title: Case C-279/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission, Republic of Latvia (Appeal — Action for annulment — EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from EU financing — Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/17

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission, Republic of Latvia
   (Case C-279/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Action for annulment - EAGGF, EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Spain))
   (2017/C 277/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego and V. Ester Casas, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-684/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością v EUIPO — Maan (cooker hood)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/30

         Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością v EUIPO — Maan (cooker hood)
   (Case T-684/16)
   (2016/C 410/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ciarko spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością sp.k. (Sanok, Poland) (represented by: M. Żabińska, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maan sp. z o.o. (Grójec, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: European Union design No 1 775 792-0002

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 in Case R 1212/2015-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

   Infringement of Articles 25(1)(b), 4(1) and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: Case C-427/00: Action brought on 20 November 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
27.1.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 28/19
Action brought on 16 November 2000 by the Com-                          Question 1
mission of the European Communities against the
                       Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                        Does Paragraph 9 of the LMG constitute an appropriate
                                                                        transposition of Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive
                           (Case C-423/00)                              79/112/EEC (1) of 18 December 1978?
                            (2001/C 28/35)
                                                                        Question 2
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              Does Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC make exhaustive
16 November 2000 by the Commission of the European                      provision concerning unlawful labelling, or does that provision
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,             provide for a minimum level of regulation which may be
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           supplemented by national provisions?
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Question 3
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations       Is Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 79/112/EEC to be construed to
      and/or administrative provisions necessary to comply              mean that a restriction on labelling (such as that in Paragraph
      with Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996                9(1) of the LMG in regard to health-related information) is
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving                only permissible where a prohibition appears to be an
      dangerous substances (1), and in any event by failing to          unavoidable necessity in order to prevent consumers from
      inform the Commission of such provisions, the Kingdom             being misled?
      of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      Directive;
                                                                        Question 4
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                        Can Paragraph 9(1) of the LMG be interpreted so as to comply
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         with the directive and the restriction on labelling mentioned
                                                                        therein be deemed to be in conformity with Article 2(1)(b) of
                                                                        Directive 79/112/EEC? This would be possible inasmuch as an
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put            intention to mislead is not required by Article 2(1)[(b)] as a
forward in Case C-407/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition          whole but is a second criterion of the unlawfulness of a label.
expired on 3 February 1999.
                                                                        (1) OJ 1979 L 33, p. 1.
(1) OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13.
(2) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.
                                                                        Action brought on 20 November 2000 by the Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                        mission of the European Communities against the United
Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of 15 November 2000                                                  Kingdom
in the case of Paul Dieter Haug against Magistrat der Stadt
                                  Wien
                                                                                (Case C-427/00)
                           (Case C-426/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/37)
                            (2001/C 28/36)
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 Novem-
European Communities by order of 15 November 2000 of the                ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Independent Adminis-                represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
trative Chamber, Vienna), which was received at the Court               Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service at the
Registry on 20 November, for a preliminary ruling in the case           office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a member of the
of Paul Dieter Haug against Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Vienna            Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
municipal authorities) on the following questions:                      Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.1.2001
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                Appeal brought on 21 November 2000 by Anton Dürbeck
                                                                           GmbH against the judgment delivered on 19 December
—     declare that, by failing to ensure that bathing waters in            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
      the United Kingdom comply with the limit values set in               of the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between
      accordance with Article 3 of Directive 76/160/EC (1), the            Anton Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the
      United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under            European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      that Directive;                                                                       Spain and the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-430/00 P)
—     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 28/39)
                                                                           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                           the European Communities in Case T-252/97 between Anton
Article 4 of the Directive 76/160/CEE requires Member States               Dürbeck GmbH and the Commission of the European Com-
to have taken all necessary measures, within 10 years following            munities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the French
notification of the Directive, to ensure that the quality of               Republic, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
bathing water conforms to the limit values set out in the                  European Communities on 21 November 2000 by Anton
Annex.                                                                     Dürbeck GmbH, represented by Dr Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                           Berrenrather Straße 313, D-50937 Köln.
The Commission notes that, despite efforts to improve com-                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
pliance, the United Kingdom is continuing to fail to meet the
                                                                           1.    Set aside the contested judgment;
requirements of the directive. The Commission must conclude,
therefore, that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its                2.    Annul the contested decision of the Commission of
obligations in terms of the Directive.                                           10 July 1997 relating to the case of hardship;
                                                                           3.    Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
    the quality of bathing water (OJ L 31, 5.2.1976, p. 1).                Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance erred in not undertaking
                                                                                a critical appraisal of the applicant’s submissions on
                                                                                infringement of the principle of equivalence. The defend-
                                                                                ant had first referred to the ‘interest in the equal treatment
                                                                                of all traders’ in its defence. The applicant was entitled to
                                                                                state its position on this not solely for the purpose of
                                                                                refuting the defendant’s plea.
                                                                           —     Owing to an incorrect appreciation of the contract
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                                between the applicant and Consultban, the Court of First
di Genova by order of that court of 11 November 2000
                                                                                Instance concluded that the Commission had correctly
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova
                                                                                established the amount of the compensation to which the
                                                                                applicant was entitled.
                           (Case C-429/00)
                                                                           —     The Court of First Instance erred in approving the
                                                                                Commission’s refusal to take the licences granted in order
                            (2001/C 28/38)                                       to compensate losses in cases of hardship into account
                                                                                for the purpose of determining future reference quantities.
                                                                                The Commission was not entitled to adopt the approach
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           of providing compensation by allocating licences in cases
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace                             of hardship if that approach meant that it could not
(District Court), Genoa, of 20 November 2000, received at the                    take those licences into account for the purpose of
Court Registry on 11 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling                     determining reference quantities for future years. Once it
in the case of Radiosistemi Srl against Prefetto di Genova on                    adopted that approach, however, the effect of the binding
questions which are in substance identical to those referred in                  rule in Article 19 of Regulation No 404/93 was such that
Case C-388/00 (1).                                                               the Commission could not then refuse to take those
                                                                                licences into account for the purpose of determining
                                                                                reference quantities for future years if, owing to further
(1) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                          developments in the organisation of the market in
                                                                                bananas, the applicant received excessive compensation
                                                                                for its loss.


title: Case C-140/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Lüneburg (Directive 2001/83/EC — Articles 1(2) and 2(2) — Concept of medicinal product by function — Product in respect of which it has not been established that it is a medicinal product by function — Account taken of the content in active substances)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Hecht-Pharma GmbH v Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Lüneburg
   (Case C-140/07) (1)

   (Directive 2001/83/EC - Articles 1(2) and 2(2) - Concept of ‘medicinal product by function’ - Product in respect of which it has not been established that it is a medicinal product by function - Account taken of the content in active substances)
   (2009/C 55/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hecht-Pharma GmbH

      Defendant: Staatliches Gewerbeaufsichtsamt Lüneburg

      Intervening Party: Vertreterin des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Classification as a medicinal product of a product containing a component capable of producing physiological changes in the event of consumption of a greater dose than intended for normal use — Applicability of Directive 2001/83/EC to a product which could possibly be classified as a medicinal product but whose quality of a medicinal product has not been determined — Concept of medicinal product
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, does not apply to a product in respect of which it has not been scientifically established that it is a medicinal product by function, without its being possible to exclude that possibility.

               2.

               Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, must be interpreted as meaning that the characteristics of the manner in which a product is used, the extent of its distribution, its familiarity to consumers and the risks which its use may entail are still relevant to determining whether that product falls within the definition of a medicinal product by function.

               3.

               Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, must be interpreted as meaning that, apart from the case of substances or combinations of substances intended for the purpose of making a medical diagnosis, a product cannot be regarded as a medicinal product within the meaning of that provision where, having regard to its composition — including its content in active substances — and if used as intended, it is incapable of appreciably restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-465/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/4

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-465/09 P)
   2010/C 37/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Goberierno Vasco, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Commission of the European Communities and Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               uphold the application at first instance;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The CFI erred in law in its reasoning in the judgment under appeal relating to the fact that Case T-32/01 has become devoid of subject-matter.

               2.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that the conclusion of the preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), required the existence of an express decision by Commission decision to that effect (addressed to the Member State).

               3.

               The CFI misinterpreted the decision of 28 November 2000 by holding that that decision put an end to the preliminary examination procedure of the tax measure at issue which arose out of a complaint lodged in April 1994. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 was to be carried out within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               4.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules concerning the burden of proof and the assessment of evidence, in particular with respect to the documentary evidence consisting of the decision of 28 November 2000 (its credibility and probative force). The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial.

               5.

               The CFI erred in law by infringing the procedural rules relating to the assessment of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the objective, relevant, corroborative and conclusive evidence in the case-file and which prove that, prior to the decision of 28 November 2000, the Commission had conducted a preliminary examination of the tax measure at issue and had closed that examination. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 had to be conducted within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               6.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to require disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-434/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Slancheva sila EOOD v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie Razplashtatelna agentsia (Common agricultural policy — EAFRD — Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 — Support for rural development — Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises — Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ — Abuses — Evidence)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/7

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Slancheva sila EOOD v Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond Zemedelie Razplashtatelna agentsia
   (Case C-434/12) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - EAFRD - Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 - Support for rural development - Support for the creation and development of micro-enterprises - Concept of ‘artificially created conditions’ - Abuses - Evidence)
   2013/C 325/10
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Slancheva sila EOOD

      Defendant: Izpalnitelen direktor na Darzhaven fond ‘Zemedelie’ Razplashtatelna agentsia

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Interpretation of Article (4)(8) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of the Commission of 27 January 2011, laying down detailed rules for implementing Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 as regards the implementation of control procedures and compliance in measures to support rural development (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 8.) — Support for rural Development — Concept of ‘artificially created circumstances’ — Admissibility of national law according to which, for the recognition of conditions ‘artificially created’ a legal link between the aid applicants is required and Article 4(8) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 is applied subject to three cumulative conditions — Submission of requests for assistance by different applicants with an effective link and using independent neighbouring land which previously formed a single field — Need for a deliberate coordination between candidates and/or third parties in order to gain an advantage — Criteria for the recognition of the benefit within the meaning of Article 4(8) of Regulation (EU) No 65/2011

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(8) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 65/2011 of 27 January 2011 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, as regards the implementation of control procedures as well as cross-compliance in respect of rural development support measures must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions for its application require both an objective and a subjective element. With regard to the first of those elements, it is for the referring court to consider the objective circumstances of the case in question which may lead to the conclusion that the objective pursued by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) support scheme cannot be achieved. With regard to the second element, it is for the referring court to consider the objective evidence which may lead to the conclusion that, by artificially creating the conditions required for obtaining such a payment under the EAFRD support scheme, the applicant for such a payment intended exclusively to obtain an advantage contrary to the objectives of that scheme. In that regard, the referring court can take as its basis not only elements such as the legal, economic and/or personal links between the persons involved in similar investment projects, but also indications showing that there was intentional coordination between those persons.

               2.

               Article 4(8) of Regulation No 65/2011 must be interpreted as precluding the rejection of an application for payment under the EAFRD support scheme on the sole ground that an investment project in respect of which support under that scheme is sought, is not functionally independent or that there is a legal link between the applicants for such support without the other objective elements of the particular case being taken into consideration.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case C-118/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — State aid — Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU — Aid granted by the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land — Competence of the Council of the European Union — Existing aid scheme — Accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union — Aid granted before accession — Appropriate measures — Two indissolubly connected aid schemes — Change of circumstances — Exceptional circumstances — Economic crisis — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 December 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-118/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Article 108(1) and (2) TFEU - Aid granted by the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land - Competence of the Council of the European Union - Existing aid scheme - Accession of the Republic of Latvia to the European Union - Aid granted before accession - Appropriate measures - Two indissolubly connected aid schemes - Change of circumstances - Exceptional circumstances - Economic crisis - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality)
   2014/C 45/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L. Flynn, K. Walkerová and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: É. Sitbon and F. Florindo Gijón, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas and L. Liubertaitė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2009/991/EC of 16 December 2009 on the granting of State aid by the authorities of the Republic of Latvia for the purchase of agricultural land between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (OJ 2009 L 339, p. 34) — Lack of competence — Misuse of powers — Infringement of the principle of sincere cooperation between Member States and institutions — Manifest error of assessment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Lithuania to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case C-28/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2014  — Ryszard Pańczyk v Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji w Warszawie

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie (Poland) lodged on 20 January 2014 — Ryszard Pańczyk v Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji w Warszawie
   (Case C-28/14)
   2014/C 303/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ryszard Pańczyk

      Defendant: Dyrektor Zakładu Emerytalno-Rentowego Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji w Warszawie
   By order of 12 June 2014, the Court of Justice held that it manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the questions submitted by the Sąd Okręgowy w Częstochowie.


title: Case T-15/09: Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/48

         Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
   (Case T-15/09)
   (2009/C 69/105)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

               —

               annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2008, Case R 70/2006-4, in that it refused registration of the Community trade mark application EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 with regard to the entirety of the goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42;

               —

               registration of the application for Community trade mark EURO AUTOMATIC CASH No 4 114 864 for all the goods and services referred to in the application filed;

               —

               OHIM to be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, under Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC CASH’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 4 114 864

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the trade mark applied for is not descriptive and has the necessary distinctive character.


title: Case T-281/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — ecoblue v OHIM — BBVA (Ecoblue)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/15

         Action brought on 23 July 2007 — ecoblue v OHIM — BBVA (Ecoblue)
   (Case T-281/07)
   (2007/C 235/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: ecoblue AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, 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: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 in Case No R 844/2006-1;

               —

               reject the opposition filed by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the ‘Ecoblue’ word mark applied for;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Ecoblue’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38 (application No 2 871 598).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word marks ‘BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 1 345 974), ‘BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 2 065 100), ‘BLUE BBVA’ (Community trade mark No 2 065 621), ‘TARJETA BLUE BBVA’ (Community trade mark No 2 277 291), ‘QNTAME BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 2 391 878), ‘HIPOTECA BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 2 392 181), ‘HIPOTECA BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 2 794 998) and ‘MOTOR BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 3 060 878).

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the opposing marks are not similar and there is therefore no likelihood of confusion.

      (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-131/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Belgium v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Tax scheme exempting excess profits of a number of multinational companies — Exemption granted on the basis of tax rulings — Decision declaring scheme to be aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery of the aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/28

         Order of the President of the General Court of 19 July 2016 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-131/16 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Tax scheme exempting excess profits of a number of multinational companies - Exemption granted on the basis of tax rulings - Decision declaring scheme to be aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering recovery of the aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2016/C 326/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: C. Pochet and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents, and by M. Segura Catalán and M. Clayton, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P.-J. Loewenthal and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION pursuant to Articles 278 and 279 TFEU for the grant of interim measures suspending the operation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision C(2015) 9887 final of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-367/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) of 8 September 2009 — Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau v SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) of 8 September 2009 — Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau v SGS Belgium NV, Firme Derwa NV and Centraal Beheer Achmea NV
   (Case C-367/09)
   2009/C 297/24
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Appellant

               :

               Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau

               Respondents

               :

                           SGS Belgium NV

                           Firme Derwa NV

                           Centraal Beheer Achmea NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do the provisions of Articles 5 and 7 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests have direct effect in the national legal orders of the Member States without any discretion on the part of those Member States and without the national authorities being required to adopt any measures for their implementation?

               2.

               Can an international control and supervisory agency approved by the Member State in which the export declaration was accepted — in this case, Belgium — which has submitted a false certificate of unloading within the meaning of Article 18(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (2) be deemed to be an economic operator within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/95, or a person who has taken part in the irregularity or is under a duty to take responsibility for the irregularity or to ensure that it is not committed, within the meaning of Article 7 of Regulation No 2988/95?

               3.

               Can a communication derived from an investigative report drawn up by the Economic Inspection Board, or a letter requesting the production of additional documents as evidence of the release for consumption, or a registered letter imposing a sanction, be deemed to be investigation or legal proceedings within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products.


title: Case C-143/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court of 7 March 2000, in the cases of Boehringer Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against Swingward Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against Dowelhurst Ltd, Glaxo Group Ltd against Swingward Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against Dowelhurst Ltd, Glaxo Group Ltd against Dowelhurst Ltd, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group plc and SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd against Dowelhurst Ltd and Eli Lilly & Company against Dowelhurst Ltd

text:
C 233/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    follows that the Court of First Instance should have held
                                                                               that the regulations at issue were not of concern to the
—     set aside the judgment delivered on 10 February 2000 by                  Netherlands Antilles within the meaning of the fourth
      the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-32/98 and                  paragraph of Article 230 EC.
      T-41/98;
                                                                         —     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance
—     determining the case itself, declare the applications for                held that Regulations Nos 2352/97 and 2494/97 were of
      annulment of Regulations Nos 2352/97 (1) and                             direct concern to the Government of the Netherlands
      2494/97 (2) inadmissible;                                                Antilles: the consequences of those regulations for the
                                                                               Netherlands Antilles manifested themselves exclusively in
—     alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First                 the socio-economic sphere, in that employment opportu-
      Instance;                                                                nities in the rice sector were potentially threatened and
                                                                               the island region stood to lose revenue from various types
—     order the applicant in the proceedings at first instance to              of taxes.
      pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings at
      first instance.                                                    —     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance
                                                                               held that the Commission, in adopting Regulation
                                                                               No 2532/97, committed an error of law: by omitting, in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                its assessment of the reasons for Regulation No 2352/97,
                                                                               to have regard to the detailed reasons given for the
—     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance             import-restricting measures contained in Regulation
      held that Regulations Nos 2352/97 and 2494/97 were of                    No 2494/97, despite the fact that such an assessment
      individual concern to the Government of the Netherlands                  undoubtedly involves consideration of the consequences
      Antilles: the contested measures of the Commission are                   of Regulation No 2494/97, the Court of First Instance
      applicable to imports from all OCTs and not solely to                    infringed the law. The two regulations form a whole,
      those from the Netherlands Antilles.                                     with the first of them, namely Regulation No 2532/97,
                                                                               constituting merely a vehicle for the practical application
      In the event that the Court of Justice rules that Artic-                 of Article 109 of the OCT decision by means of the
      le 109(2) of the OCT decision must be interpreted as                     second regulation.
      meaning that a regulation applicable to all OCTs is of
      individual concern to each OCT, that will necessarily
      mean that the OCTs are given a right of action comparable          (1) OJ 1997 L 326, p. 21.
                                                                         (2) OJ 1997 L 343, p. 17.
      with that conferred on Member States under the second
      paragraph of Article 230 EC. In that event, the concept
      of a measure being ‘of individual concern’ will to that
      extent be rendered effectively meaningless. The fact that
      an OCT accounts for the majority of imports into
      the Community does not by definition mean that the
      economy of that OCT is affected more than that of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
      another OCT. The Court of First Instance committed an              Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order
      error of reasoning inasmuch as it accepted that criterion          of that court of 7 March 2000, in the cases of Boehringer
      for the purposes of assessing whether the negative                 Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG
      consequences of the regulations in issue made themselves           against Swingward Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim AG and
      felt primarily in the territory of the Netherlands Antilles.       Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against Dowelhurst
                                                                         Ltd, Glaxo Group Ltd against Swingward Ltd, Boehringer
—     Infringement of the law, in that the Court of First Instance
                                                                         Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG
      held that the Government of the Netherlands Antilles had
                                                                         against Dowelhurst Ltd, Glaxo Group Ltd against Dowel-
      an interest in bringing proceedings: the subject-matter of
                                                                         hurst Ltd, SmithKline Beecham plc, Beecham Group
      the dispute (namely, the trading regime between the
                                                                         plc and SmithKline & French Laboratories Ltd against
      Community and the OCTs) falls within the competence
                                                                         Dowelhurst Ltd and Eli Lilly & Company against Dowel-
      of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands
                                                                                hurst Ltd
      Antilles, as an autonomous entity, cannot independently
      bring an action in this matter. Consequently, it was for
      the Kingdom of the Netherlands to determine whether an                                      (Case C-143/00)
      action should be brought for annulment of the regulations
      concerned. The Netherlands Antilles does not have the                                       (2000/C 233/23)
      right to do so.
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      Nor can there be any question of any measures adopted              European Communities by an order of the High Court of
      by the Netherlands Antilles having been divested of their          Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, of 7 March
      legal consequences as a result of the regulations at issue.        2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 April
      In the present case, the Netherlands Antilles brought an           2000, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Boehringer
      action for annulment of regulations which affect the               Ingelheim AG and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against
      economic position of specific undertakings and, consequ-           Swingward Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim AG and Boehringer
      ently, employment opportunities within its territory. It           Ingelheim Pharma AG against Dowelhurst Ltd, Glaxo Group
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/13
Ltd against Swingward Ltd, Boehringer Ingelheim AG and                        (a)   does that requirement apply to all such cases of the
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma AG against Dowelhurst Ltd,                              trade mark, including in advertising, re-labelling and
Glaxo Group Ltd against Dowelhurst Ltd, SmithKline Beecham                          repackaging or, if only some uses, which?
plc, Beecham Group plc and SmithKline & French Laboratories
Ltd against Dowelhurst Ltd and Eli Lilly & Company against                    (b) must the importer or dealer give notice to the
Dowelhurst Ltd, on the following questions:                                         proprietor or is it sufficient that the proprietor
                                                                                receives such notice?
1.    Can a proprietor of a trade mark use his trade mark rights
      to stop or hinder the import of his own goods from one                  (c)   how much notice must be given.
      Member State into another or to hinder their subsequent
      marketing or promotion when the importation, marke-               8.    Is a national court of a Member State entitled, at the suit of
      ting or promotion causes no, or no substantial, harm to                 the proprietor of trade mark rights, to order injunctions,
      the specific subject matter of his rights?                              damages, delivery up and other relief in respect of
                                                                              imported goods or the packaging or advertisements
                                                                              therefor where the making of such an order (a) stops or
2.    Is the answer to the previous question different if the                 impedes the free movement of goods placed upon the
      ground relied on by the proprietor is that the importer or              market within the EC by the proprietor or with his
      subsequent dealer is using his mark in a way which,                     consent but (b) is not for the purpose of preventing harm
      although not prejudicial to its specific subject matter, is             to the specific subject matter of the rights and does not
      not necessary?                                                          help to prevent such harm?
3.    If an importer of the proprietor’s goods or a dealer in
      such imported goods needs to show that his use of the
      proprietor’s mark is ‘necessary’, is that requirement met
      if it is shown that the use of the mark is reasonably
      required to enable him to access (a) part only of the
      market in the goods, or (b) the whole of the market in
      the goods; or does it require that the use of the mark was
      essential to enabling the goods to be placed on the market        Action brought on 17 April 2000 by the Commission of
      and if none of these, what does ‘necessary’ mean?                 the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands
4.    If the proprietor of a mark is, prima facie, entitled to
      enforce his national trade mark rights against any use of                                  (Case C-145/00)
      his mark on or in relation to goods which is not
      necessary, is it abusive conduct and a disguised restriction
      on trade in accordance with the second sentence of                                         (2000/C 233/24)
      Article 30 of the Treaty, to use that entitlement in order
      to hinder or exclude parallel imports of his own goods            An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
      which do not threaten the specific subject matter or              brought before the Court of Justice on 17 April 2000 by the
      essential function of the trade mark?                             Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                        K. Banks and C. Van Der Hauwaert, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                        as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
5.    Where an importer or someone dealing in imported
                                                                        office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
      goods intends to use the proprietor’s trade mark on or in
                                                                        Centre, Kirchberg.
      relation to those goods and such use does and will not
      prejudice the specific subject matter of the mark, must he
      nevertheless give the proprietor advance notice of his            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      intended use of the mark?
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
6.    If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative,           adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures
      does that mean that failure of the importer or dealer to                necessary in order to implement the provisions of
      give such notice has the effect of entitling the proprietor             Directive 97/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
      to restrain or hinder the importation or further commerci-              the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive
      alisation of those goods even though such importation or                89/552/EEC (2) on the coordination of certain provisions
      further commercialisation will not prejudice the specific               laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
      subject matter of the mark?                                             Member States concerning the pursuit of television
                                                                              broadcasting activities, the Kingdom of the Netherlands
                                                                              has failed to comply with its obligations under the Treaty.
7.    If an importer or someone dealing in imported goods                     However, this application has no bearing on the adoption
      must give prior notice to the proprietor in respect of uses             of the measures required in consequence of the amend-
      of the trade mark which do not prejudice the specific                   ments made by Article 1 of Directive 97/36/EC to
      subject matter of the mark,                                             Articles 10 to 19 inclusive of Directive 89/552;


title: Case T-497/10: Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Divandari v Council

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/56

         Action brought on 7 October 2010 — Divandari v Council
   (Case T-497/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/87
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ali Divandari (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Gadhia, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt, QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul paragraph 1 of Table A of the Annex to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 (1) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               annul paragraph 2 of Table A of Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (2) in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Implementing Regulation No 668/2010 and of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
   The four pleas in law relied on by the applicant are identical or similar to the first, second and fifth pleas relied on in Case T-492/10 Melli Bank v Council.

      (1)  Council implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25

      (2)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39


title: Case C-437/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud, Český Krumlov, by order of that court of  28 November 2005  in Jan Vorel v Český Krumlov Hospital

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Okresní Soud, Český Krumlov, by order of that court of 28 November 2005 in Jan Vorel v Český Krumlov Hospital
   (Case C-437/05)
   (2006/C 36/50)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Okresní Soud (District Court), Český Krumlov, of 28 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Jan Vorel and Český Krumlov Hospital on the following question:
   From the point of view of conformity with Directive 93/104/EC (1) and the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-151/02 Stadt Kiel v Norbert Jäger, is a doctor's waiting for work when on call at his place of work in the hospital to be regarded as the performance of work?

      (1)  OJ L 307, p. 18


title: Case T-423/08: Action brought on 27 September 2008 — INTER-NETT 2000 v OHIM

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/43

         Action brought on 27 September 2008 — INTER-NETT 2000 v OHIM
   (Case T-423/08)
   (2008/C 313/79)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): INTER-NETT 2000 Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató kft (Inter-Nett 2000 Kft) (Mór, Hungary) (represented by: E. Petruska, lawyer)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Unión de Agricultores, S.A. (El Ejido, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 July 2008 (Case R 71/2008-2) and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: INTER-NETT 2000

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘HUNGARO’ for goods and services in classes 29, 31 and 35 (application No 004508917).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Unión de Agricultores, S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark ‘UNIAGRO’ for goods in class 31.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, in that OHIM misinterpreted that provision, and breach of Article 12(a) and (b) of Regulation No 40/94, in that the decision of OHIM prevents the applicant from using the name of its proprietor and the designation of the geographical origin of the goods.


title: Case T-46/05: Action brought on  3 February 2005  — Commission v Environmental Management Consultants Ltd

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/22

         Action brought on 3 February 2005 — Commission v Environmental Management Consultants Ltd
   (Case T-46/05)
   (2006/C 108/41)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafillou, and by N. Koroyiannakis, lawyer,)

      Defendant: Environmental Management Consultants Ltd (Nicosia, Cyprus)
   Form of order sought

               —

               that the defendant be ordered to pay EUR 44 056,81, corresponding to EUR 31 965,28 capital and EUR 12 091,53 as default interest, from the date on which the debit note fell due up to 31 January 2005

               —

               that the defendant be ordered to pay interest of EUR 9,62 per day from 1 February 2005 until full satisfaction of the debt, and

               —

               that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded a contract with the defendant which fell under the provisions of the special programme with third countries and international organisations. The contract concerned in particular the carrying out of a project entitled ‘Demonstration of closed-loop procedures in electroplating and metal chemistry’ and should have been completed within 30 months of 1 November 1998. In the context of the contract, the Commission undertook to contribute financially to the proper carrying out of the project with an amount of 50 % of the allowable full costs and 100 % of the additional costs up to EUR 538 000.
   In May 1999 the company which was coordinating the work became insolvent and suspended performance of the project which had begun on 5 February 1999. It was not possible to find another coordinator, despite the efforts of certain of the remaining members of the consortium. Subsequently the Commission decided to terminate the contract after it ascertained that it would not be possible for the remaining members of the consortium to carry out the project. The Commission notified its decision to the defendant by a letter of 16 June 2000, asking the defendant to submit a cost statement and technical report on the work carried out between February and May 1998.
   The defendant submitted a cost statement for the period 1.11.1998 to 30.4.2000, but the Commission decided to proceed to assess the cost of personnel only for the period February to May 1999, which it considers constitutes the period of the actual duration of the programme, and to include the cost of equipment. On the basis of those calculations, the Commission accepted costs of EUR 23 404,72 and by this application seeks reimbursement of an amount of EUR 31 965,28, which constitutes the remainder of the advance it had paid to the defendant, together with the payment of interest owed on that amount in accordance with the relevant provisions .


title: Case C-388/02: Action brought on 4 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/13
(c)    colleagues of the general secretary within the union’s            3.    were outside the territory of the Republic of Austria as a
       secretariat?                                                            result of political persecution or the threat of political
                                                                               persecution and were taken into custody for political or
                                                                               military reasons by a foreign power and detained after
                                                                               the start of the Second World War,
Question 5
                                                                         is to be conditional on such persons holding Austrian national-
What bearing on the answers to Questions 1 to 4 has the fact             ity at the time of application?
that the inside information which is disclosed is
(a)    information on the commencement of merger nego-
       tiations between two companies quoted on the stock
       exchange;
(b)    information on the date of merger of two companies
       quoted on the stock exchange; or                                  Action brought on 4 November 2002 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
(c)    information on the level of the rise in the value of shares
       in a company quoted on the stock exchange which is                                           (Case C-388/02)
       anticipated by reason of the fact that the company is to
       merge with another quoted company?
                                                                                (2003/C 7/23)
( 1) Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinat-
     ing regulations on insider dealing (OJ L 334 of 18.11.1989,
     p. 30).                                                             An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 November 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Maria Patakia and Karen Banks, acting as agents, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeits- und                   The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Sozialgerichts Wien by decision of that Court of 22 Octo-
ber 2002 in the proceedings between Josef Baldinger and                  1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
           Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                               the Council of 7 June 1999 on the establishment of a
                          (Case C-386/02)
                                                                               mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect
                                                                               of the professional activities covered by the Directives on
                           (2003/C 7/22)                                       liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-
                                                                               plementing the general systems for the recognition of
                                                                               qualifications ( 1), or in any event by failing to communi-
                                                                               cate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         its obligations under the Directive;
European Communities by decision of the Arbeits- und
Sozialgerichts Wien (Labour and Social Court Vienna) of
                                                                         2.    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
22 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 28 October
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Josef Baldinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
(Pension Insurance Scheme for Workers) on the following
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
questions:
Is Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty, on the free movement of               Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
workers, to be interpreted as precluding a national rule which           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
provides that entitlement to financial compensation first                implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
legislated for in the year 2000 for persons who                          period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
                                                                         expired on 31 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
1.     became prisoners of war in the course of the First or             provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
       Second World War; or                                              in the conclusions of the Commission.
2.     were taken into custody and detained by a foreign power
       for political or military reasons in the course of the            (1 ) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.
       Second World War or during the period when Austria
       was occupied by the allied forces; or


title: Case T-352/09: Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Novácke chemické závody v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Equal treatment — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Ability to pay)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/15

         Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2012 — Novácke chemické závody v Commission
   (Case T-352/09) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Equal treatment - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Ability to pay)
   2013/C 32/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novácke chemické závody a.s. (Nováky, Slovakia) (represented initially by: A. Černejová, and subsequently by M. Bol’oš and L. Bányaiová, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, N. von Lingen and A. Tokár, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, cancellation or a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novácke chemické závody a.s. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Slovak Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


9.12.2000             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 355/19
       Removal from the register of Case C-139/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-445/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/38)                                                     (2000/C 355/41)
By order of 13 July 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber         By order of 1 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-139/99:             the register of Case C-445/99: Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.                   Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-22/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-420/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/39)                                                     (2000/C 355/42)
By order of 19 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 2 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-22/00: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-420/99 Commission of the European
Communities v Ireland.                                              Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-437/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 355/40)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-42/00 (1)
By order of 28 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                             (2000/C 355/43)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-437/99: Commission of the European           By order of 3 August 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
Communities v Ireland.                                              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                    the register of Case C-42/00: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                           Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case T-54/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Vtesse Networks v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/52

         Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Vtesse Networks v Commission
   (Case T-54/07)
   (2007/C 82/107)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Vtesse Networks Ltd. (St. Albans, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Mercer, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the decision insofar as it determined that the application by the United Kingdom of the tax on non-domestic property to BT plc from 1995 to the end of 2005 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC;

               —

               order the Commission to pay Vtesse's costs of this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2006/951/EC (1) of 12 October 2006 finding that the application by the United Kingdom of the tax on non-domestic property to BT plc and Kingston Communications plc from 1995 until the end of 2005 does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC.
   The applicant alleges that the Commission failed to consider and/or to investigate the competitive disadvantage suffered by the applicant vis-à-vis BT plc at the margin when bidding alongside BT plc for contracts with customers for high capacity retail leased lines using optical fibres.
   The applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in the application of Article 87(1) EC in particular by failing to define the relevant market and thereby failing to identify the advantage in fact granted by business rates to BT plc in relation to competition at the margin.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission committed a manifest error of appraisal of the significance and relevance of the class of contracts where the applicant competed with BT plc and failed to investigate sufficiently the facts of competition at the margin leading to the Commission's reliance on a market share for BT plc of 12 % when the most relevant market share for BT plc was, according to the applicant, 78 %.
   Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission did not sufficiently reason the contested decision with regard to the competition actually occurring between the applicant and BT plc.

      (1)  Commission Decision of 12 October 2006 — the United Kingdom's application of the tax on non-domestic property to telecommunications infrastructure in the United Kingdom (No C 4/2005 (ex NN 57/2004, ex CP 26/2004) — notified under document number C(2006) 4378) (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 70).


title: Case C-302/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2008 — Zino Davidoff SA v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 8 July 2008 — Zino Davidoff SA v Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost
   (Case C-302/08)
   (2008/C 247/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA

      Defendant: Bundesfinanzdirektion Südost
   Question referred
   In the light of the accession of the European Community to the Madrid Protocol, is Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003, concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, despite the use of the term ‘Community trade mark’, marks with international registrations within the meaning of Article 146 et seq. of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1992/2003 of 27 October 2003, are also covered?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 196, p. 7.


title: Case C-282/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 May 2016 — RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l. v Heta Asset Resolution AG

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 20 May 2016 — RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l. v Heta Asset Resolution AG
   (Case C-282/16)
   (2016/C 314/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: RMF Financial Holdings S.a.r.l.

      Defendant: Heta Asset Resolution AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2(1)(2) and (23) of Directive 2014/59/EU (1) establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms in conjunction with Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms, under which a ‘credit institution’ is an undertaking the business of which is to take deposits and/or other repayable funds from the public and to grant credits for its own account (‘CRR institution’), to be interpreted to the effect that a wind-down entity (wind-down company) which no longer holds a banking licence to transact banking business or is now permitted to transact (banking) business on the basis of a statutory licence solely for the purposes of portfolio liquidation also falls within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU?

               2.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/24/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (as amended by Article 117(1) of Directive 2014/59/EU) to be interpreted to the effect that a write-down measure ordered by a national administrative authority is fully effective as against persons resident in other Member States — also having regard to Article 17(1) of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights — without any further formalities (despite the negative answer to Question 1)?

               3.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Does the free movement of capital enshrined in EU law by Article 63(1) TFEU preclude a national provision which extends the scope of Directive 2014/59/EU to a wind-down entity (wind-down company) which no longer holds a banking licence to transact banking business or is now permitted to transact (banking) business on the basis of a statutory licence solely for the purposes of portfolio liquidation?

               4.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is EU law to be interpreted, in the light of the principle of ‘effet utile’ and the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, to the effect that a write-down measure ordered by a national administrative authority is to be recognised in another Member State even where the rules of national law based on Directive 2014/59/EU are also applied to an institution which, upon the entry into force of Directive 2014/59/EU on 2 July 2014, was still a credit institution within the meaning of Article 4(1)(1) of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 (CRR institution), but which lost that status before the expiry of the period for the transposition of Directive 2014/59/EU into national law on 31 December 2014?

               5.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Is the term ‘secured liability’ in Article 2(1)(67) and Article 44(2)(b) of Directive 2014/59/EU establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms to be interpreted, in particular having regard to Article 1(2) of Directive 2014/59/EU, as also encompassing liabilities for which a regional public authority (in this case the Austrian Province of Carinthia) has assumed a statutory deficiency guarantee?

               6.

               In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Are Article 43(2)(b) and Article 59(3)(b) and (4) of Directive 2014/59/EU to be interpreted as precluding a national provision by virtue of which a measure corresponding to the bail-in tool under Article 43 of Directive 2014/59/EU is implemented in a case where there is no longer a realistic prospect that the institution’s viability may be restored and where no systemically important services are transferred to a bridge institution and no other parts of the institution’s business may be sold any longer, but the sole purpose of that institution is management of assets, rights and liabilities with a view to the orderly, active and optimum realisation of those individual assets, rights and liabilities (portfolio liquidation)? In such a case, in accordance with the requirements laid down in Directive 2014/59/EU, should the liquidation of that wind-down entity (wind-down company) preferentially be carried out in the context of orderly insolvency proceedings?

      (1)  Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, of the European Parliament and of the Council Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190).

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1).

      (3)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125, p. 15).


title: Case T-27/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament (Interim measures — Institutional law — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament
   (Case T-27/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Institutional law - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))
   (2017/C 269/36)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvillers, France) (represented initially by J.-P. Le Moigne, and subsequently by M. Ceccaldi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 concerning the waiver of Mr Jalkh’s immunity in view of the judicial investigation (No 14142000183) open before the tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (Court of First Instance, Nanterre, France).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-220/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lyon, France) — Jean Auroux, Marie-Hélène Riamon, Christian Avocat, Laure Deroche, Pascal Mirabel, Vladimir Serdeczny, Paul Perard, Dolorès Ponramon, Elisabeth Roche v Commune de Roanne (Public procurement — Directive 93/37/EEC — Award without call for tenders — Contract for the implementation of a development project concluded between two contracting authorities — Definition of public works contract and work — Method of calculation of the value of the contract)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Lyon, France) — Jean Auroux, Marie-Hélène Riamon, Christian Avocat, Laure Deroche, Pascal Mirabel, Vladimir Serdeczny, Paul Perard, Dolorès Ponramon, Elisabeth Roche v Commune de Roanne
   (Case C-220/05) (1)

   (Public procurement - Directive 93/37/EEC - Award without call for tenders - Contract for the implementation of a development project concluded between two contracting authorities - Definition of ‘public works contract’ and ‘work’ - Method of calculation of the value of the contract)
   (2007/C 56/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal administratif de Lyon, France
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jean Auroux, Marie-Hélène Riamon, Christian Avocat, Laure Deroche, Pascal Mirabel, Vladimir Serdeczny, Paul Perard, Dolorès Ponramon, Elisabeth Roche

      Defendant: Commune de Roanne

      intervening party: Société d'équipement du département de la Loire (SEDL)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Administratif de Lyon — Interpretation of Articles 1 and 6 of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) — Public development agreement concluded in the public interest between two contracting authorities for the realisation of a development procedure under which the latter contracting authority carries out works designed to meet the requirements of the former, with the former authority acquiring ownership in all of the works that have not been assigned to third parties on the expiry of the procedure — Methods for assessing the value of the market in order to set a threshold for the application of the award procedures — Construction of a leisure complex and a car park
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               An agreement by which a first contracting authority entrusts a second contracting authority with the execution of a work constitutes a public works contract within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, regardless of whether or not it is anticipated that the first contracting authority is or will become the owner of all or part of that work.

               2)

               In order to determine the value of a contract for the purpose of Article 6 of Directive 93/37, as amended by Directive 97/52, account must be taken of the total value of the works contract from the point of view of a potential tenderer, including not only the total amounts to be paid by the contracting authority but also all the revenue received from third parties.

               3)

               A contracting authority is not exempt from using the procedures for the award of public works contracts laid down in Directive 93/37, as amended by Directive 97/52, on the ground that, in accordance with national law, the agreement may be concluded only with certain legal persons, which themselves have the capacity of contracting authority and which will be obliged, in turn, to apply those procedures to the award of any subsequent contracts.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case T-328/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by Geoffroy Alsteens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2015 in Case F-87/12 RENV Alsteens v Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/43

         Appeal brought on 24 June 2015 by Geoffroy Alsteens against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 April 2015 in Case F-87/12 RENV Alsteens v Commission
   (Case T-328/15 P)
   (2015/C 279/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Geoffroy Alsteens (Marcinelle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-87/12 RENV Alsteens v Commission;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2011 to the extent that it fixes 31 March 2012 as the limit of the extension period for the appellant’s temporary staff contract;

               —

               order the Commission to pay a provisional sum of 1 euro by way of compensation for the damage suffered by the appellant, together with the costs of the four sets of legal proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant raises three grounds in support of his appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the adversarial principle and an error of law. The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal (‘the CST’) (i) wrongly rejected as inadmissible, in the light of the rule of correspondence, the pleas in law based on a manifest error of assessment and the principle of sound administration, even though the Commission had never raised an objection of inadmissibility and the parties had never had the opportunity to take a position on that alleged inadmissibility, and (ii) in any event, erred in law in finding that the appellant had not complied with the rule of correspondence.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging a distortion of the appellant’s arguments, a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and an error of law, as the CST held that it was not necessary to give a ruling on the interpretation of Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘the CEOS’) and that the judgment of 5 October 1995 in Alexopoulou v Commission (T-17/95, ECR — SC, EU:T:1995:176) was entirely irrelevant for the purposes of resolving the dispute.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging a breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and an error of law, as the CST held that it was necessary to receive a specific request from the appellant in order to derogate from the mechanical application of the six-year rule, thereby disregarding the fact that the contested decision was an act adversely affecting the appellant.


title: Case F-113/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Bouis and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Second round promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Award of priority points — Transitional provisions — General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Equal treatment — Admissibility)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Bouis and Others v Commission
   (Case F-113/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - ‘Second round’ promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Award of priority points - Transitional provisions - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Equal treatment - Admissibility)
   (2009/C 32/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Didier Bouis (Overijse, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents)
   Re:
   Staff case — First, annulment of the decision of the Commission not to include the applicants either on the merit list or on the list of those promoted to grade A*13 in the 2005 promotion procedure; second, annulment of the decisions to award the applicants transitional priority points inasmuch as these points are limited to one point per year of seniority in grade; third, annulment of the decisions not to award any other priority points to the applicants.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 49.