title: Case T-44/01: Action brought on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo Vieira y Vieira Argentina, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 134/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.5.2001
Action brought on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo Vieira y                   In support of its claims, the applicants claim:
Vieira Argentina, S.A. against Commission of the Euro-
                       pean Communities                                  —    Erroneous legal basis, inasmuch as the Commission
                                                                              claims that the legal basis for initiating a proceeding
                                                                              for reduction is Regulation Council Regulation (EEC)
                         (Case T-44/01)                                       No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down pro-
                                                                              visions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88
                                                                              as regards coordination of the activities of the different
                                                                              Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
                        (2001/C 134/56)                                       ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                              existing financial instruments. (1). On the contrary, the
                                                                              applicants consider that that legal basis is not applicable
                                                                              to joint companies set up under the EC/Argentina Agree-
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                            ment. That error with respect to the legal basis also affects
                                                                              the quantum by which the assistance may be reduced.
                                                                         —    Complete disregard by the Commission for the legal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              scheme applicable to joint fishing companies which it
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              proposed itself pursuant to the Fishing Agreement with
European Communities on 26 February 2001 by Eduardo
                                                                              Argentina, so far as concerns both the erroneous appli-
Vieira y Vieira Argentina, S.A., whose registered office is in
                                                                              cation of the general proceeding and the absence of a
Pontevedra (Spain), represented by Ramón Garcı́a-Gallardo
                                                                              decision suspending the financial assistance.
and Mª Dolores Domı́nguez Pérez.
                                                                         —    Breach by the defendant of the duties of care and good
                                                                              administration, as well as its obligation to act within a
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   reasonable time.
—      order the Commission to compensate the applicants for             —    Breach of the rights of the defence of one of the
       the damage caused to them by delayed payment of part                   applicants, inasmuch as Vieira Argentina SA was never
       of the aid;                                                            notified by the Commission of its intention to reduce the
                                                                              assistance, much less to suspend it for the duration of the
                                                                              proceedings.
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action was brought by two undertakings owners
of fishing vessels to which, in the context of the Fishing
Agreement between the Community and the Argentine Repub-
lic, the Community granted in 1995 a subsidy for the export
to Argentina of a vessel flying a Community flag to a                    Action brought on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
joint Community-Argentinian company. In this regard the                  Others against the Commission of the European Com-
applicants claim that, more than 5 years after the joint                                              munities
company was set up, the defendant institution not only has
not paid the remaining balance of the assistance, amounting
to EUR 432 846,28, it even seeks to recover the part of the                                        (Case T-45/01)
amount paid by the beneficiaries.
                                                                                (2001/C 134/57)
The purpose of the present application is precisely to seek
from the Commission compensation for the damage caused to                                  (Language of the case: English)
the applicants by delaying payment of the outstanding balance
of the assistance. Furthermore, the Commission never deemed
it necessary to suspend the assistance, so that it has never             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
notified beneficiaries formally that the assistance had been             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
suspended. The defendant has in fact initiated a proceeding              European Communities on 27 February 2001 by Sanders and
seeking to reduce the amount, the outcome being suspension               Others, represented by Ian Hutton, of Monckton Chambers,
of payment of the balance of the assistance.                             London (U.K.).


title: Case T-45/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission (Action for annulment — Time-limits for commencing proceedings — Starting point — Publication in the Official Journal — Alleged lack of locus standi at the date of publication — Inadmissibility)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/31

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 November 2008 — Transportes Evaristo Molina v Commission
   (Case T-45/08) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Time-limits for commencing proceedings - Starting point - Publication in the Official Journal - Alleged lack of locus standi at the date of publication - Inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 6/63)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA (El Ejido, Spain) (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo, L. Ruiz Ezquerra and C. Flores Hernández, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: É. Gippini, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2006/446/EC of 12 April 2006, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/B-1/38.348 — Repsol CPP) (summary published in OJ 2006 L 176, p. 104) making binding the undertakings made by Repsol CPP, adopted in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               It is not necessary to adjudicate on the application to intervene made by Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, SA.

               3.

               Transportes Evaristo Molina, SA shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-410/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  6 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia) — Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) v Commune di Bari, A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA (Freedom to provide services — Local public transport service — Award with no call for tenders — Award by a public authority to an undertaking of which it owns the share capital)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia) — Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) v Commune di Bari, A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA
   (Case C-410/04) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Local public transport service - Award with no call for tenders - Award by a public authority to an undertaking of which it owns the share capital)
   (2006/C 143/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV)

      Defendant: Commune di Bari, A.M.T.A.B. Servizio SpA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia — Compatibility with Articles 46, 49 and 86 EC of national legislation permitting a municipality to award the management of a local public transport service to a company the share capital of which is wholly public — Award not made following the procedures laid down by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC, and the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and transparency do not preclude national legislation which allows a public authority to award a contract for the provision of a public service directly to a company of which it wholly owns the share capital, provided that the public authority exercises over that company control comparable to that exercised over its own departments and that that company carries out the essential part of its activities with the controlling authority.

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case C-91/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 March 2009 — Eis.de GmbH v BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH
   (Case C-91/09)
   2009/C 129/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eis.de GmbH

      Defendant: BBY Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH

      Question referred

   Is there use for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 89/104/EEC (1) where a third party provides as a keyword to a search engine operator a sign which is identical with a trade mark, without the consent of the proprietor of that trade mark, so that, on inputting the sign identical with the trade mark as a search term into the search engine, an electronic promotional link to the third party’s website advertising identical goods or services appears in an advertising block set apart from the list of search results, that link is marked as a sponsored link and the advertisement itself does not comprise the sign nor contain any reference to the trade mark proprietor or to the products it is offering for sale?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 1).


title: Case T-812/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 February 2015 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Financial sector — Aid granted in the context of the resolution of a bank — Decision not to raise objections — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/27

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 February 2015 — BPC Lux 2 and Others v Commission
   (Case T-812/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - Financial sector - Aid granted in the context of the resolution of a bank - Decision not to raise objections - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))
   (2015/C 127/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg); BPC UKI LP (George Town, Cayman Islands, United Kingdom); Bennett Offshore Restructuring Fund, Inc. (George Town); Bennett Restructuring Fund LP (Wilmington, Delaware, United States); Queen Street Fund Ltd (George Town); BTG Pactual Global Emerging Markets and Macro Master Fund LP (George Town); BTG Pactual Absolute Return II Master Fund LP (George Town); CSS LLC (Chicago, Illinois, United States); Beltway Strategic Opportunities Fund LP (George Town); EJF Debt Opportunities Master Fund LP (George Town); EJF DO Fund (Cayman) LP (George Town); TP Lux HoldCo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); VR Global Partners LP (George Town); Absalon II Ltd (Dublin, Ireland); CenturyLink, Inc. Defined Benefit Master Trust (Denver, Colorado, United States); City of New York Group Trust (New York, New York, United States); Dignity Health (San Francisco, California, United States); GoldenTree Asset Management Lux Sàrl (Luxembourg); GoldenTree High Yield Value Fund Offshore 110 Two Ltd (Dublin); and San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association (San Bernardino, California, United States) (represented by: J. Webber, M. Steenson, Solicitors, and P. Fajardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the suspension of operation of Commission Decision C (2014) 5682 final of 3 August 2014 not to raise objections to State aid SA.39250 (2014/N), notified by Portugal, for the resolution of Banco Espírito Santo SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-454/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Aid for New Interline SpA — Recovery)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 October 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-454/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Aid for New Interline SpA - Recovery)
   2011/C 355/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieir, acting as Agent, P. Gentili and B. Tidore, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline (notified under document number C(2008) 1321)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to ensure implementation of Commission Decision 2008/697/EC of 16 April 2008 on State Aid C 13/07 (ex NN 15/06 and N 734/06) implemented by Italy for New Interline, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and Articles 2 and 3 of that decision;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case F-50/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Hristova v Commission (Staff cases — Recruitment — Open competition — Conditions for admission — Rejection of candidature — Statement of reasons — Diplomas)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/70

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 November 2008 — Hristova v Commission
   (Case F-50/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Recruitment - Open competition - Conditions for admission - Rejection of candidature - Statement of reasons - Diplomas)
   (2009/C 44/120)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Valentina Hristova (Pavlikeni, Bulgaria) (represented by: G. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition on the ground that she did not have three years' professional experience in secretarial work after having obtained her diploma — Claim for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the selection board in open competition EPSO/AST/14/06 refusing to admit Ms Hristova to the tests in that competition;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 79 of 29.3.2008, p. 36.


title: Case T-440/09: Action brought on 3 November 2009 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/42

         Action brought on 3 November 2009 — Azienda Agricola Bracesco v Commission
   (Case T-440/09)
   2009/C 312/69
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Azienda Agricola Bracesco Srl (Orgiano, Italy) (represented by: F. Tosello, S. Rizzioli and C. Pauly, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commission, in accordance with Article 235, and the second paragraph of Article 288, of the EC Treaty, to pay Azienda Agricola Bracesco srl, now in liquidation, damages in the amount of EUR 335 000, or such other sum as may be determined in the course of the proceedings or, in any event, as may be held to be fair, together with interest at the statutory rate until due settlement.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present application for compensation for damage, based on the non-contractual liability of the European Communities, is made in the context of the Community measures to combat avian influenza.
   In that connection, it is pointed out that, following the disruption to the European poultrymeat market brought about by the fall in prices resulting from the reduction in consumer demand — which was in turn linked to the spread of avian influenza — the Commission decided to take action by means of Regulation No 1010/2006, (1) which makes provision for support measures for poultry producers.
   However, notwithstanding the fact that the definition of poultry in the Community animal health legislation covers quail, poultry producers involved in the raising and slaughtering of that species have been excluded, without any reasons being given, from receiving the aid.
   The applicant — Azienda Agricola Bracesco srl in liquidation — submits that it has suffered wrongful damage as a result of the conduct of the Commission, which constitutes a manifest and serious infringement of one of the fundamental principles of the Community legal order, that is to say, the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1010/2006 of 3 July 2006 on certain exceptional market support measures in the eggs and poultry sector in certain Member States (OJ 2006 L 180, p. 3).


title: Case C-261/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2007 — VTB-VAB NV v Total Belgium NV

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 1 June 2007 — VTB-VAB NV v Total Belgium NV
   (Case C-261/07)
   (2007/C 199/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: VTB-VAB NV

      Defendant: Total Belgium NV
   Question referred
   Does Directive 2005/29 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair commercial practices preclude a national provision such as Article 54 of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 on commercial practices, consumer information and consumer protection, which, subject to the exhaustive list of exceptions contained within that Law, prohibits any collateral offer by a seller to a consumer, including an offer in which goods which the consumer has to buy are tied to a free service, the acquisition of which is linked to the purchase of the goods, notwithstanding the circumstances of individual cases, in particular notwithstanding the possible influence of the actual offer on the average consumer, or whether, in the actual circumstances, that offer may be regarded as contravening the professional duty of care and genuine commercial custom?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-38/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova): Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C. v. Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Srl (Competition - Road transport - Mandatory tariff - State legislation - Concepts of general interest and public interest)

text:
C 358/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 October 1998, the                         hire, provided that the tariffs are fixed with due
operative part of which is at follows:                                    regard for the public-interest criteria defined by Law
                                                                          No 298 and the public authorities do not hand over
                                                                          their prerogatives to private economic agents in taking
1. The application is dismissed;                                          into account, before the approval of proposals, of the
                                                                          observations of other public and private bodies and
                                                                          even by fixing tariffs ex officio.
2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.                                             2. The concept of general interest to which the Court
                                                                          referred in its judgments in Case C-185/91 Reiff
                                                                          and in Case C-153/93 Delta Schiffahrts- und
                                                                          Speditionsgesellschaft corresponds to the concept of
                                                                          public interest mentioned in its judgment in Case
                                                                          C-96/94 Centro Servizi Spediporto.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     3. It is for the Member States to determine the specific
                      (Second Chamber)                                    criteria to be used in fixing tariffs, such as those in
                      of 1 October 1998                                   force under Italian law, and for the national courts to
                                                                          determine whether the criteria thus defined are
in Case C-38/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  respected in practice.
the Giudice di Pace di Genova): Autotrasporti Librandi
Snc di Librandi F. & C. v. Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi
                     Internazionali Srl (1)                          4. The fact that collective agreements such as those
                                                                          provided for in Article 13 of the Ministerial Decree of
(Competition Ð Road transport Ð Mandatory tariff Ð
                                                                          18 November 1982 can be concluded and that they
State legislation Ð Concepts of general interest and public
                                                                          are even enforceable under national law against
                           interest)
                                                                          operators who have not signed them does not have the
                        (98/C 358/08)                                     effect of restricting competition within the meaning of
                                                                          Article 85 of the Treaty.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-38/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Giudice di Pace di Genova                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Magistrate's Court, Genoa) (Italy), for a preliminary                                        (Sixth Chamber)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
between Autotrasporti Librandi Snc di Librandi F. & C.                                      of 1 October 1998
and Cuttica Spedizioni e Servizi Internazionali Srl Ð on                    in Case C-71/97: Commission of the European
the interpretation of Article 3(f) and (g), and Articles 5, 85                    Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
and 86 of the EC Treaty and of the concepts of general
interest' and collective agreement' Ð the Court (Second             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),                                    Failure to transpose a directive)
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G.
                                                                                (98/C 358/09)
Hirsch, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
1. Article 3(f) and (g), and Articles 5, 85, 86 and 90 of
     the EC Treaty do not preclude legislation of a Member             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     State which provides for road-haulage tariffs to be                       published in the European Court Reports)
     approved and brought into force by the State on the
     basis of proposals of a central committee the majority
     of whose members are representatives of the economic            In Case C-71/97: Commission of the European
     agents concerned and which extends the mandatory                Communities (Agent: Fernando Castillo de la Torre) v.
     tariffs applicable in the field of contracts for the            Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde) Ð
     carriage of goods by road to other types of contracts,          application for a declaration that, first, by failing to
     relating to different services, such as, in particular,         designate the zones considered to be vulnerable and to
     contracts under invitations to tender and contracts for         notify the Commission of those designations and, second,


title: Case C-294/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 22 May 2017 — Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel v College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant
   (Case C-294/17)
   (2017/C 293/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Stichting Werkgroep Behoud de Peel

      Defendant: College van gedeputeerde staten van Noord-Brabant

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,‘the Habitats Directive’) preclude legislation which exempts from the permit requirement projects and other operations causing nitrogen deposition which do not exceed a threshold value or a limit value, and are therefore permitted without individual approval, proceeding on the assumption that the effect of all projects and other operations taken together which could make use of the legislation, have been appropriately assessed before the adoption of the legislation?

               2.

               Does Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206) preclude an appropriate assessment for a programme in which a certain total amount of nitrogen deposition is assessed, being used as the basis for granting an authorisation (individual approval) for a project or other operation which causes nitrogen deposition which fits within the room for deposition assessed in the context of the programme?

               3.

               May the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206), which is made for a programme such as the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021, take into account the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps for existing areas of habitat types and habitats, which are taken in connection with the obligations arising from Article 6(1) and (2) of that Directive?

                           3(a)

                           If question 3 is answered in the affirmative: can the positive effects of conservation measures and appropriate steps be taken into account in an appropriate assessment if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, those measures have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved?

                     Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of these measures based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the implementation and the results of those measures be monitored and, if it transpires that the effects are less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

               4.

               May the positive effects of the autonomous decrease of the nitrogen deposition which might become apparent during the period in which the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 applies, be taken into account in the appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206)?
               Assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those developments based on the best available scientific knowledge in that regard, is it important that the autonomous decrease in the nitrogen deposition be monitored and, if it transpires that the decrease is less favourable than had been assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments, if required, be made?

               5.

               May restoration measures taken in the context of the Programma Aanpak Stikstof 2015-2021 and aimed at preventing a particular harmful ecological factor, such as nitrogen deposition, from having adverse effects for existing areas of habitat types or habitats, be considered protective measures as referred to in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 May 2014, Briels, ECLI:EU:C:2014:330, which may be taken into account in an appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206)?

                           5(a)

                           If question 5 is answered in the affirmative: Can the positive effects of protective measures which may be taken into account in the appropriate assessment be taken into account if, at the time of the appropriate assessment, they have not yet been implemented and their positive effect has not yet been achieved?

                     Is it important in that respect, assuming that the appropriate assessment contains definitive findings on the effects of those measures based on the best scientific knowledge in that regard, that the implementation and the results of the measures be monitored, and if that indicates that the results are less favorable than assumed in the appropriate assessment, that adjustments take place if necessary?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case C-385/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme, BellandVision GmbH (Appeal — Competition — Article 82 EC — System for the collection and recovery of used packaging in Germany — Der Grüne Punkt logo — Fee payable under a trade mark agreement — Abuse of dominant position — Exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark — Excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance — Reasonable time — Principle of effective legal protection — Articles 58 and 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 July 2009 — Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme, BellandVision GmbH
   (Case C-385/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Article 82 EC - System for the collection and recovery of used packaging in Germany - ‘Der Grüne Punkt’ logo - Fee payable under a trade mark agreement - Abuse of dominant position - Exclusive right of the proprietor of a trade mark - Excessive duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance - Reasonable time - Principle of effective legal protection - Articles 58 and 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice)
   2009/C 220/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH (represented by: W. Deselaers, E. Wagner and B. Meyring, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and R. Sauer, acting as Agents), Vfw GmbH (represented by: H. Wissel, Rechtsanwalt), Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme (represented by: A. Rinne and M. Westrup, Rechtsanwälte), Belland Vision GmbH (represented by: A. Rinne and M. Westrup, Rechtsanwälte)

      Intervener in support of the Commission: Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH (represented by: W. Pauly, A. Oexle and J. Kempkes, Rechtsanwälte)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 24 May 2007 in Case T-151/01 Duales System Deutschland v Commission, by which that Court dismissed the action seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2001/463/EC of 20 April 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/34493 — DSD) (OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1) — Abuse of a dominant position — Collection and recovery system for packaging put into circulation in Germany and carrying the Der Grüne Punkt logo

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Der Grüne Punkt — Duales System Deutschland GmbH to bear its own costs, together with the costs of these proceedings incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, Interseroh Dienstleistungs GmbH, Vfw GmbH, Landbell AG für Rückhol-Systeme and BellandVision GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2009.


title: Case T-295/06: Action brought on 19 October 2006 — BASE v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/24

         Action brought on 19 October 2006 — BASE v Commission
   (Case T-295/06)
   (2006/C 310/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: BASE NV (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Verheyden, Y. Desmedt and F. Bimont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Commission infringed the rules of procedure set out in Article 7(4) of the Framework Directive (1) by wrongly failing to open a detailed investigation procedure into the draft regulatory measures that were communicated to it by the Institut Belge des Services Postaux (IBPT);

               —

               Declare that the Commission committed a number of manifest errors of assessment in its analysis of the draft measures communicated by the IBPT in finding, wrongly, that BASE had significant power on the market for voice call termination on its own individual mobile network in Belgium;

               —

               Declare that the Commission acted in breach of the general principles and the fundamental objectives laid down in the New Regulatory Framework by wrongly approving the remedies proposed by the IBPT, when the imposition of each one of those remedies was manifestly disproportionate and excessive. In particular, the Commission infringed both the general principles and the fundamental objectives laid down in the New Regulatory Framework by postulating the application of symmetrical termination charges in the short term, without considering the concrete implications of this symmetry for BASE, the third entrant on the market;

               —

               Annul, for all of the reasons outlined above, the Commission decision in its entirety;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision of 4 August 2006 (Case BE/2006/0433), the Commission approved, at the end of the first phase of enquiry prescribed in Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC, a draft decision that the national regulatory authority of Belgium, the IBPT, had communicated to it on 7 July 2006 concerning the wholesale market for call termination on individual mobile networks in Belgium and under which the IBPT had provisionally decided that each of the three mobile network operators in Belgium, including the applicant, had significant market power on the wholesale market for voice call termination on their individual mobile networks, and to impose on them, on that basis, certain obligations. The draft decision communicated by the IBPT also contained a decision to put in place a ‘glide path’ mechanism which aims gradually to reduce the levels of termination charges of Belgian mobile operators until 2008.
   In support of its action for annulment, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.
   In its first plea, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed the rules for the consultation procedure laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2002/21/EC by wrongly failing to open a detailed investigation procedure under Article 7(4) of that directive, when, according to the applicant, the draft measures communicated by the IBPT could not, by reference to the evidence and reasoning contained in the notification file, justify the designation of the applicant as an operator having significant power on the wholesale market for mobile call termination in Belgium.
   In its second plea, the applicant claims that the Commission made a number of manifest errors of assessment in its assessment of the significant power held by the applicant on the market for voice call termination in Belgium, as outlined by the Belgian national authority.
   In its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to have regard, in its assessment of the justified and appropriate nature of the remedies proposed by the IBPT, to the principles and objectives of the New Regulatory Framework for electronic communications. In particular, the applicant claims that the fact that the Commission postulated the application of symmetrical termination charges is a manifest infringement of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination in that the Commission failed to have sufficient regard to the applicant's position and the objective differences that pertained between it and the other mobile operators. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the tariff rules approved by the Commission constitute a misuse of powers and infringe Article 2 of Directive 2002/77/EC. (2)

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).


title: Case T-328/09: Action brought on 19 August 2009 — Producteurs de Légumes de France v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/69

         Action brought on 19 August 2009 — Producteurs de Légumes de France v Commission
   (Case T-328/09)
   2009/C 267/125
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Les Producteurs de Légumes de France (Paris, France) (represented by: O. Fachin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision on the basis of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 of the EC Treaty;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 203 final of 28 January 2009, (1) by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the State aid granted by the French Republic to fruit and vegetable producers under the ‘contingency plans’ intended to facilitate marketing of agricultural products harvested in France and instructed the French Republic to recover the aid in question.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises two pleas in law, alleging:

               —

               breach of the principle of legitimate expectations, since the fact that the Commission was, in the period 1992 to 2002, aware of the existence of the contingency plans but did not, even so, institute a procedure gave rise to expectations on the part of the producers as to the validity of those plans;

               —

               an error in the amount of reimbursement sought in respect of 2001, which affects the overall amount of the reimbursement and the interest claimed.

      (1)  OJ L 127, p.11 — published as Decision 2009/402/EC.


title: Case C-489/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Lajos Tiborné Böszörményi (Debrecen, Hungary) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (Budapest, Hungary)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Lajos Tiborné Böszörményi (Debrecen, Hungary) v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (Budapest, Hungary)
   (Case C-489/12)
   2013/C 79/05
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lajos Tiborné Böszörményi (Debrecen, Hungary)

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (Budapest, Hungary)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 30 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that that provision is intended to guarantee the possibility of a legal remedy only for unlawful and unjustified dismissal?

               2.

               Does that provision mean that an employer is bound to provide the employee with reasons in writing on dismissal and the dismissal will then not be unjustified?

               3.

               Does failure to communicate reasons in itself make the measure unlawful or may the employer state reasons subsequently in the course of any employment litigation?


title: Judgment of the Court of 17 December 2010 in Case E-11/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation)

text:
               16.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 176/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 17 December 2010
   in Case E-11/10
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/54/EC on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation)
   2011/C 176/05
   In Case E-11/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing, within the time limit prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 33 of that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 17 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, all the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 33 of the Act and under Article 7 EEA.

               2.

               Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-90/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — General Química SA, Repsol Química SA, Repsol YPF SA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Rubber chemicals sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Group of undertakings — Joint and several liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Attribution of liability to the parent company at the head of a group)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 January 2011 — General Química SA, Repsol Química SA, Repsol YPF SA v European Commission
   (Case C-90/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Rubber chemicals sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Group of undertakings - Joint and several liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Attribution of liability to the parent company at the head of a group)
   2011/C 80/03
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: General Química SA, Repsol Química SA, Repsol YPF SA (represented by: J.M. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and J. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and E. Grippini Fournier, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2008 in Case T-85/06 General Química and Others v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2006/902/CE of 21 December 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Flexsys NV, Bayer AG, Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc. (former Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.), Crompton Europe Ltd, Chemtura Corporation (former Crompton Corporation), General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA (Case No COMP/F/C.38.443 — Rubber chemicals) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 50) and, in the lesser alternative, seeking a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 18 December 2008 in Case T-85/06 General Química and Others v Commission, in so far as it dismisses the action brought by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2006/902/EC of 21 December 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement against Flexsys NV, Bayer AG, Crompton Manufacturing Company Inc. (formerly Uniroyal Chemical Company Inc.), Crompton Europe Ltd, Chemtura Corporation (formerly Crompton Corporation), General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA (Case No COMP/F/C.38.443 — Rubber chemicals), in so far as, first, the Court of First Instance did not set out the reasons behind its conclusion that the order given by Repsol Qímica SA to General Química SA to cease any practice which might constitute an infringement of the competition rules was sufficient, in itself, to prove that Repsol Química SA exercised a decisive influence over General Química SA’s policy not only on the market but also as regards the unlawful conduct at issue in Decision 2006/902 and, second, the Court of First Instance failed to conduct a concrete examination of the evidence submitted by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA to demonstrate General Química SA’s independence in determining and implementing its commercial policy;

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the appeal and orders General Química SA, Repsol Química SA and Repsol YPF SA to pay all of the costs at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case T-158/17: Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/54

         Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB
   (Case T-158/17)
   (2017/C 144/73)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Telecom SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, C. Saettel and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) contained in its letter of 6 January 2011, notifying the applicant of the rejection of the tender that it had submitted in the context of call for tenders OP-1305 entitled ‘Metropolitan area network and wide area network communication services for the European Investment Bank Group’, and the decision to award the contract to another tenderer;

               —

               by way of one of the measures of organisation of procedure provided for in Article 89 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, or otherwise one of the measures of inquiry provided for in Article 91 of those rules, request the EIB to specify whether it has had any contact whatsoever with TELINDUS regarding the procurement procedure — whether before or after the submission of tenders — inter alia for the purposes of obtaining additional explanations as to its technical solution and, if appropriate, order it to produce every document exchanged in that regard; and order the production of every document from the procurement dossier in which the contacts that took place between the EIB and TELINDUS SA regarding the procurement dossier — whether before or after the submission of tenders — were recorded;

               —

               order the European Investment Bank to pay to it damages of EUR 1 247 415,60 in respect of non-contractual liability;

               —

               order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of transparency, in relation to the method of assessment provided for in the tender specifications.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging failure to comply with the obligation to state reasons, or insufficient reasoning, so far as concerns, first, the appraisal of the successful tenderer’s bid, and, second, the appraisal of the bid submitted by the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, disregard of the provisions of the tender specifications and infringement of the principle of equal treatment committed by the EIB, so far as concerns the appraisal of the successful tenderer’s bid, and in particular the evaluation of its bid under technical criterion No 1.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a substantive error, a manifest error of assessment, failure to comply with the tender specifications, infringement of the principle of proportionality and equal treatment and a misuse of powers allegedly committed by the EIB, so far as concerns the appraisal of the applicant’s tender. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging an error in the substantive findings of fact, or a manifest error of assessment, infringement of the tender specifications, a misuse of powers and infringement of the principle of proportionality;

                           —

                           second part, alleging a manifest error of assessment.


title: Case T-247/02: Action brought on 9 August 2002 by The Christian Science Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ, Scientist against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 247/24              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of                 —     annul the implied rejection by the appointing authority
      the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                      of the request of 28 August 2001 for damages on account
      (Trademarks and Designs) of 19 June 2002;                                of the undue delay by the defendant in drawing up the
                                                                               applicant’s staff reports for the reference periods 1995-
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its                      1997 and 1997-1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                     the implied rejection of the complaint of 14 January
      Trademark number 1299809.                                                2002;
                                                                         —     award EUR 25 000 in damages by of compensation for
                                                                               non-material damage, that amount being fixed ex aequo et
                                                                               bono;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The trade mark con-          The figurative mark, presented as
cerned:                      design of capsule with yellow
                             bands          —           application
                             No 1299809
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Goods or service con-        Goods in Class 5 (pharmaceuticals
cerned:                      in the nature of anti-inflammatory          By his application, the applicant, an official of the Office de
                             analgesics)
                                                                         Contrôle de la Sécurité at Euratom, seeks an award of damages
                                                                         for the alleged delay in drawing up his staff report relating to
Decision        contested    Refusal of registration by the              the reference periods 1995-1997 and 1997-1999.
before the Board of          examiner
Appeal:
                                                                         The applicant claims that, by refusing to finalise those reports
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal                     which are an essential assessment where the applicant’s career
Appeal:                                                                  is at stake, the defendant infringed Article 43 of the Staff
                                                                         Regulations, the provisions of the Guide de Notation and the
Grounds of claim:            Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b)           principle of equal treatment. Furthermore, the defendant is in
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)             breach of its duty to have regard to the welfare of its officials
                                                                         and infringed the principle of sound administration.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the
     Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         Action brought on 9 August 2002 by The Christian
                                                                         Science Board of Directors of The First Church of Christ,
                                                                         Scientist against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer de
Moncada against Commission of the European Communi-
                              ties                                                                (Case T-247/02)
                        (Case T-246/02)                                                           (2002/C 247/40)
                        (2002/C 247/39)                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                9 August 2002 by The Christian Science Board of Directors of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The First Church of Christ, Scientist, represented by Nicholas
European Communities on 13 August 2002 by Albano Ferrer                  Green QC, Mark Engelman, barristers and by Geoffrey Smith
de Moncada, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges               and James Mitchiner, solicitors, Field Fisher Waterhouse,
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.               London (UK).
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    ‘all printed materials, paper articles, cardboard articles,
                                                                               books, magazines, tracts, writings, photographs, pictures,
                                                                               works of art, cards, periodicals, and reproductions, includ-
                                                                               ing printed Bible lessons and passages, journals, post-
1)   annul the decision of 21 May 2002 the First Board of                      cards, printed religious publications and diverse litera-
     Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    ture’;
     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) under Article 7(1)(b)
     of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1) in so far as
     it refused registration of the Mark in respect of goods and         9)    alternatively to 8), annul or alter the Decision under
     services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42;                                     Article 7(3) of the Regulation in so far as the Board of
                                                                               Appeal refused registration of the Mark and/or remit this
                                                                               to OHIM for further examination in respect of the
                                                                               restricted Class 16 specification:
2)   in the alternative, annul the Decision under Article 7(3)
     of the Regulation in so far as the Board of Appeal refused
     registration of the Mark in respect of ‘religious services’;              ‘books; hymnals, tracts, printed Bible lessons and pass-
                                                                               ages, journals, magazines, periodicals, printed religious
                                                                               publications’;
3)   alternatively to 2), alter the Decision under Article 7(3) of
     the Regulation so as to permit registration of the Mark in          10) order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs of this
     respect of ‘religious Sunday services’ and/or remit this to               application.
     OHIM for further examination;
4)   alternatively to 2), alter the Decision under Article 7(3) of
     the Regulation so as to permit registration of the Mark
     and/or remit this to OHIM for further examination in                Pleas in law and main arguments
     respect of the restricted specification set out as follows:
                                                                         The trade mark con-            The word mark ‘CHRISTIAN SCI-
     ‘organisation of Church and worship services; organis-              cerned:                        ENCE ’ — application No 78 915
     ation of religious Sunday services; organisation of mid-
     week testimony meetings; organisation of worship ser-               Goods or service con-          Goods and services in Class 9, 16,
     vices at colleges, provision of sermons, organisation of            cerned:                        38, 41 and 42 (e.g. computer
     religious functions; organisation of religious ceremonies;                                         software, printed materials, tele-
     organisation of churches; organisation of places of wor-                                           communications, educational ser-
     ship; organisation of religious societies’;                                                        vices and on-line computer ser-
                                                                                vices)
5)   annul the Decision under Article 7(3) of the Regulation             Decision         contested     Refusal of registration by the
     in so far as the Board of Appeal refused registration of            before the Board of            examiner in respect of all goods
     the Mark in respect of ‘library services; lending of books’;        Appeal:                        and services applied for, except
                                                                                for certain goods and services in
                                                                                classes 16, 38, 41 and 42
6)   annul the Decision under Article 7(3) of the Regulation
     in so far as the Board of Appeal refused registration of            Decision of the Board of       —     Annulment of the contested
     the Mark in respect of ‘religious-educational services’;            Appeal:                              decision in so far as it reject-
                                                                                ed the trade mark appli-
                                                                                cation for ‘reading rooms,
7)   alternatively to 6), alter the Decision under Article 7(3) of                                            public lectures; services in
     the Regulation so as to permit registration of the Mark                                                  publishing of books, jour-
     and/or remit this to OHIM for further examination in                                                     nals, reviews, periodicals,
     respect of the restricted specification:                                                                 and religious publications;
                                                                                production of film and
                                                                                sound or audio-visual rec-
     ‘provision of classes regarding religious instruction;                                                   ordings; Sunday schools’;
     organisation of associations for religious instruction’;
                                                                                —     remittal of the case to the
                                                                                examiner for further pros-
                                                                                ecution;
8)   annul the Decision under Article 7(3) of the Regulation
     in so far as the Board of Appeal refused registration of                                           —     dismissal of the appeal for
     the Mark in respect of                                                                                the remainder.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/26               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12.10.2002
Grounds of claim:              —      The Decision is in breach of         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                      Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                      (EC) No 40/94: The Board of
                                      Appeal failed to draw the
                                      correct inferences from the          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                      cited evidence, misapplied
                                      the test of relevant public,
                                                                           The applicant, an official of the Economic and Social Com-
                                      failed to apply the law con-
                                                                           mittee of the European Communities, applied for the post of
                                      sistently and failed to pro-
                                                                           head of the Italian Translation and Transcription Division of
                                      vide proper reasoning.
                                                                           the Logistics and Translation Directorate. However, the Bureau
                               —      The Decision is in breach of         of the Economic and Social Committee rejected her application
                                      Article 7(3) of Regulation           and appointed another candidate to that post.
                                      (EC) No 40/94: The Board of
                                      Appeal failed to apply the           In support of her claim, the applicant alleges:
                                      test for acquired distinc-
                                      tiveness correctly, failed to        —     infringement of Article 29(1)(a) of the Staff Regulations;
                                      interpret the evidence associ-
                                      ated with various goods and
                                                                           —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                                      services correctly and did not
                                      provide adequate reasoning.
                                                                           —     manifest error of assessment;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle that officials should have reason-
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-                  able career prospects;
     munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                           —     abuse of process;
                                                                           —     breach of the duty to provide reasons.
Action brought on 13 August 2002 by Carla Faita against
Economic and Social Committee of the European Com-                         Action brought on 16 August 2002 by E against Com-
                             munities                                                  mission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-248/02)                                                           (Case T-251/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/42)
                         (2002/C 247/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Economic and Social Committee of the                 European Communities on 16 August 2002 by E, residing in
European Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Brussels, represented by Laure Levi and Georges Vandersanden,
Instance of the European Communities on 13 August 2002                     lawyers.
by Carla Faita, residing in Brussels, represented by Albert
Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      29 August 2001 fixing the applicant’s place of origin and
                                                                                place of recruitment as Brussels and refusing to grant her
—     annul the decisions of the Bureau of the Economic and                      the expatriation allowance, installation allowance, daily
      Social Committee of the European Communities to reject                     subsistence allowance, travel expenses and removal
      the applicant’s candidature for the post of head of the                    expenses relating to her taking up her duties at the
      Italian Translation and Transcription Division of the                      Commission on 16 July 2001.
      Logistics and Translation Directorate and to appoint
      another candidate to the post;                                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 18 January 1999 by RJB Mining PLC against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-12/99)

text:
27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 86/25
The applicants further claim that the Commission's                  (a) to rule upon the notification by Germany of an
Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed                        amendment to the plan approved by Commission
pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 and                     Decision 94/1070/ECSC; and
Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (1) are unlawful pursuant
to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, since the guidelines
constitute a genuine regulation, which the Commission               (b) to authorise Germany to grant aid to its coal industry
was not competent to issue.                                              1998.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
Finally, the applicants complain of irregularities in the           amendment to the plan on the following grounds:
setting of the fine. For example, their cooperation was not
sufficiently taken into account, and the principles that a
fine should not exceed 10 % of turnover or threaten to              Ð Infringement of an essential procedural
lead to insolvency were ignored.                                         requirement / lack of reasoning:
(1) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3.
                                                                         the contested decision makes no mention of the
                                                                         purported amendments to the plan in the operative
                                                                         part of the ruling. Accordingly, there has been no
                                                                         ruling under Article 8(4) of the Code (2) as to the
                                                                         amendments to the plant notified by Germany.
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by RJB Mining PLC                 Ð Manifest failure to observe the provisions
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    o f t h e E C S C Tr e a t y a n d / o r a n y r u l e o f
                                                                         law relating to its application and misuse
                        (Case T-12/99)                                   of powers:
                        (1999/C 86/45)
                                                                         the purported ruling proceeds on the entirely false
                                                                         basis that the three main recipients of aid continued to
                (Language of the case: English)                          exist separately throughout 1998 and fails to take into
                                                                         account of the merger of those recipients in August
                                                                         1998 or the massive state aid inherent in and
An action against the Commission of the European                         conditional on the merger. Further, the purported
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        ruling, in so far as it relates to operating aid, makes
Instance of the European Communities on 18 January                       no assessment under Article 3(2) and Article 8 of the
1999 by RJB Mining PLC, represented by Mark Philip                       Code as to whether the amended plan requires the
Brealey, of Brick Court Chambers, and Jonathan Alex                      relevant undertakings to be capable of becoming
Lawrence, Solicitor of Freshfields, with an address for                  viable within the foreseeable future.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                    The applicant seeks the annulment of the purported
                                                                    authorisation of aid for 1998 on similar grounds to those
                                                                    raised in Case T-110/98.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    (1) Case T-110/98 (OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38.
                                                                    (2) Decision No 3632/93/ECSC (OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12).
1. annul the Commission Decision of 2 December 1998
     relating to aid to the German coal industry for 1998;
     and
2. order the Commission to pay the costs of action,
     including those of the applicant.                              Action brought on 18 January 1999 by Pfizer Animal
                                                                         Health against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-13/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (1999/C 86/46)
The applicant, which has already challenged the decision                            (Language of the case: English)
relating to aid paid to the German coal industry for
1997 (1), seeks in the present application the annulment of
the decision relating to aid for 1998 (the contested                An action against the Council of the European Union was
decision) which purports:                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case T-376/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Legris Industries v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the infringement)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Legris Industries v Commission
   (Case T-376/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the infringement)
   2011/C 145/27
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Legris Industries SA (Rennes, France) (represented initially by A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, and subsequently by A. Wachsmann and A. Carré, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Legris Industries SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 13 February 1996 in Joined Cases C-197/94 and C-252/94 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Dax, and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper): Société Bautiaa v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux des Landes and Société Française Maritime v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Finistère (Article 7 (1) of Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Capital duty - Mergers between companies - Exemption)

text:
4 . S. 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 133/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 13 February 1996                                                       of 13 February 1996
 in Case C-342/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from            in Joined Cases C-l 97/94 and C-252/94 ( references for a
 the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland ): Joan Gillespie and         preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
 Others v . Northern Health and Social Services Board and              Dax, and the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper ):
                              Others ( 1 )                             Société Bautiaa v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux des Landes
  (Equal treatment for men and women — Maternity pay)                  and Société Française Maritime v. Directeur des Services
                                                                                Fiscaux du Finistère (')
                           ( 96/C 133 /04 )
                                                                       (Article 7 (1) ofDirective 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on
                                                                       the raising of capital — Capital duty — Mergers between
                                                                                companies — Exemption)
                (Language of tbe case: English)                                                    ( 96/C 133/05 )
In Case C-342/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Court of Appeal in Northern                                  (Language of the case: French)
Ireland for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Joan Gillespie and Others and
Northern Health and Social Services Board, Department of
Health and Social Services, Eastern Health and Social
Services Board and Southern Health and Social Services                 (Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
Board on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty,                     published in the European Court Reports)
Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
women ( OJ No L 45 , 1975 , p . 19 ) and Council Directive
76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of                 In Joined Cases C- 1 97/94 and C-252/94 : references to the
the principle of equal treatment for men and women as                  Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de
regards access to employment, vocational training and                  Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Dax ( France ), and the
promotion, and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 , 1976 ,                Tribunal de Grande Instance Quimper ( France ), for a
p . 40 ), the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias ,            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before those
                                                                       courts between Société Bautiaa and Directeur des Services
President, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
( Rapporteur ), ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ,            Fiscaux des Landes and between Société Française Maritime
F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G.               and Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Finistère, on the
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray and P. Jann, Judges;                 interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
P. Léger, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for            1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ,
the Registrar, has given a judgment in which it rules :                English Special Edition 1 969 ( II ), p . 412 ), as amended by
                                                                       Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the
                                                                       field of application of the reduced rate of capital duty
                                                                       provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction
The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the             operations by Article 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) of the Directive concerning
EC Treaty and set out in detail in Council Directive                   indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( OJ No L 103 , 1973 ,
75/1 1 7/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of               p . 13 ), by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973
the laws of the Member States relating to the application of           fixing common rates of capital duty ( OJ No L 103 , 1973 ,
the principle of equal pay for men and women neither                   p . 15 ), by Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November
requires that women should continue to receive full pay                1974 amending Article 5 ( 2 ) of Directive 1135/EEC ( OJ No
during maternity leave, nor lays down specific criteria for            L 303 , 1974 , p . 9 ), and by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of
determining the amount of benefit payable to them during               10 June 1985 ( OJ No L 156 , 1985 , p . 23 ) — the Court,
that period, provided that the amount is not set so low as to          composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
jeopardize the purpose of maternity leave. Elowever, to the            C. N. Kakouris, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch , Presidents of
extent that it is calculated on the basis of pay received by a         Chambers, G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
woman before the commencement of maternity leave, the                  Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, P. Jann,
amount of benefit must include pay rises awarded between               H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevôn, Judges;
the beginning of the period covered by reference pay and the           G. Cosmas, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
end of maternity leave, as from the date on which they take            Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
effect.                                                                13 February 1996 in which it rules :
C ) OJ No C 215 , 10 . 8 . 1 993 .
                                                                      Article 7 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
                                                                       1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as
                                                                      amended, with effect from 1 January 1976, by Council
                                                                       Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 fixing common rates
 ---pagebreak--- No C 133 /4           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         4 . 5 . 96
of capital duty and subsequently, with effect from 1 January               producers who had adopted milk production
1986, by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985,                     development plans under Council Directive
precludes the application of national laws maintaining at                  72/1 59/EEC of 17 April 1972 on the modernization of
1,20% the rate of registration duty on contributions of                    farms.
movable property made in the context of a merger.
                                                                      2 . No requirement flowing from the protection afforded
(>) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                          by general principles of law, such as the protection
    OJ No C 304, 29 . 10 . 1994 .                                          of legitimate expectations, the prohibition of
                                                                           discrimination, proportionality and legal certainty, or
                                                                           by fundamental rights, such as the right to property and
                                                                           the freedom to pursue a trade or profession, imposes on
                                                                           the competent national authority any obligation, under
                                                                           the first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                           No 857/84, to grant special reference quantities to
                                                                           producers who have adopted development plans, even
                                                                           where those plans had been approved by the competent
                                                                           authorities .
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      3 . Consideration of the abovementioned general principles
                       ( Sixth Chamber )                                   and fundamental rights has not disclosed any factor of
                    of 15 February 1996                                    such a nature as to affect the validity ofthe first indent of
                                                                           Article 3 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84.
in Case C-63/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Supreme Court of Ireland ): Fintan Duff and Others v.
Minister for Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney                   (*) OJ No C 112 , 22 . 4 . 1993 .
                             General ( 1 )
(Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantities on
account of a development plan — Obligation or
                    discretionary power)
                          ( 96/C 133/06 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 15 February 1996
In Case C-63/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of         in Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
the EC Treaty from the Supreme Court of Ireland for a                             v. Council of the European Union (^
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                              (Appeal — Transfer of waste)
court between Fintan Duff and Others and Minister for
Agriculture and Food, and the Attorney General — on the                                         ( 96/C 133/07 )
interpretation and validity of the first indent of Article 3(1 )
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984
adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred                       (Language of the case: French)
to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk
and milk products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1984, p . 13 ) — the
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), G. F.                       published in the European Court Reports)
Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 February                In Case C-209/94 P: Buralux SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA
1996 , in which it rules :                                            ( represented by Pierrot Schiltz, Jean-Claude Fourgoux and
                                                                      Christian Huglo ) — appeal against the order of the Court of
                                                                      First Instance of 17 May 1994 in Case T-475/93 Buralux
                                                                      SA, Satrod SA and Ourry SA v. Council ( not published in the
1 . The first indent of Article 3 (1 ) of Council Regulation          ECR ), seeking to have that order set aside,. the other party to
    (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general                 the proceedings being the Council of the European Union
    rules for the application of the levy referred to in              ( Agents : Arthur Alan Dashwood and Bjarne Hoff-Nielsen )
    Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk              — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
    and milk products sector, read in the light of the third          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini , F. A.
    recital in the preamble to that Regulation, is to be              Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
    construed as not imposing on Member States an                     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass , Registrar, has
    obligation to grant a special reference quantity to               given a judgment on 15 February 1996 , in which it: