C. Srl (Licata, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case T-455/14: Action brought on 17 June 2014  — Pirelli & C. v Commission

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/42

         Action brought on 17 June 2014 — Pirelli & C. v Commission
   (Case T-455/14)
   2014/C 261/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli & C. SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti, G. Rizza and P. Ferrari, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  primarily

                           —

                           annul the Decision in so far as it concerns the applicant, specifically Articles 1(5)(d), 2(g) and 4 thereof, but only as regards the inclusion of the applicant in the list of persons to whom that decision is addressed;

                  in the alternative

                           —

                           allow beneficium ordinis seu excussionis [(that is, make an order to the effect that any creditors must pursue the principal debtor, in the present case Prysmian S.p.A. (‘Prysmian’), before pursuing any other debtors, including the applicant)];
                           in the event that a ruling is made in Prysmian’s favour in the separate proceedings brought by that company in the form of an action for annulment of the Decision

                           —

                           annul the Decision or amend Article 2(g) thereof, reducing the fine imposed jointly and severally on Prysmian and the applicant;

                  in any event

                           —

                           order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against European Commission Decision C(2014) 2139 final of 2 April 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39610 — Power cables) [(‘the Decision’)].
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on the following six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a breach of the duty to state reasons
               By its first plea, Pirelli claims that the reasons in support of the argument that the Parental Liability Presumption (‘PLP’) does not apply to the Pirelli-Prysmian relationship were not discussed or even referred to in the Decision. The Decision is therefore vitiated by a complete failure to state reasons and should be annulled.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of general principles and infringement of fundamental rights by applying the presumption of decisive influence
               By its second plea, the applicant claims that the Decision has infringed its fundamental rights as protected by Articles 48 and 49 of [the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’)] and Articles 6(2) and 7(1) of [the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’)]. Furthermore, imputing liability to the applicant constitutes an infringement of the right to property (Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention, Article 14 of the Convention, and Articles 17 and 21 of the Charter) and is therefore inconsistent with the principle of neutrality laid down in Article 345 TFEU. Lastly, the applicant claims that the Commission has clearly infringed its rights of the defence, enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention and Article 48(2) of the Charter, since, owing to its not having access to any evidence which could be used to refute the allegations made against Prysmian, the applicant was unable to defend itself in respect of the unlawful conduct at issue.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the [PLP] does not apply, since the conditions for its application are not satisfied, and alleging infringement of Article 101 TFEU
               By its third plea, the applicant claims that, in the present case, the Commission wrongly applied the PLP — in breach of Article 101 TFEU — and did not give due consideration to the particular features of the Pirelli-Prysmian control relationship.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of proportionality
               By its fourth plea, the applicant claims that applying the PLP in the present case infringes the principle of proportionality as enshrined in Article 5(4) TEU, since the PLP is not designed to achieve any of the aims in respect of which the Commission is attempting to use it. There was therefore no reason for extending to the applicant the liability imputed to Prysmian.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by wrongly applying the principle of joint and several liability to the applicant and Prysmian in connection with the obligation to pay the fine imposed by the Commission or, in the alternative, by failing to make a suitable adjustment to that principle
               By its fifth plea, the applicant claims that imposing liability on the applicant jointly and severally with Prysmian not only does not achieve the objectives which the Commission seeks to pursue with regard to penalties but even directly conflicts with those objectives. In the alternative, in order to take account of the separate liability imputable to Prysmian and the applicant, the Commission should at least have allowed beneficium ordinis seu excussionis. Lastly, by failing suitably to reflect the difference between the applicant’s position and Prysmian’s position, the Commission infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment. The court hearing the case must therefore exercise its unlimited jurisdiction to annul the part of the Decision concerning the fine or, in the alternative, reformulate that part and allow beneficium ordinis seu excussionis.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Decision is unlawful because the part concerning Prysmian infringes Article 101 TFEU and Articles 2 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003
               By its sixth plea, the applicant argues in support of its own right to obtain an annulment (in part or in full) of the Decision or a reduction of the fine to reflect the remedies obtained by Prysmian in its action against the Decision. The arguments put forward in that action, with the exception of those unfavourable to the applicant, are reproduced in the present action.


title: Case T-522/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (APLI-AGIPA)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/16

         Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (APLI-AGIPA)
   (Case T-522/11)
   2012/C 13/33
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 July 2011 in Case R 1454/2010-2 in relation to the partial granting of the application for the following goods ‘photographs, adhesives (glues) for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes, typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’;

               —

               refuse Community trade mark application No 5676382 ‘APLI-AGIPA’ in respect of all the goods granted in Class 16;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Apli-Agipa SAS.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘APLI-AGIPA’ for goods in Class 16.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AGIPA’ and Spanish figurative mark that contains the word element ‘a-agipa’, both for goods in Class 16.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part.

      Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


title: Case T-264/06: Action brought on 22 September 2006 — DC-HADLER NETWORKS v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/53

         Action brought on 22 September 2006 — DC-HADLER NETWORKS v Commission
   (Case T-264/06)
   (2006/C 294/110)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: DC-HADLER NETWORKS (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Muller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the contested measure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present action took part in the invitation to tender procedure in respect of the project Europe Aid/122742/C/SUP/RE entitled ‘Social Integration of the Disabled in Privolzhsky Federal Okrug — Supply of social integration and rehabilitation-related equipment for the disabled and IT and office equipment for the information network’, which is part of the Tacis national action Programme 2003 (1). By letter of 20 June 2006, the Commission notified the applicant that its tender had been successful for Lots 1, 2 and 4. However, on 14 July the Commission sent the applicant a letter informing it that the contracting authority had decided to annul the tender procedure and not to sign the contract with it on the basis that there was insufficient competition. In the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision contained in that letter.
   The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its application.
   The first plea alleges infringement of an essential procedural requirement in that, according to the applicant, the reasons put forward by the Commission in support of its decision ultimately not to award it the contract cannot be regarded as satisfactory. It maintains that it was only when it requested the Commission to do so, in a letter dated 17 July 2006, that the latter clarified, by letter of 27 July 2006, that its decision was based on Article 101 of Council Regulation No 1605/2002 (2). In the applicant's opinion, it is not possible to ascertain from the reasons put forward by the Commission in support of the contested decision what prompted it to go back on its earlier decision to award the applicant the contract. It submits that that lack of precision in the Commission's reasoning is all the more significant as the Commission resiled from its earlier official position.
   The second plea alleges infringement of Article 253 EC. The applicant considers that, by withdrawing the invitation to tender on the ground of insufficient competition, the Commission committed a manifest and serious error by putting forward an imprecise and incomplete set of reasons since, on previous occasions, the applicant has obtained a number of contracts in cases where it was the only tenderer.

      (1)  Programme based on Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 99/2000 of 29 December 1999 concerning the provision of assistance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).


title: Case C-665/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Alfonso Carlos Amselem Almor v NCG Banco, S.A.

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 30 December 2011 — Alfonso Carlos Amselem Almor v NCG Banco, S.A.
   (Case C-665/11)
   2012/C 80/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Mercantil de Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alfonso Carlos Amselem Almor

      Defendant: NCG Banco, S.A.

      Questions referred

               1.

               If a credit institution offers a client with whom it has previously signed a mortgage loan contract an interest rate swap arrangement to cover the risk of variations of interest rates on that loan, must this be regarded as investment advice within the meaning of point (4) of Article 4(1) of the MiFID Directive? (1)

               2.

               Must omission of the suitability test provided for in Article 19(4) of the MiFID Directive with regard to a retail investor give rise to fundamental nullity of the interest rate swap arrangement entered into between the investor and the advising credit institution?

               3.

               In the event that the service provided in the terms described is not regarded as investment advice, does the mere fact of purchasing a complex financial instrument, into which category falls an interest rate swap arrangement, without the appropriateness test provided for in Article 19(5) of the MiFID Directive being carried out, for reasons imputable to the investment institution, give rise to fundamental nullity of the purchase contract concluded with the same credit institution?

               4.

               Under Article 19(9) of the MiFID Directive, does the mere fact that a credit institution offers a complex financial instrument linked to a mortgage loan constitute sufficient cause to exclude application of the obligation to carry out the suitability and appropriateness tests provided for by the said Article 19 which the investment institution must undertake in the case of a retail investor?

               5.

               In order to enable the obligations laid down in Article 19 of the MiFID Directive to be excluded, is it necessary for the financial product to which the financial instrument offered is linked to be subject to statutory investor-protection standards similar to those laid down in that directive?

      (1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-306/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Supreme Court), Denmark lodged on 3 July 2007 — Ruben Andersen v Kommunernes Landsforening, acting on behalf of Slagelse Kommune (formerly Skælskør Kommune)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Supreme Court), Denmark lodged on 3 July 2007 — Ruben Andersen v Kommunernes Landsforening, acting on behalf of Slagelse Kommune (formerly Skælskør Kommune)
   (Case C-306/07)
   (2007/C 211/42)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Højesteret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ruben Andersen

      Defendant: Kommunernes Landsforening, acting on behalf of Slagelse Kommune (formerly Skælskør Kommune)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 8(1) of Council Directive 91/533/EEC (1) of 14 October 1991 on an employer's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship to be interpreted as meaning that a collective agreement which is intended to implement the provisions of the Directive cannot be applied to an employee who is not a member of an organisation party to that agreement?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative: are the words in Article 8(2) of the Directive: ‘employees not covered by a collective agreement or by collective agreements relating to the employment relationship’ to be interpreted as meaning that provisions in a collective agreement or the obligation of prior notification of the employer cannot be applied to an employee who is not a member of an organisation party to that agreement?

               3.

               Do the words ‘temporary contract’ and ‘temporary … employment relationship’ in Article 8(2) of the Directive refer to short-term employment relationships or to something else, such as all fixed-term employment relationships? If the former, which criteria should be used to determine whether an employment relationship is temporary (short-term)?

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32.


title: Case T-286/06: Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRES DE GAZATE)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/19

         Action brought on 11 October 2006 — TORRES v OHIM — Vinícola de Tomelloso (TORRES DE GAZATE)
   (Case T-286/06)
   (2006/C 310/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Miguel Torres S.A. (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, M. A. Baz de San Ceferino and A. Castán Pérez-Gόmez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vinícola de Tomelloso S.C.L.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 July 2006 in Case R 421/2004-2 and order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vinícola de Tomelloso S.C.L.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark TORRE DE GAZATE in respect of goods in Class 33 — Application No 1 632 017.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word marks TORRES, international word mark TORRES, and international word mark LAS TORRES in respect of goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) because the word TORRE is a dominant component in the overall impression produced by the mark applied for, there are aural and visual similarities between the conflicting marks and there is a likelihood of confusion making it impossible for them to coexist on the market.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-43/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 February 2007 by Neophytos Neophytou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05, Neophytou/Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/48

         Appeal brought on 14 February 2007 by Neophytos Neophytou against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2006 in Case F-22/05, Neophytou/Commission
   (Case T-43/07 P)
   (2007/C 82/101)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Neophytos Neophytou (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Cancel the appealed decision and, subsequently, the contested decision of the appointing authority;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of this appeal, the appellant is seeking to set aside the Civil Service Tribunal's conclusions in Case F-22/05 finding that, on one hand, the appellant's complaints made at the hearing were inadmissible and, on the other hand, that there was no infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.
   In support of his first plea, the appellant contends that his argument concerning the composition of the selection board should have been admissible since it was based on new matters of fact which only came to light during the oral hearing according to the appellant. The latter claims, moreover, that the illegal constitution of an organ is a question of competence and thereby should have been examined ex officio. Accordingly, the appellant submits he should not have been bared from raising this new matter.
   Also, the appellant argues that this complaint is directly connected to his second plea alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of unlawful composition of the selection board. On that basis, the appellant claims the Civil Service Tribunal did not properly implement the abovementioned principle, or at least failed to provide adequate reasoning for the particular features of the competition at stake; while it misunderstood his pleas and failed to address a number of them.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 September 1998 in Case T-50/96: Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - Importation of high-quality beef ('Hilton beef') - Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 - Article 13 - Commission decision refusing remission of import duties - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment)

text:
24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 327/21
Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by the Council of the                A. Kalogeropoulos, President of the Chamber, and C. W.
European Union (Agents: initially Yves Cretien, Antonio             Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano, then only Antonio Lucidi               given a judgment on 15 September 1998 a judgment in
and Diego Canga Fano) Ð application, first, for a                   which it:
declaration ordering the Commission to pay the additional
remuneration resulting from the application of the
weighting for Germany calculated on the basis of the cost           1. Dismisses the application;
of living in Berlin for the period from 1 October 1990 to
31 December 1994, as regards the proportion transferred
in German marks, with interest at the rate of 10 % per
                                                                    2. Orders the parties, and the Council, to bear their own
annum and, second, in so far as is necessary, the
                                                                        costs.
annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 March 1995
rejecting the applicants' requests for the payment of that
additional remuneration Ð the Court of First Instance               (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
(Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 September 1998 in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 1998
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                    in Case T-50/96: Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH
                                                                    & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.                                                                      Communities (1)
                                                                    (Action for annulment Ð Importation of high-quality beef
                                                                    (Hilton beef') Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 Ð
                                                                    Article 13 Ð Commission decision refusing remission of
                                                                    import duties Ð Rights of the defence Ð Manifest error
                                                                                of assessment)
                                                                                (98/C 327/37)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 15 September 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      in Case T-23/96 Elsa De Persio v Commission (1)
(Official Ð Reassignment Ð Request for transfer from the
Language Service to Category A Ð Removal of barriers to             In Case T-50/96: Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH
                        such transfers)                             & Co. KG, established in Bad Homburg (Germany), Gebr.
                                                                    Kruse GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),
                        (98/C 327/36)                               Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, established in Hamburg,
                                                                    represented by Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                    Hamburg and Brussels, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 Rue
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Mathias Hardt, supported by United Kingdom of Great
                                                                    Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially Stephanie
                                                                    Ridley and subsequently John E. Collins and David
In Case T-23/96 Elsa de Persio, an official of the                  Anderson), against Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) Ð application for
Brussels, represented by Giovanni Petroni and Franco                annulment of the Commission decision of 26 January
Giampietro, of the Rome Bar, and VeÂronique Laurent, of             1996 (Document K(96) 180 final) addressed to the Federal
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                    Republic of Germany and concerning the remission of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Gilles Bouneau, 15                    import duties Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the European                  Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M.
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by               Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Fano and Paolo Cossu) Ð application for annulment of                17 September 1998, in which it:
the Commission's decision refusing to grant her request to
be placed in Category A, annulment of the Commission's
decision of 22 December 1995 reassigning the applicant to           1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 26 January 1996
that institution's Translation Service and, last, an order              addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and
that the Commission should pay her damages Ð the                        concerning an application for remission of import
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                   duties;
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                24.10.98
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   in Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner v Commission of the
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.                                          European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Open competition Ð Selection board Ð
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                          Examiners Ð Correction of tests)
                                                                                (98/C 327/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    In Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner, residing in Vienna,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    represented by Harald Svoboda, of the Vienna Bar, with
                    of 15 September 1998                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Maître Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against
in Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA and Fratelli Rubino          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
Industrie Olearie SpA v Commission of the European                  Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð application for
                       Communities (1)                              annulment of the measures adopted by the Commission in
(Agriculture Ð Financing of intervention measures Ð                 the context of Competition COM/A/904 or, at the very
Suspension of all payment due for storage of a                      least, the decision of the Selection Board in that
consignment of olive oil pending verification of its                competition not to admit the applicant to the oral tests Ð
 characteristics Ð Action for annulment and for damages)            the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                    of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
                        (98/C 327/38)                               Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
                                                                    the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1998
                                                                    in which it:
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    1. Annuls the decision of the Commission contained in
In Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA, established at                  Mr Liikanen's letter of 18 September 1995 rejecting
Ostuni, Italy, Fratelli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA,                   the applicant's request of 7 August 1995 for
established at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano,             verification and an enquiry as regards the proper
Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the                    conduct of the assessment procedure and the results of
Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                 Competition COM/A/904;
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application,              2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
first, for annulment of the letter of 7 February 1996 from
the Commission to inter alia the Italian authorities and
the Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                 3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Agricolo, the Italian intervention agency, allegedly
ordering the blocking of any payment due for the storage            (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
of olive oil for the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 marketing
years, pending verification of its wax content, and,
second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's
conduct Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
                                                                                of 17 July 1998
1998, in which it:
                                                                    in Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                    (Dumping Ð Normal value Ð Constructed value Ð
                                                                    Production costs Ð Selling, general and administrative
                                                                          expenses Ð Profit margin Ð OEM adjustment)
2. Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and to
     bear those incurred by the Commission jointly and                                       (98/C 327/40)
     severally.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                    In Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd,
                                                                    established in Samutprakarn (Thailand), represented by


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-523/03: Commission of the European Communities v Biotrast SA (Arbitration clause — Recovery of moneys advanced — Interest — Default procedure)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-523/03: Commission of the European Communities v Biotrast SA (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Recovery of moneys advanced - Interest - Default procedure)
   (2005/C 45/19)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Case C-523/03 the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and N. Korogiannakis) v Biotrast S.A., established in Thessaloniki (Greece) – action under Article 238 EC, brought on 15 December 2003 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Schiemann, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Orders Biotrast SA to pay to the Commission of the European Communities a capital sum of EUR 661 838.82 plus interest at the rate of 4.77 % per year from 31 December 2001 until 31 December 2002, at the rate of 6.77 % per year from 1 January 2003 until the date of the present judgment, and at an annual rate applied under Greek law, now Article 3(2) of Law 2842/2000 on the replacement of the Drachma by the Euro, up to a maximum rate of 6.77 % per year, from the date of the present judgment until the payment of the debt in full.

               2)

               Orders Biotrast S.A. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004


               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/17

         Removal from the register of Case C-518/03 (1)

   (2005/C 19/37)

      (Language of the case: Swedish)

   By order of 8 September 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-518/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.