21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-220/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-248/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/76)                                                       (2001/C 118/79)
By order of 14 December 2000 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-220/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-248/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v France.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-275/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-411/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/77)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/80)
By order of 19 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-275/99: (reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg): Société            from the register of Case C-411/99: Commission of the
Adidas Sarragan France v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du            European Communities v Austria.
Bas-Rhin.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-54/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-236/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/81)
                       (2001/C 118/78)
                                                                      By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-54/00: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-236/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v Italy.
European Communities v Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case C-206/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 21 April 2017 — Heinrich Denker v Gemeinde Thedinghausen
   (Case C-206/17)
   (2017/C 249/27)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and Appellant on a point of law: Heinrich Denker

      Defendant and Respondent on a point of law: Gemeinde Thedinghausen

      Other party to the proceedings: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (The Representative of the Federal interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)

      Question referred

   Is Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1) to be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law under which an irregularity in connection with public participation in the procedure for the preparation of a building development plan by way of municipal by-law is regarded as irrelevant if, notwithstanding notice of the complaints procedure having been given, no complaint regarding that irregularity is made to the municipality within one year of the publication of the plan, and the provisions of Directive 2011/92/EU on public participation apply to that plan?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.


title: Case T-140/15: Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/17

         Action brought on 24 March 2015 — Aurora v CPVO — SES-VanderHave (M 02205)
   (Case T-140/15)
   (2015/C 190/21)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aurora Srl (Finale Emilia, Italy) (represented by: L. Buchman, lawyer)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SES-VanderHave NV/SA (Tienen, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before CPVO

      Proprietor of the Community plant variety right at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community plant variety right at issue: Community Plant Variety Right No EU 15118, variety denomination M 02205

      Contested decision: Decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of 26 November 2014 in Case A10/2013

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               declare that CPVR No EU 15118 is null and void;

               —

               order CPVO to pay the costs, including the cost of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 2100/94;

               —

               Misinterpretation of Article 87(4) of Regulation No 2100/94;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of legal certainty insofar as the conditions of the granted CPVR were retrospectively changed;

               —

               Infringement, to a certain extent, of the principle of legitimate expectation;

               —

               Infringement of the principle of transparency and of the right of public access to documents insofar as the Examination process was not carried out in a transparent manner as the Applicant did not have access to fundamental documents.


title: Case T-288/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — EI du Pont de Nemours v OHIM — Zueco Ruiz (ZYTeL) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative mark ZYTeL — Earlier Community word mark and well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention ZYTEL — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — EI du Pont de Nemours v OHIM — Zueco Ruiz (ZYTeL)
   (Case T-288/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative mark ZYTeL - Earlier Community word mark and well-known mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention ZYTEL - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2014/C 175/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enrique Zueco Ruiz (Zaragoza, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 March 2012 (Case R 464/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between EI du Pont de Nemours and Company and Mr Enrique Zueco Ruiz

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders EI du Pont de Nemours and Company to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8. 9. 2012.


title: Case T-28/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2017 — Germany v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Rural development — Land consolidation and village renewal — Criteria used for selection of operations — Principle of sincere cooperation — Subsidiarity — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2017 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-28/16) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Rural development - Land consolidation and village renewal - Criteria used for selection of operations - Principle of sincere cooperation - Subsidiarity - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 151/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented: initially by T. Henze and A. Lippstreu, and subsequently by T. Henze and D. Klebs, acting as Agents)

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

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Article 1 and the Annex of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098, of 13 November 2015, excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), in so far as the payments made by the agency responsible for payment in the Federal Republic of Germany under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in the total amount of EUR 7 719 920,30, are excluded from EU financing.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Case C-319/98: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 94/47/EC - Non-transposition)

text:
C 121/6                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             1.5.1999
2. declares that the annulled Regulations are to remain in force            2. orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
     until the Council adopts, within a reasonable period, new
     regulations having the same subject matter;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 151, 16.5.1998.
3. orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;
4. orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its
     own costs.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 February 1999
                                                                            in Case C-319/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       ties v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                 (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 94/47/EC — Non-transposition)
                         of 25 February 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 121/11)
 in Case C-59/98: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                 to transpose Directive 94/46/EC)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                            (1999/C 121/10)
                                                                            In Case C-319/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agent: Pieter van Nuffel) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Anni
                      (Language of the case: French)                        Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                            adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Concil of 26
                     in the European Court Reports)                         October 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of
                                                                            certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the
                                                                            right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis (OJ L
In Case C-59/98: Commission of the European Communities                     280, 29.10.1994, p. 83), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
(Agents: Giuliano Marenco and José F. Crespo Carrillo) v. Grand             to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the Court (Third
Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: Nicolas Schmit) — application                   Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,                   Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges;
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,
with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of 13 October 1994                       has given a judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it:
amending Directive 88/301/EEC and Directive 90/388/EEC in
particular with regard to satellite communications (OJ L 268,
19.10.1994, p. 15), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court           1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the                laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber, P. Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann                         comply with Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament
(Rapporteur) and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; Advocate-General:                     and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
S. Alber, Registrat: R. Grass, has given a judgment on                          purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the
25 February 1999, in wihich it:                                                 purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare
                                                                                basis, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that Directive;
1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,        2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     to comply with Commission Directive 94/46/EC of 13 October
     1994 amending Directive 88/301/EEC and Directive                       (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
     90/388/EEC in particular with regard to satellite communi-
     cations, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that Directive;


title: Case F-67/06: Action brought on  16 June 2006  — Lesniak v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/43

         Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Lesniak v Commission
   (Case F-67/06)
   (2006/C 178/81)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Christophe Lesniak (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations is unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision of 8 August 2005 appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities, inasmuch as it fixes his classification at Grade A*6, step 2, and the taking effect of his seniority in step at 1 September 2005;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   As a successful candidate in competition PE/99/A, the notice of which had been published under the former Staff Regulations, the applicant, at the time a member of the temporary staff in Grade A6 (now A*10), was recruited as an official after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations and classified in Grade A*6.
   In addition to raising pleas very similar to those raised in Case F-12/06 (1), the applicant maintains that the Commission should have awarded him the same classification which he enjoyed as a member of the temporary staff in accordance with Article 5(4) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations. According to the applicant, that provision should also apply to successful candidates in open competitions.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006, p. 48.


title: Case C-219/00 P: Appeal brought on 31 May 2000 by Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/32/95, T-34-39/95, T-42-46/95, T-48/95, T-50-65/95, T-68-71/95, T-87-88/95 and T-103-104/95 between Cimenteries CBR and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/12               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.8.2000
—     manifest error in the assessment of the respective                         (ii) and/or annul, or at least reduce, the fine imposed on
      responsibilities in the infringement relating to the Cembu-                      Cementir;
      reau single agreement;
—     misassessment of mitigating and aggravating circum-                  —     in the alternative, annul the contested judgment in whole
      stances;                                                                   or in part and refer the matter back to the Court of First
                                                                                Instance for a ruling on the merits in the light of
                                                                                directions provided by the Court;
—     error in the calculation of the fines on account of the
      erroneous calculation of the duration of the infringement;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
—     manifest error in respect of the turnover for the preceding                proceedings and the proceedings before the Court of First
      year;                                                                      Instance in Case T-87/95.
—     error in the method used to calculate the fine (fixing of
      fines in ecu and choice of conversion rate).
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Commission Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 relating
    to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/33.126
    and 33.322 — Cement) (OJ 1994 L 343 of 30.12.1994, p. 1).              The judgment of the Court of First Instance is vitiated by
                                                                           erroneous application of Community law and infringement of
                                                                           the rights of the defence arising from the impossibility of
                                                                           obtaining access to all the documents contained in the
                                                                           Commission’s file during the administrative procedure.
                                                                           The appellant argues that the legal conclusions of the Court of
                                                                           First Instance concerning the meetings of the Head Delegates
Appeal brought on 31 May 2000 by Cementir — Cemen-
                                                                           of Cembureau lack a coherent basis in law and logic and reveal
terie del Tirreno SpA against the judgment delivered on
                                                                           a distortion of essential evidence. The Court of First Instance
15 March 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           did not carry out an accurate assessment of the specific
European Communities in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95,
                                                                           position of Cementir, and thus arrived at a legal qualification
T-30/32/95, T-34-39/95, T-42-46/95, T-48/95, T-50-65/95,
                                                                           of that company’s conduct devoid of all foundation, conflicting
T-68-71/95, T-87-88/95 and T-103-104/95 between
                                                                           with the principles of the burden of proof and the presumption
Cimenteries CBR and Others and the Commission of the
                                                                           of innocence, and defective in its statement of reasons.
                     European Communities
                        (Case C-219/00 P)                                  Concerning access to the file relating to the existence of the
                                                                           Cembureau agreement, Cementir maintains that the Court of
                         (2000/C 247/14)                                   First Instance was wrong to hold that the failure to grant access
                                                                           to certain documents, specified by the appellant following
                                                                           measures of organisation by the Court of First Instance, did
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 March 2000                  not constitute an infringement of the appellant’s defence
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in              rights.
Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/32/95, T-34-39/95,
T-42-46/95, T-48/95, T-50-65/95, T-68-71/95, T-87-88/95
and T-103-104/95 between Cimenteries CBR and Others and
                                                                           Concerning the exchange of price information during the
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                           Head Delegates’ meetings, the appellant maintains that the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           hypothesis by the Court of First Instance, according to which
31 May 2000 by Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA,
                                                                           price information made it possible to compare existing price
with its registered office in Rome (Italy), represented by
                                                                           levels on the various national markets, is without foundation.
Antonio Tizzano, Gian Michele Roberti and Paola Criscuolo
                                                                           An exchange taking place in those circumstances could not in
Gaito, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in Belgium
                                                                           any way reduce market uncertainties and could not therefore
at the Chambers of Antonio Tizzano, Place du Grand Sablon
                                                                           have contributed in any way to the drawing up or implemen-
36, 1000 Brussels.
                                                                           tation of the alleged Cembureau agreement. Seen in that light,
                                                                           the exchange could not be regarded as incompatible with
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                Article 81 EC (ex Article 85).
—     annul the contested Judgment in whole or in part, and
      accordingly:                                                         With reference to the concerted practice alleged in
                                                                           Article 4(3)(a) of the decision, Cementir maintains that there is
      (i)   declare Commission Decision 94/8155/EC of                      no evidence to indicate that it participated. The assessments of
            30 November 1994 (1) (Cases 1V/33.126 and                      the Court of First Instance on that point therefore lack adequate
            33.322 Cement) wholly or partially void;                       reasoning.
 ---pagebreak--- 26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/13
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is also vitiated by         Pleas in law and main arguments
errors of law and defective reasoning in relation to the concept
of a single and continuous agreement — the Cembureau
agreement censured in Article 1 of the decision.                        The Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                        Article 2 of the said Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC, by
                                                                        maintaining in force legislation under which supplies of works
In the appellant’s submission, the contested judgment warrants          of art by artists or intermediaries and imports of works of art
censure also in the part relating to the penalty, which annulled        bought directly from artists are exempted from value added
or reduced by reason of the following considerations:                   tax.
—    erroneous assessment of the duration and seriousness of
     the alleged infringements;                                         Under the Sixth VAT Directive it is not possible to exempt
                                                                        supplies or imports of works of art from value added tax.
—    the rejection of the request for amendment of the fine;            Nor is exemption permitted under point 2(n) of Part IX of
                                                                        Annex XV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession
                                                                        of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
—    insufficient reasons for the judgment in relation to the
                                                                        Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on
     reference turnover;
                                                                        which the European Union is founded.
—    misassessment of Cementir’s criticism concerning the
     limitation referred to in Article 2(1);
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
—    infringement of the principles of fairness and pro-                    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     portionality and defective reasoning in relation to the                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     assessment of the criteria for determining fines.                      basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
(1) OJ L 343, 30.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                        Action brought on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of the
  European Communities against the Republic of Finland                                            (Case C-170/00)
                        (Case C-169/00)                                                          (2000/C 247/16)
                        (2000/C 247/15)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before            Communities on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 May               represented by Tuula Pynnä, Valtionasiamies, Legislative
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     Adviser in the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign
represented by Esa Paasivirta and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal         Affairs, acting as Agent, and Elisabeth Bygglin, Legislative
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               Adviser in that ministry, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner            Luxembourg at the Finnish Embassy, 2 Rue Heine.
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Finland claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March
1.   Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation under                  2000 excluding from Community financing certain
     which supplies of works of art by artists or intermediaries              expenditure incurred by the Member States under the
     and imports of works of art bought directly from artists                 Guarantee Sect on of the European Agricultural Guidance
     are exempted from value added tax, the Republic of                       and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it refuses to
     Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2             charge to the EAGGF the sum of FIM 7 270 885,76
     of the Sixth VAT Directive (1);                                          included in Finland’s expenditure for the 1996 and 1997
                                                                              financial years of the EAGGF Guarantee Section with
2.   Order Finland to pay the costs.                                          respect to meat premiums;


title: Case C-214/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (State aid — Aid scheme — Incompatibility with the common market — Implementation of the decision — Recovery of the aid granted — Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-214/07) (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme - Incompatibility with the common market - Implementation of the decision - Recovery of the aid granted - Absolute impossibility of giving effect to a decision)
   (2009/C 6/08)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Giolito, Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, S. Ramet and J.-C. Gracia, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Decision of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty (State aid C(2003) 4636, OJ 2004 L 108, p. 38) — Failure to take steps to recover the aid illegally granted — Implementation of the decision ordering the recovery of the aid not impossible
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to implement within the prescribed period Commission Decision 2004/343/EC of 16 December 2003 on the aid scheme implemented by France for the takeover of firms in difficulty, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that decision

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-378/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 3 August 2012 — Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London (United Kingdom) made on 3 August 2012 — Nnamdi Onuekwere v Secretary of State for the Home Department
   (Case C-378/12)
   2012/C 295/45
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) London

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Nnamdi Onuekwere

      Defendants: Secretary of State for the Home Department

      Questions referred

               1.

               In what circumstances, if any, will a period of imprisonment constitute legal residence for the purposes of the acquisition of a permanent right of residence under Article 16 of the Citizens Directive 2004/38 (1)?

               2.

               If a period of imprisonment does not qualify as legal residence, is a person who has served a period of imprisonment permitted to aggregate periods of residence before and after his imprisonment for the purposes of calculating the period of 5 years needed to establish permanent right of residence under the Directive?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)
   OJ L 158, p. 77


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 30 September 1998 in Case T-43/97: Isabelle Adine-Blanc v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Auxiliary staff - Duration of contract - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials - Principle of sound administration)

text:
7.11.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 340/19
Commission Decision C (96)1185 of 14 August 1996                     personal file Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth
reducing the amount of aid granted in Decision C(89)                 Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and K.
0570 of 22 March 1989, and of Commission Decision                    Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
C(96) 1186 of 14 August 1996 reducing the amount of                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
aid granted in Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 Ð                16 September 1998, in which it:
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a           1. orders the Commission to pay the sum of BFR 35 000
judgment on 15 September 1998 in which it:                                which it has agreed to award to the applicant, if it has
                                                                          not already made that payment;
1. joins Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96 for the purposes of             2. dismisses the remainder of the action;
    the judgment;
                                                                     3. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
2. in Case T-180/96, annuls Commission Decision
    C(96)1185 of 14 August 1996 in so far as it relates to
                                                                     (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
    sub-heading 14.3.12 of the applicant's request for
    payment, and for the rest dismisses the application;
3. dismisses the application in Case T-181/96;
                                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4. orders the parties to bear their own costs in Case
    T-180/96;                                                                             of 30 September 1998
                                                                     in Case T-43/97: Isabelle Adine-Blanc v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
5. orders the applicant to pay the costs in Case T-181/96.
                                                                     (Officials Ð Auxiliary staff Ð Duration of contract Ð
                                                                     Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations Ð
(1) OJ C 26 of 25.1.1997.                                            Duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
                                                                             officials Ð Principle of sound administration)
                                                                                (98/C 340/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 16 September 1998                            In Case T-43/97: Isabelle Adine-Blanc, residing in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure and,
in Case T-193/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen v. Commission of                 initially, Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                the European Communities (1)                         address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu-
                                                                     ciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v. Commission
(Officials Ð Staff report Ð Reiteration of the contents of           of the European Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-
the previous report Ð Belated inclusion in the personal              Kayser and Florence Clotuche) Ð application, first, for
                 file of the person concerned)                       annulment of the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
                          (98/C 340/34)                              reducing from 36 months to 3 months the duration of a
                                                                     contract offering the applicant a position as a member of
                                                                     the auxiliary staff and, second, for compensation for the
               (Language of the case: French)                        material and non-material damage suffered by the
                                                                     applicant as a result of that decision Ð the Court of First
                                                                     Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
In Case T-193/96: Lars Bo Rasmussen, an official of the              and R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Dalheim (Luxembourg), represented by Carlo Revoldini,                30 September 1998, in which it:
of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 180 Route de
                                                                     1. dismisses the application;
Longwy, v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Alberto Dal Ferro)
Ð application, first, for annulment of the decision of the           2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission of 23 October 1995 rejecting the applicant's
request for the drawing-up of his staff report for the
                                                                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
period 1991Ð1993 and, second, for compensation for the
non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as
a result of the belated inclusion of that staff report in his


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2001 in Case T-73/98: Société Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Failure to open the procedure under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) — Serious difficulty)

text:
C 150/20                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           19.5.2001
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 2.    Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the arrears of
                                                                                remuneration not received since the withdrawal of his resig-
                                                                                nation, together with default interest at the rate of 6,75%;
                       of 23 February 2001
                                                                           3.    Orders the defendant to pay the applicant the token sum of one
                                                                                euro by way of compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
in Joined Cases T-7/98, T-208/98 and T-109/99; Carlo De                    4.    Orders the defendant to pay all the costs;
            Nicola v European Investment Bank (1)
                                                                           5.    Dismisses the remainder of the application.
(European Investment Bank — Staff — Action for annul-
ment — Admissibility — Time-limit for initiating action —                  (1) OJ C 94, (28.3.1998), and C 71, (13.3.1999).
Substance — Anual performance appraisal — Promotion —
Consideration of comparative merits — Principle of equal
treatment — Misuse of powers — Mental harassment —
Resignation — Conditions of validity — Form — Capacity
— Refusal of administration to accept withdrawal of resig-
nation — Request to remove documents from the file —
                        Action for damages)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          (2001/C 150/36)
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
                                                                           in Case T-73/98: Société Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA v
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (State aid — Failure to open the procedure under Article
In Joined Cases T-7/98 and T-208/98; Carlo De Nicola, an                   93(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) — Serious
employee of the European Investment Bank, residing in                                                    difficulty)
Strassen (Luxembourg), represented by L. Isola, avocat, and
also, in Case T-7/98, by F. Randolph, Barrister, against
European Investment Bank (Agents: initially, in Case                                                 (2001/C 150/37)
T-78/98, G. Marchegiani and then, and also in Case T-208/98,
P. Koskelo, E. Uhlmann and C. Camilli) — application for
annulment of the applicant’s annual performance appraisals                                     (Language of the case: French)
for 1996 and 1997 in so far as they do not contain a proposal
for promotion and also of the promotion decisions taken
by the European Investment Bank following those annual                     In Case T-73/98: Société Chimique Prayon-Rupel SA, estab-
appraisals, in so far as they relate to promotions from Function           lished in Engis (Belgium), represented by B. van de Walle de
E to Function D and fail to promote the applicant to                       Ghelcke, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Function D, and T-109; Carlo De Nicola, a former servant of                against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
the European Investment Bank, residing in Rome, represented                D. Triantafyllou), supported by the Federal Republic of Germ-
by L. Isola, avocat, against European Investment Bank (Agents:             any (Agents: B. Muttelsee-Schön and C. von Donat) —
P. Koskelo, E. Uhlmann and C. Camilli) — application for a                 application for annulment of the decision of the Commission
declaration that the applicant’s resignation is void and for               of 16 December 1997 to raise no objection to the grant of aid
annulment of the European Investment Bank’s letter of 2 Febru-             by the Federal Republic of Germany to Chemische Werke
ary 1999 refusing to accept the withdrawal of that resignation             Piesteritz GmbH — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber,
and the letter of 25 February 1999 purporting to dismiss the               Extended Composition), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
applicant — the Court of First Instance, composed of K. Lena-              President, and P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. For-
erts, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor,            wood, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment           Registrar; has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which
on 23 February 2001, in which it:                                          it:
                                                                           1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of 16 December 1997
1.    Annuls the defendant’s decision of 2 February 1999 refusing                to raise no objection to the grant of aid by the Federal Republic
      to accept the withdrawal of the applicant’s resignation;                   of Germany to Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/21
2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs together with                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      those of the applicant in the main proceedings and in the
      application for interim relief;                                                              of 8 February 2001
3.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
                                                                           in Case T-183/98: Jean-François Ferrandi v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.98.
                                                                           (Officials — Transfer of pension rights — Weighting for
                                                                           old-age pension — Protection against the risk of sickness —
                                                                                Invalidity pension — Force of res judicata)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/39)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                       of 20 February 2001
                                                                           In Case T-183/98: Jean-François Ferrandi, former official at the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, residing in Ajaccio
in Case T-112/98: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG v Com-                         (France), represented by J.-B. Giuseppi, avocat, with an address
           mission of the European Communities (1)                         for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-
(Action for annulment — Competition — Decision to request                  Duvieusart) — application for, first, annulment of the decision
information — Periodic penalty payments — Right to refuse                  of the Commission to reject the applicant’s requests for his
to provide answers that imply admission of an infringement                 pension rights acquired prior to entering the service of
— Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                        the European Communities to be transferred, the weighting
                      Fundamental Freedoms)                                applicable to his old-age pension to be recalculated, for
                                                                           protection against the risk of sickness and for an invalidity
                                                                           pension and, secondly, for compensation for harm caused as a
                          (2001/C 150/38)
                                                                           result of those requests having been refused — the Court of
                                                                           First Instance (Single Judge: P. Mengozzi); H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                           gave a judgment on 8 February 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           1.    dismisses the application;
In Case T-112/98: Mannesmannröhren-Werke AG, established
at Mülheim an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by M. Klus-                  2.    orders each of the parties to bear their own costs.
mann and K. Moosecker, Rechtsanwälte, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and M. Hilf) — application                 (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.99.
for annulment of Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May
1998 relating to a procedure under Article 11(5) of Council
Regulation No 17 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber,
Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 February
2001, in which it:                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1.    Annuls Commission Decision C(98) 1204 of 15 May 1998                                         of 1 February 2001
      relating to a procedure under Article 11(5) of Council
      Regulation No 17, in so far as it relates to the last indent of
      each of questions 1.6, 1.7 and 2.3 and to question 1.8 of the        in Case T-1/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Commission of
      request for information sent to the applicant on 13 August                            the European Communities (1)
      1997;
                                                                           (Bananas — Common organisation of the markets —
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                          Regulation (EC) No 478/95 — Export licence scheme —
                                                                              Action for damages — Proof of damage and causal link)
3.    Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds
      of the costs of the applicant, which shall bear the remaining                                  (2001/C 150/40)
      third.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.98.
                                                                           In Case T-1/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
                                                                           Hamburg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt,


title: Case F-112/15: Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/55

         Action brought on August 3rd 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-112/15)
   (2015/C 320/76)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission not to include the applicant on the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 14 November 2014 of the Appointing Authority of the European Commission, issued by means of the Administrative Notice No 41-2014, establishing the list of promoted officials under the promotion exercise of 2014 in so far as the name of the Applicant is not included therein;

               —

               order the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Applicant.


title: Case C-571/11: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Comercial Cluj — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Andreia Câmpan, Ioan Dan Câmpan

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/18

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 16 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Comercial Cluj — Romania) — SC Volksbank România SA v Andreia Câmpan, Ioan Dan Câmpan
   (Case C-571/11) (1)

   2013/C 108/39
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case F-74/15: Action brought on 11 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/55

         Action brought on 11 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-74/15)
   (2015/C 279/71)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to grant only an increase in the compensation to 20 % of the capital provided for in respect of total permanent invalidity under Article 14 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease and compensation for the non-pecuniary harm allegedly suffered by the applicant and an order that the Commission pay default interest.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 26 June 2014 by which the Commission grants an increase of 20 % of the compensation referred to in Article 14 of the Common rules on the insurance of officials of the Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease in the version applicable until 31 December 2006, on the ground of serious irregularities in the opinion given on 8 January 2014 by the medical committee, since it did not uphold in full the applicant’s requests and granted only 20 % in compensation, under Article 14 of the Common rules, in respect of harm to the cardio-respiratory function, without taking into account the mental harm and functional disruption of sleep due to the alteration of the left lateral decubitus position;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay compensation in respect of the harm estimated pro bono et aequo at EUR 50  000 for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by the applicant and connected with the delay in payment of the compensation granted;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay default interest, which it is to calculate, on EUR 98  372,51 for the period covering the expiry of six months following the submission of the claim for deterioration and the date of effective liquidation of the capital, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for the principal financing operations and applicable to the period concerned, increase by two points;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay default interest, which it is to calculate, on the amount which will be estimated at the end of the present proceedings, from the date of the judgment until that of actual payment, at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for the principal financing operations and applicable to the period concerned, increase by two points;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs and disbursements.


title: Joined Cases C-105/09 and C-110/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Terre wallonne ASBL (C-105/09), Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL (C-110/09) v Région wallonne (Directive 2001/42/EC — Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment — Directive 91/676/EEC — Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources — Action programmes in respect of vulnerable zones)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Terre wallonne ASBL (C-105/09), Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL (C-110/09) v Région wallonne
   (Joined Cases C-105/09 and C-110/09) (1)

   (Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Action programmes in respect of vulnerable zones)
   2010/C 221/20
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Terre wallonne ASBL (C-105/09), Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL (C-110/09)

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1) and Art 3(2) and (4) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30) — Drawing up of management plans relating to designated vulnerable zones — Nature and scope of the obligation — Necessary assessment of the impact of the nitrogen management plan on the environment

      Operative part of the judgment

   An action programme adopted pursuant to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources is in principle a plan or programme covered by Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment since it constitutes a ‘plan’ or ‘programme’ within the meaning of Article 2(a) of the latter directive and contains measures compliance with which is a requirement for issue of the consent that may be granted for carrying out projects listed in Annexes I and II to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 06.06.2009.


title: Case T-589/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Just Music Fernsehbetrieb v OHIM — France Télécom (Jukebox)

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/20

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Just Music Fernsehbetrieb v OHIM — France Télécom (Jukebox)
   (Case T-589/10)
   2011/C 72/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Just Music Fernsehbetrieb GmbH (Landshut, Germany) (represented by: T. Kaus, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: France Télécom SA (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2010 in case R 1408/2009-1

               —

               Order the defendant to reject the opposition decision of 30 September 2010 in case B 1304494 and to allow the application No 6163778 for registration in its entirety

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division and

               —

               In the alternative, stay the proceedings until a final decision is taken on the application for revocation lodged by the applicant on 21 December 2010 at OHIM against the earlier Community trade mark No 3693108.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Jukebox’, for services in classes 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6163778

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3693108 of the figurative mark ‘JUKE BOX’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes: (i) Articles 15 and 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as no proof of genuine use has been provided of the mark cited in the opposition proceedings — Community trade mark registration No 3693108 ‘JUKE BOX’, (ii) Articles 8(1)(b), 9 and 65(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the contested trade mark, and (iii) Article 78 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise its powers of investigation and failed to exercise the full remit of its powers.


title: Case T-422/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance Chamber of 23 November 2006 — Lavagnoli v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Refusal of promotion — Allocation of promotion points)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance Chamber of 23 November 2006 — Lavagnoli v Commission
   (Case T-422/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Refusal of promotion - Allocation of promotion points)
   (2006/C 331/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Luciano Lavagnoli (Berchem, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti and subsequently by F. Frabetti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Krämer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment, first, of the list of officials promoted in 2003 in so far as the name of the applicant is not contained therein and, second, in the alternative, of the decision allocating promotion points for 2003, as regards the applicant.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45 of 19.2.2005.


title: Case C-162/04: Action brought on 31 March 2004 by the Republic of Finland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/1

         Action brought on 31 March 2004 by the Republic of Finland against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-162/04)
   (2004/C 146/02)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 March 2004 by the Republic of Finland, represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Republic of Finland claims principally that the Court should:

               i)

               annul Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it concerns Finland;

               ii)

               order the Commission to pay the costs.
               The Republic of Finland claims in the alternative that the Court should:

               iii)

               annul Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) as regards the sum of EUR 3 194 596;

               iv)

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Finland considers that when adopting the contested decision the Commission:

               i)

               misapplied Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 (2) and wrongly assessed the factual situation in Pohjois-Karjala. The Commission failed to demonstrate that there were substantial defects in the Finnish system of control of area aid in Pohjois-Karjala and that the Finnish authorities had not taken the corrective measures required by the Commission;

               ii)

               wrongly assessed the factual situation in Pohjois-Pohjanmaa, Pohjois-Savo, Keski-Suomi, Kainuu and Lappi. The Commission failed to demonstrate that there were serious defects in the Finnish system of control of area aid in those regions and that the Finnish authorities had not taken the corrective measures required by the Commission;

               iii)

               breached the principle of proportionality by extending the contested decision to apply, in addition to Pohjois-Karjala, also to Pohjois-Pohjanmaa, Pohjois-Savo, Keski-Suomi, Kainuu and Lappi; and

               iv)

               failed to demonstrate that the methods of measurement used in the system of control of area aid in Pohjois-Karjala, Pohjois-Pohjanmaa, Pohjois-Savo, Keski-Suomi, Kainuu and Lappi were contrary to Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 40 of 12.2.2004, p. 31.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, OJ L 391 of 31.12.1992, p. 36.


title: Case F-76/07: Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Birkhoff v Commission

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/30

         Action brought on 17 July 2007 — Birkhoff v Commission
   (Case F-76/07)
   (2007/C 235/56)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerhard Birkhoff (Weitnau, Germany) (represented by: K. Hösgen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Appointing Authority's decision of 18 April 2007 concerning the applicant's complaint (No R/16/07);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a retired official of the European Communities, has a dependent daughter who needs a wheelchair on account of her paraplegia. The applicant submits that the wheelchair can no longer be used since it has broken due to wear. The applicant sought reimbursement of the cost of a new wheelchair, which the Commission refused.
   The applicant asserts that its rights under Articles 72 and 110 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, read in conjunction with Section XII(F)(4) of Annex I to the Joint Rules on sickness insurance for officials of the European Communities, were infringed.


title: Case C-512/10: Action brought on 26 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/16

         Action brought on 26 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-512/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/26
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H.Støvlbæk and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               hold that, in the context of the implementation of the first railway package, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet the obligations imposed on it pursuant to Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as subsequently amended, (1) and Articles 4(2) and 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, (2) as well as pursuant to Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14/EC, Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC in conjunction with Article 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440/EEC, as subsequently amended, and Articles 7(3) and 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission raises four heads of complaint alleging failure on the part of the Republic of Poland to comply with the provisions of the first railway package.
   In the first place, according to the Commission, the Republic of Poland made no provision for mechanisms designed to ensure the decision-making and organisational independence of the infrastructure manager fulfilling a fundamental role, namely PLK S.A. (Polskie Linie Kolejowe, a public limited company), vis-à-vis the holding concern, that is to say, vis-à-vis both the dominant company PKP S.A. and the other subsidiaries of the holding concern which operate as rail carriers.
   Second, the Republic of Poland did not, in the opinion of the Commission, adopt appropriate measures — in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC and Article 7(3) and (4) of Directive 91/440/EEC — with a view to ensuring that the infrastructure manager PLK S.A. would achieve financial equilibrium within an appropriate period of time. The Polish State, it is submitted, is allowing PLK S.A. to accumulate losses up to the year 2012.
   Third, in the Commission’s view, the Republic of Poland failed to provide for the specific system of incentives required under Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 2001/14/EC for PLK S.A. with a view to reducing the costs and expenditure incurred in respect of use of the railway infrastructure.
   Fourth, in the opinion of the Commission, the Republic of Poland did not — contrary to Article 7(3) of Directive 2001/14/EC — adopt the measures necessary to ensure that charges for minimal access to railway infrastructure would be set on the basis of the costs directly incurred as a result of operating the train service. In addition, the Polish State failed to make provision for the control mechanism required by Article 8(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC which would make it possible to conduct an examination as to whether various market segments are in a position, from an economic point of view, to bear the increased expenditure for access to and use of the railway infrastructure.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.


title: Case C-124/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 11 March 2003 in the case of (1) Artrada (Freezone) NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac. Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrĳf BV against Rĳksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees

text:
C 146/20               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
Is Article 4(5) of Directive No 92/43 ( 1) of 21 May 1992 to be                 b)    If the answer to question 1(a) is affirmative: must
interpreted as meaning that the measures under Article 6 and,                         Article 22 of Directive 92/46/EEC be interpreted as
in particular, under Article 6(3) of that directive are mandatory                     meaning that in the case of imports from non-
for the Member States only after final approval at Community                          Member States that directive is applicable only to
level of the list of sites under Article 21 or, alternatively, in                     the milk constituent of a product and thus not to
addition to determination of the ordinary commencement date                           the product of which it is a constituent?
of conservation measures, must a distinction be drawn between
declaratory listing and determinative listing (including in the           2.    a)    Does the concept of ’milk-based products’ in
first category the listing of priority sites) with the result that,                   Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC concern only
in order to ensure the effectiveness of the directive, where a                        finished products or also semifinished products
Member State identifies a site of Community importance                                which must undergo further processing before they
sustaining priority natural habitat types or species, there must                      can be offered for sale to the consumer?
be considered to be an obligation to carry out an assessment
of plans and projects with a significant effect on the site even
before the Commission draws up the draft list of sites or                       b)    In the event that Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC
adopts the final version of that list pursuant to Article 21 of                       also refers to semifinished products, according to
the directive and, in fact, with effect from the drawing up of                        which criteria must it be determined whether milk
the national list?                                                                    or a milk product forms an essential part of a
                                                                                product, either in terms of quantity or for charac-
                                                                                terization of those products, as referred to in
                                                                                Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46/EEC?
( 1) OJ L 206 of 22.7.1992, p. 7.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 268 [1992], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court                   Action brought on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of
of 11 March 2003 in the case of (1) Artrada (Freezone)                    the European Communities against the Federal Republic
NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac. Meisner Internationaal                                              of Germany
Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
                        van Vee en Vlees
                                                                                (Case C-126/03)
                         (Case C-124/03)                                                            (2003/C 146/34)
                         (2003/C 146/33)
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties on 20 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Communities, represented by Klaus Wiedner, of the Com-
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep                mission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                service in Luxembourg.
Industry) of 11 March 2003, received at the Court Registry on
20 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
(1) Artrada (Freezone) NV, (2) Videmecum BV and (3) Jac.                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf BV against Rijksdienst
voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees (Netherlands Livestock and               —     Declare that, by reason of the fact that the contract for
Meat Inspectorate) on the following questions:                                  waste transport concluded by the City of Munich was
                                                                                awarded without compliance with the notification
1.    a)    Must the term ‘milk for the manufacture of milk-                    requirements laid down in Article 8, in conjunction with
            based products’ in Article 2(2) of Directive 92/46/                 Articles 15(2) and 16(1), of Directive 92/50 (1), the
            EEC ( 1) be interpreted as meaning that it (also)                   Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
            includes milk constituents of a product which also                  obligations under that directive; and
            contains other non-milk constituents and where the
            milk constituent cannot be separated from the non-            —     Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
            milk constituents?                                                  of the proceedings.


title: Case T-182/11: Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Dacoury-Tabley v Council

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/29

         Action brought on 28 March 2011 — Dacoury-Tabley v Council
   (Case T-182/11)
   2011/C 152/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philippe Henry Dacoury-Tabley (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, concerning the applicant, Mr Philippe Henry DACOURY-TABLEY, Council Regulation No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011, published on 2 February 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, and Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 January 2011, published on 2 February 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, have no factual basis,

               —

               accordingly,

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation No 85/2011 of 31 January 2011 and Council Decision 2011/71/CFSP of 31 Janaury 2011

                           —

                           in the alternative, order that the name of Mr Philippe Henry DACOURY-TABLEY be removed from the list annexed to that Regulation and Decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons, since the reasons for including the applicant in the list of persons and entities to which the restrictive measures apply are stereotypical, with no mention of any precise factual evidence which allow the assessment of the relevance of that inclusion,

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment in so far as

                           —

                           the applicant is alleged to have refused recognise the authority of M. A. Ouattara, although he attempted to subject the BCEAO (Central Bank of West African States) for which he was governor, to his authority;

                           —

                           the applicant is alleged to have helped to fund the illegitimate administration of M. L. Gbagbo, although such support cannot be inferred from the operations of the BCEAO;

                           —

                           in addition, the applicant was no longer governor of the BCEAO at the time of adoption of the contested Regulation and Decision.


title: Case C-19/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian (Right of asylum — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application — Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker — Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen, Sweden) — Migrationsverket v Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian
   (Case C-19/08) (1)

   (Right of asylum - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Taking back by a Member State of an asylum seeker whose application has been refused and who is in another Member State where he has submitted a fresh asylum application - Start of the period for implementation of transfer of the asylum seeker - Transfer procedure the subject-matter of an appeal having suspensive effect)
   (2009/C 69/15)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Migrationsverket

      Defendants: Edgar Petrosian, Nelli Petrosian, Svetlana Petrosian, David Petrosian, Maxime Petrosian
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammarrätten i Stockholm, Migrationsöverdomstolen (Sweden) — Interpretation of Articles 20(1)(d) and 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Taking back by a Member State of an applicant for asylum who is in another Member State and lodged another application for asylum there — Start of the period for transfer of the asylum seeker
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 20(1)(d) and Article 20(2) of Regulation No 343/2003 of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national are to be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the requesting Member State provides for suspensive effect of an appeal, the period for implementation of the transfer begins to run, not as from the time of the provisional judicial decision suspending the implementation of the transfer procedure, but only as from the time of the judicial decision which rules on the merits of the procedure and which is no longer such as to prevent its implementation.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.