title: Case T-138/15: Action brought on 25 March 2015 — Aanbestedingskalender a.o. v Commission

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/39

         Action brought on 25 March 2015 — Aanbestedingskalender a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-138/15)
   (2015/C 198/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Aanbestedingskalender BV (Ede, Netherlands); Negometrix BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); CTM Solution BV (Breukelen, Netherlands); Stillpoint Applications BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Huisinga Beheer BV (Amsterdam) (represented by: C. Dekker and L. Fiorilli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare, in accordance with Articles 263 and 264 TFEU, that the part of the European Commission’s Decision of 18 December 2014 SA.34646 (2014/NN) (ex 2012/CP) — The Netherlands E-procurement platform TenderNed finding that the activities of TenderNed qualify as services of (non-economic) general interest and that therefore the implementation and financing of TenderNed does not constitute State aid, is void;

               —

               order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant; and

               —

               take such further actions as the Court may deem appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on one plea in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the European Commission has committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the services of TenderNed qualify as services of general (non-economic) interest.

                           —

                           The applicants claim that TenderNed’s activities are of an economic character and do not belong to the state prerogative because those services do not emanate from obligations provided by the EU procurement Directives, because TenderNed does not act in the capacity of a public authority, because the activities of TenderNed are not necessary to ensure compliance with the EU procurement Directives, because ensuring compliance with the obligations of the EU Procurement Directives can be achieved by other means and because the Dutch procurement law allows commercial initiatives on the market of e-procurement.


title: Joined Cases C-404/08 and C-409/08: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, Germany) — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v Bezirksrevisorin beim Landgericht Magdeburg für die Landeskasse des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/8

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, Germany) — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v Bezirksrevisorin beim Landgericht Magdeburg für die Landeskasse des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt
   (Joined Cases C-404/08 and C-409/08) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2010/C 11/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Naumburg, Germany

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale

      Defendant: Bezirksrevisorin beim Landgericht Magdeburg für die Landeskasse des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Naumburg — Interpretation of Article 86 EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC — National rules granting exemption from court fees to an investment bank established by the Land

      Operative part

   The references for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg made by decisions of 1 September 2008 and 2 September 2008 are manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 327 of 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-214/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/40

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Novartis v OHIM — Meda (Zymara)
   (Case T-214/15)
   (2015/C 205/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis AG (Basel, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meda AB (Solna, Sweden)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Zymara’ — Application for registration No 9 982 745

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2015 in Case R 550/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               The Board of Appeal has misinterpreted the goods which are ‘pharmaceutical preparations, namely preparations for the treatment of cancer’;

               —

               The Board of Appeal has incorrectly based its decision on spelling rules which are not existing;

               —

               The Board of Appeal has ignored arguments put forward with respect to the comparison of signs and, therefore, incorrectly held that the signs are phonetically similar only to a low degree;

               —

               The Board of Appeal has put too much wait on the word beginnings within the visual comparison.


title: Case T-190/15: Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Intervog v OHIM (meet me) (Community trademark — Application for Community figurative mark meet me — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 November 2015 — Intervog v OHIM (meet me)
   (Case T-190/15) (1)

   ((Community trademark - Application for Community figurative mark meet me - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Intervog (Paris, France) (represented by: M.-R. Hirsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2015 (Case R 845/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the sign meet me as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Intervog to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.


title: Case C-39/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 2 February 2015 — Hartmut Frenzel v Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV
   (Case C-39/15)
   (2015/C 155/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Wuppertal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hartmut Frenzel

      Defendant: Resort Marina Oolderhuuske BV
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 26 February 2015.


title: Case C-435/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the hof van beroep te Antwerpen by interlocutory judgment of that Court of 7 October 2003 in the proceedings between 1. British American Tobacco International Limited, 2. N.V. Newman Shipping & Agency Company, and the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance

text:
13.12.2003             EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 304/15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     there is no possibility of choosing to include capital
                                                                               goods, or goods or a service treated as such, wholly in
                                                                               the assets of an undertaking where the acquirer uses those
In so far as it makes the use of construction products including               goods or that service both within the undertaking and
tubes of polyethylene imported from other Member States                        outside it (in particular for private purposes);
subject to an approval procedure, Article 17 of Decree-Law
No 38/382 constitutes a measure having effect equivalent to a            —     there is, related to this, also no possibility of deducting
quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 28                   directly and wholly the tax charged on the acquisition of
EC. The Portuguese authorities have not explained why tubes                    those goods or that service; and
of polyethylene should constitute a danger to human life or
health and have not put forward any other overriding reasons.
                                                                         —     there is no provision for the charging of VAT as intended
                                                                               in Article 6(2)(a) of the Sixth Directive,
The authorities of the Member States are not entitled to
demand, where there is no need, technical or chemical analyses           compatible with the Sixth Directive — in particular
or laboratory tests when those analyses or tests have already            Article 17(1), (2) and (6) and Article 6(2) thereof?
been performed in another Member State and the results are
available to those authorities or can, at their request, be made
available.                                                               (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                             turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
The Portuguese authorities are obliged, in accordance with the               basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
Court of Justice’s case-law, to take into account certificates
issued by certification bodies in other Member States which,
although they are not members of the European Association
for Technical Approval in Construction, are recognised to be
suitable bodies for the purposes of certifying the products in
question. In this instance the Portuguese authorities have failed
to do so.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the hof van beroep
(1) OJ L 321 of 30 December 1995, p. 1.
                                                                         te Antwerpen by interlocutory judgment of that Court of
                                                                         7 October 2003 in the proceedings between 1. British
                                                                         American Tobacco International Limited, 2. N.V. Newman
                                                                         Shipping & Agency Company, and the Belgian State,
                                                                                Ministry of Finance
                                                                                (Case C-435/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 10 October
2003 in the appeal in cassation brought by P. Charles and                                         (2003/C 304/23)
    T.S. Charles-Tijmens against the Inspector of Taxes
                        (Case C-434/03)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by interlocutory judgment of the hof
                        (2003/C 304/22)                                  van beroep te Antwerpen (Court of Appeal, Antwerp) of
                                                                         7 October 2003, received at the Court Registry on 14 October
                                                                         2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
                                                                         1. British American Tobacco International Limited, 2. N.V.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Newman Shipping & Agency Company, and the Belgian State,
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der                    Ministry of Finance on the following questions:
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 10 Octo-
ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 13 October 2003,             1.    Can there be a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of
for a preliminary ruling in the appeal in cassation brought by                 the Sixth VAT Directive (1), with the consequence that
P. Charles and T.S. Charles-Tijmens against the Inspector of                   VAT can be charged:
Taxes on the following question:
                                                                               —     in the absence of any consideration?
Is a statutory scheme such as that set out in section 3.4.1
above, which was already in existence before the Sixth                         —     in the absence of transfer of the right to dispose
Directive (1) was adopted and under which:                                           freely of the goods as owner?
 ---pagebreak--- C 304/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           13.12.2003
      —     if the goods cannot lawfully be placed on the market           The Commission claims that the Court should:
            because they are stolen goods and/or contraband?
                                                                           1.     declare that by granting Austrian dentists the possibility
2.    Is the answer to the first question different if the goods in               in Paragraphs 6 and 4(3) of the Dentistengesetz (Law on
      question are products subject to excise duty and in                         Dentists) of engaging in their occupation under the title
      particular manufactured tobaccos?                                           ‘Zahnarzt’ or ‘Zahnarzt (Dentist)’ and of making use of
                                                                                the exception laid down in Article 19b of Council
                                                                                Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978 (1), although the
3.    If no excise duty is charged on products which are subject                  dentists do not meet the minimum requirements under
      to excise duty, is it compatible with the provisions of the                 Article 1 of Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July
      Sixth VAT Directive to charge VAT in such a case?                           1978 (2) for falling within the provisions of Directives
                                                                                78/686/EEC and 78/687/EEC, the Republic of Austria
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 19b
4.    May Member States supplement the categories of trans-
                                                                                of Directive 78/686/EEC and Article 1 of Directive 78/
      action subject to VAT if they lodge a notification, as
                                                                                687/EEC;
      referred to in Article 27(2) or Article 27(5) of the Sixth
      VAT Directive, of their intention to charge VAT at
      national level in the event of theft of products subject to          2.     declare that by allowing, pursuant to Paragraphs 17
      excise duty from a tax warehouse, or is Article 2 of the                    and 23 of the Ärztegesetz (Law on Doctors), Austrian
      Sixth VAT Directive exhaustive?                                             ‘specialists in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery’ to
                                                                                continue, in breach of Article 19b of Directive 78/686/
                                                                                EEC, to engage in their occupation under the title
5.    If a notification as referred to in Article 27(5) of the Sixth              ‘Fachärzte für Zahn-, Mund- und Kieferheilkunde’ (special-
      VAT Directive relates only to the prepayment of VAT by                      ists in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery) and by
      means of fiscal stamps, may a Member State supplement                       those specialists not being placed on the same footing as
      the categories of transaction subject to VAT by, for                        dentists inasmuch as specialists in dental, oral and
      example, requiring the payment of VAT where products                        maxillo-facial surgery are entitled to engage in their
      subject to excise duty have been stolen from a tax                          activities under the same conditions as holders of dip-
      warehouse?                                                                  lomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifi-
                                                                                cations in accordance with Annex A (dentists), the
                                                                                Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                      under Articles 1 and 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC;
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform             3.     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           1. D e n t i s t s
Action brought on 17 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           Austrian legislation has created a ‘new category of dentists’
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                           which is not provided for in the directives. Although Austria
                               Austria
                                                                           recognises that the situation is contrary to Community law, it
                                                                           keeps it unchanged and continues to grant ‘dentists’ the right
                                                                           to engage in their occupation under the professional title
                          (Case C-437/03)                                  ‘Zahnarzt’ or ‘Zahnarzt (Dentist)’, and enables the Dentistenk-
                                                                           ammer (professional association of dentists) to issue certificates
                                                                           under Article 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC.
                         (2003/C 304/24)
                                                                           2. S p e c i a l i s t s i n d e n t a l , o r a l a n d m a x i l l o -
                                                                                facial surgery
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
17 October 2003 by the Commission of the European                          Austrian legislation distinguishes between, on the one hand,
Communities, represented by Dr Claudia Schmidt, Christina                  ‘doctors’, which includes ‘dentists’ and, on the other, ‘special-
Tufvesson and Andreas Manville, with an address for service                ists’, which includes ‘specialists in dental, oral and maxillo-
in Luxembourg.                                                             facial surgery’. Persons from other Member States who fall


title: Case C-324/16: Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo n° 1 — Santa Cruz de Tenerife — Spain) — Dragados SA v Cabildo Insular de Tenerife

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Contencioso-Administrativo no 1 — Santa Cruz de Tenerife — Spain) — Dragados SA v Cabildo Insular de Tenerife
   (Case C-324/16) (1)

   (2017/C 283/41)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Case T-346/05: Action brought on  12 September 2005  — Procter & Gamble/OHIM

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/29

         Action brought on 12 September 2005 — Procter & Gamble/OHIM
   (Case T-346/05)
   (2005/C 296/64)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyer]

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 6 July 2005 (Case R 1188/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 11 July 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in form of a square white tablet showing a blue six-petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application No 1 683 119

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application in respect of all the designated goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case T-542/10: Action brought on 22 November 2010 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/50

         Action brought on 22 November 2010 — XXXLutz Marken v OHIM — Meyer Manufacturing (CIRCON)
   (Case T-542/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/89
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: H. Pannen, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Meyer Manufacturing Co. Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2010 in Case R 40/2010-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CIRCON’ for goods in Classes 7, 11 and 21.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Meyer Manufacturing Company Limited.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘CIRCULON’ for goods in Classes 11 and 21.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal in part of registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, and infringement of Article 76(2)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the Board of Appeal took into account in its decision facts which were not put forward by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

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


title: Case T-683/14 P: Appeal brought on 16 September 2014 by Rhys Morgan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2014 in Case F-26/13, Morgan v OHIM

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/33

         Appeal brought on 16 September 2014 by Rhys Morgan against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2014 in Case F-26/13, Morgan v OHIM
   (Case T-683/14 P)
   (2014/C 431/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Rhys Morgan (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 July 2014 in Case F-26/13;

               —

               annul the Appraisal Report issued to the appellant in respect of the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011;

               —

               order OHIM to pay an adequate compensation in the discretion of the Court — not below an amount EUR 500 — to the appellant for the moral and immaterial damages suffered by the appellant as a result of the aforesaid Appraisal Report;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs as regards the proceedings in the Civil Service Tribunal and in the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to recognize that a general assessment must be based on the official’s performance during the appraisal period as a whole.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal erred in failing to recognize the gravity of the procedural violations committed by OHIM.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed an error when appreciating the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal committed errors when appreciating the plea in law alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to evaluate properly, or even to examine, the evidence in relation to the plea of misuse of powers.


title: Case T-432/07: Action brought on 29 November 2007 — France v Commission

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/49

         Action brought on 29 November 2007 — France v Commission
   (Case T-432/07)
   (2008/C 22/92)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision 2007/647/EC of 3 October 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure incurred by the applicant for producers' organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector in respect of the financial years 2003 and 2004;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested decision on the ground that the Commission wrongly interpreted and applied Article 11 of Council Regulation No 2200/96 (2) in finding that the French Government had failed to observe the conditions laid down in that provision for the recognition of producers' organisations in the fruit and vegetable sector.

      (1)  Notified under document number C(2007) 4477, OJ 2007 L 261, p. 28.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297, p. 1)


title: Case C-470/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) v Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (Ametic) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual and industrial property — Copyright and related rights — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 5(2)(b) — Reproduction right — Exceptions and limitations — Private copying — Fair compensation — Financing from the General State Budget — Whether permissible — Conditions)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP) v Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (Ametic)
   (Case C-470/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual and industrial property - Copyright and related rights - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 5(2)(b) - Reproduction right - Exceptions and limitations - Private copying - Fair compensation - Financing from the General State Budget - Whether permissible - Conditions))
   (2016/C 296/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA), Derechos de Autor de Medios Audiovisuales (DAMA), Visual Entidad de Gestión de Artistas Plásticos (VEGAP)

      Defendants: Administración del Estado, Asociación Multisectorial de Empresas de la Electrónica, las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación, de las Telecomunicaciones y de los contenidos Digitales (Ametic)

      Intervening parties: Artistas Intérpretes, Sociedad de Gestión (AISGE), Centro Español de Derechos Reprográficos (CEDRO), Asociación de Gestión de Derechos Intelectuales (AGEDI), Entidad de Gestión, Artistas, Intérpretes o Ejecutantes, Sociedad de Gestión de España (AIE), Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (SGAE),

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 5(2)(b) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as precluding a scheme for fair compensation for private copying which, like the one at issue in the main proceedings, is financed from the General State Budget in such a way that it is not possible to ensure that the cost of that compensation is borne by the users of private copies.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case F-58/11: Action brought on 23 May 2011 — ZZ v European Investment Bank

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/34

         Action brought on 23 May 2011 — ZZ v European Investment Bank
   (Case F-58/11)
   2011/C 211/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant(s): ZZ (represented by: B. Cortese, C. Cortese and F. Spitaleri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the EIB to increase the contributions of the applicants to the pensions system, and reparation of the non-material harm suffered by the applicants.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the European Investment Bank as set out in the applicants’ salary slips for February 2011, which increase the applicants’ contribution to the pensions system, by increasing the basis for calculation (the salary subject to deduction) of that contribution, on the one hand, and of the calculation coefficient, expressed as a percentage of that salary subject to deduction, on the other.

               —

               Order the Bank to pay a symbolic sum of EUR 1, by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered by the applicants;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-217/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   by Seiga SA, whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ),
                                                                      respresented by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
The applicant, which has imported television sets                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .
manufactured in Turkey by various companies since 1987/
88 , applies in this case for the annulment of a decision by
the Commission, which held, on an application submitted               The applicant claims that the Court should:
by France, that 'it is justified to effect post-clearance
recovery of import duties, and the remission of those
duties is not justified in an individual case'.                       — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
The facts are similar to those in Cases T-l 86/97 et seq (')          — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post
                                                                             clearance, of the duties in dispute,
Concerning the legal background, the applicant in this
case argues that the contested decision makes no reference            — in the alternative, declare the applicant entitled to the
to it, that there has been insufficient reasoning, and that                  remission of those duties,
both the Turkish customs authorities and the Commission
committed errors . It submits that the Commission failed
to fulfil its obligations and the legitimate expectations             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
which Community importers might place in its action.
This constituted an 'error on the part of the competent
authorities', within the meaning of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 1697/79 , which the person liable could not reasonably
have detected, since the A.TR documents duly
authenticated by the Turkish authorities could not fail to
give rise to legitimate expectations on the part of                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                      in Case T-2 16/97 (').
Community importers, and the latter had no reason to
cast doubt on them .
                                                                      ( ] ) See previous case .
The applicant maintains that all the conditions for
applying Article 5 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79
are fulfilled in this case, and that it is entitled to non-post
clearance recovery of the customs duties in question,
having itself acted in good faith, complying with all the
relevant provisions.                                                  Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Finally, the applicant considers that it fulfils all the                                        ( Case T-2 18/97)
conditions in order to benefit from remission of the
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/50 )
customs duties in question, pursuant to Article 13 of
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') See page 17 of this Official Journal.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                      by Seiga SA, the successor of High Tech Industries SA,
                                                                      whose registered office is at Thiais ( France ), represented
Action brought on 24 July 1997 by Seiga SA against the                by Fabrice Goguel, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
          Commission of the European Communities                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
                                                                      31 Grand-Rue .
                         ( Case T-2 17/97)
                           ( 97/C 318/49 )
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — annul the Commission Decision dated 24 April 1997,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     — declare the applicant entitled to non-recovery, post
Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997                         clearance, of the duties in dispute,


title: Case F-33/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2008 — Toronjo Benitez v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — Former members of the temporary staff whose remuneration falls under research credits — Removal of points from the applicant's balance — Transfer of an official from the Research part to the Operational part of the general budget — Unlawfulness of Article 2 of the Commission's decision of 16 June 2004 on the promotion procedure for officials whose remuneration falls under the Research credits of the general budget)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 March 2008 — Toronjo Benitez v Commission
   (Case F-33/07)
   (Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - Former members of the temporary staff whose remuneration falls under research credits - Removal of points from the applicant's balance - Transfer of an official from the Research part to the Operational part of the general budget - Unlawfulness of Article 2 of the Commission's decision of 16 June 2004 on the promotion procedure for officials whose remuneration falls under the ‘Research’ credits of the general budget)
   (2008/C 158/41)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alberto Toronjo Benitez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the Commission's decision to remove the 44,5 points from the applicant's balance which he had accumulated as a member of the temporary staff and, second, a declaration that Article 2 of the Commission's decision on the promotion procedure for officials whose remuneration falls under the ‘Research’ credits of the general budget is unlawful.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.


title: Case T-210/02 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2012 — British Aggregates v Commission (State aid — Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom — Commission decision not to raise objections — Advantage — Selective nature)

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2012 — British Aggregates v Commission
   (Case T-210/02 RENV) (1)

   (State aid - Environmental tax on aggregates in the United Kingdom - Commission decision not to raise objections - Advantage - Selective nature)
   2012/C 118/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: British Aggregates Association (Lanark, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Pouncey, J. Coombes, Solicitors, and L. Van den Hende, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso, J. Flett and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: T. Harris, and subsequently by S. Ossowski, acting as Agents, and by M. Hall and G. Facenna, Barristers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2002) 1478 final of 24 April 2002 on State aid file N 863/01 — United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2002) 1478 final of 24 April 2002 on State aid file N 863/01 — United Kingdom/Aggregates Levy, save as regards the exemption for Northern Ireland;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the British Aggregates Association before the Court of Justice and the General Court;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs incurred before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 14.9.2002.


title: Case C-421/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 August 2010 — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the assets of Harald Raab

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 25 August 2010 — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the assets of Harald Raab
   (Case C-421/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/29
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Deggendorf

      Respondent: Markus Stoppelkamp in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the assets of Harald Raab

      Question referred

   Is a taxable person to be regarded as ‘a taxable person established abroad’ within the meaning of Article 21(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) simply because the place where he has established his business is abroad, or is it an additional requirement that his personal residence also be abroad?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1


title: Case T-82/15: Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission (Seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) — Grant agreement for the Atraco project — Debit notes and decisions contained in letters — No need to adjudicate in part — Contractual nature of the dispute — Partial inadmissibility)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/34

         Order of the General Court of 15 February 2016 — InAccess Networks Integrated Systems v Commission
   (Case T-82/15) (1)

   ((Seventh framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013) - Grant agreement for the Atraco project - Debit notes and decisions contained in letters - No need to adjudicate in part - Contractual nature of the dispute - Partial inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 136/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA (Maroussi, Greece) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler and G. Pandey, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Di Paolo and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 11 December 2014 by which the Commission confirmed its refusal to finance costs invoked by the applicant, of the Commission decision contained in debit note No 3241211514 of 23 October 2012, and of the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 December 2012 requesting the applicant to return the funds paid and to pay liquidated damages of EUR 12 814,10.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Rules that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the claims directed against the Commission decision contained in the letter of 7 October 2012 and the debit note of 23 October 2012;

               2.

               Dismisses the action for the remainder, as being manifestly inadmissible;

               3.

               Orders InAccess Networks Integrated Systems — Applications Services for Telecommunication and Related Equipment Commercial and Industrial Co. SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Case T-435/09: Action brought on 22 October 2009 — GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/30

         Action brought on 22 October 2009 — GL2006 Europe v Commission and OLAF
   (Case T-435/09)
   2010/C 11/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GL2006 Europe Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Gardenal and E. Belinguier-Raiz, lawyers)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the on-the-spot check carried out by the Commission in December 2008, the draft audit report and the final audit report issued respectively on 19 December 2008 and 25 March 2009 by the Commission, as well as the final decision of the Commission contained in the letter of 10 July 2009, which foresees the termination of two projects in which GL2006 Europe Ltd was involved, and the debit notes of 7 August 2009 which provide that GL2006 Europe Ltd has to repay a total sum of EUR 2 258 456,31 to the Commission are unlawful, null and void;

               —

               in the alternative and/or in addition, establish that the Commission’s substantive allegations are not justified;

               —

               declare that the Commission on-the-spot check, audit reports and final decision cannot affect the validity of the EC contracts in which GL2006 Europe Ltd was involved;

               —

               declare that these contracts are valid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present application based on the arbitration clause, the applicant contests the lawfulness of the Commission decision of 10 July 2009 terminating, following the OLAF’s audit report, two contracts concluded with the applicant in the framework of the community programmes for research and technological development. The applicant contests as well the lawfulness of the debit notes issued by the Commission on 6 August 2009, following the same OLAF’s audit report, recovering the advance payments made by the Commission for twelve projects in which the applicant was involved and submitted to investigation.
   The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its claims.
   First, it claims that the on-the-spot check carried out by the Commission was irregular for the following reasons: there was no prior notification; its duration was insufficient with the respect to the seriousness of the final decision; the consideration of the essential elements was not sufficient; the Commission infringed the privacy of the applicant; there was an error regarding the legal basis as the written record of the check mentioned a no longer in force regulation.
   Second, the applicant contends that the audit report present serious irregularities such as lack of appropriate motivation since it was taken on the grounds of an incomplete on-the-spot check, or lack of relation between the analysis and the conclusions reached by the final report which led to violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights such as presumption of the innocence.
   Third, the applicant claims that the Commission’s final decision lacks of clarity regarding the sanction since it foresees the termination of two contracts while the relative debit notes are related to twelve contracts. It also submits that this final decision was not regularly notified to the applicant.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits the claims regarding the substantial arguments given by the Commission in order to terminate the contracts and to claim the reimbursement of the sums conferred to the applicant. The applicant contends that this arguments put forward by the Commission in its decision are groundless and they reach the opposite conclusions to the ones issued by the audit report for 2007.


title: Case T-49/01: Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.6.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 161/19
application for suspension of operation of Commission Regu-                 Proprietor of an oppos-        Orsem Sarl, Neuilly sur Seine,
lation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000 introducing                        ing mark or of an oppos-       France
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries                  ing sign:
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64), or for                Opposing mark or sign:         The Danish mark PREDONIUM,
any other interim measure to protect the interests of the                                                  the Greek mark PREDONIUM, the
applicant — the President of the Court of First Instance, made                                             Swedish mark PREDONIUM and
an order on 1 February 2001, the operative part of which is as                                             the United Kingdom mark PRE-
follows:                                                                                DONIUM for goods in Class 5
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;                      Decision of the Oppo-          opposition upheld and appli-
                                                                            sition Division:               cation rejected
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                            Appeal:
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              infringement of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 on the Community
                                                                                trade mark (Article 8(1)(b)) — no
                                                                                likelihood of confusion
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Phar-
ma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                           (Case T-10/01)
                          (2001/C 161/42)
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with                  Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the            Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of
                   application is drafted: German)                                             the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                        (Case T-49/01)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Pharma AG, Berlin (Germany),                                             (2001/C 161/43)
represented by Robert Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwalt. The other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
Orsem Sarl., Neuilly sur Seine (France).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2000 by the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation                European Communities on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in                   Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited, represented by Mark Clough QC
      appeal No R 586/1999-2;                                               and Julian Ellison, of Ashurst Morris Crisp.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     declare, pursuant to Article 232 (ex 175) of the EC Treaty
                                                                                that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under
Applicant for the Com-          Lichtwer Pharma AG                                the Treaty by failing to define its position on the
munity mark:                                                                      applicant’s complaint dated 29 February 2000 against
                                                                                Brittany Ferries, and/or at least that part of the complaint
Trade mark applied for:         the oral mark ‘SEDONIUM’ —                        dealing with the period up to 1995 outside the scope of
                                application No 312 447 for goods                  the Case C-31/98 procedure, and in particular by failing
                                in Class 5 (including medicinal                   to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 88(2)
                                products)                                         (ex 93(2)) of the EC Treaty;
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            2.6.2001
—     further, or in the alternative, to annul under Article 230          compatibility with the common market. It follows that the
      (ex 173) of the EC Treaty the implied decision of the               Commission has committed an error of law and a procedural
      Commission not to initiate the procedure provided for               irregularity by not initiating the procedure provided for under
      under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (ex93(2)) regarding            Article 88(2) (ex 93(2)) of the Treaty.
      the applicant’s complaint at all, or at least regarding that
      part of the applicant’s complaint dealing with the period
      up to 1995 outside the scope of the Case C-31/98
      procedure, (and/or the implied decision not to close the            (1) See Commission communication pursuant to Article 93(2) of the
      preliminary investigation procedure in any of the other                 EC Treaty to the other Member States and other interested parties
      ways available to it), contained in a letter dated 7 February           concerning aids in the shipping sector (State aids for the shipping
                                                                              company Brittany Ferries (BAI)), C 31/98, OJ C 244, 4.8.1998,
      2001;
                                                                              p. 9.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                          Action brought on 9 March 2001 by Asahi Vet SA against
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-55/01)
The applicant is a ferry operator which provides tourist and                                       (2001/C 161/44)
freight ferry services on certain routes between France and the
United Kingdom in the western end of the Channel. Its main
competitor is the French ferry operator Bretagne-Angleterre-
Irlande S.A. (‘Brittany Ferries’).                                                           (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties as brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 9 March 2001 by Asahi Vet SA,
In February 2000, the applicant submitted a complaint to the              Rubı́, Barcelona (Spain), represented by Rechtsanwalt Carsten
Commission against State aid granted to Brittany Ferries by               Bittner.
the French authorities. Prior to this complaint, the Commission
initiated a formal investigation procedure against certain State
aid granted to Brittany Ferries in 1998 (1). However, according           The applicant claims that the Court should:
to the applicant, a part of its complaint is not covered by this
procedure.
                                                                          —     annul the defendant’s decision of 29 January 2001
                                                                                rejecting the applicant’s request for an unlimited unauth-
                                                                                orisation in respect of ToyoCerin for rearing pigs, sows
                                                                                and piglets, and an interim authorisation for fattening
The applicant submits that by failing to define its position on                 chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle, fattening
the complaint, the Commission has, in breach of Article 232                     rabbits and breeding rabbits;
EC, failed to act. In particular, the Commission has failed to
adopt one of the three decisions that it is required by the               —     require the defendant to propose to the Standing Com-
Court’s case law to take in order to close the preliminary                      mittee for Feedingstuffs under Article 23(3) of Directive
examination of State aid within a reasonable time when it has                   70/524/EEC that it be awarded an unlimited Community
serious doubts as to whether a measure constitutes aid and, if                  authorisation in respect of ToyoCerin for use with rearing
so, as to whether it is compatible with the common market.                      pigs, piglets and sows;
Each of such decisions is of direct and individual concern to
the applicant under Article 230 EC.
                                                                          —     require the defendant to propose to the Standing Com-
                                                                                mittee for Feedingstuffs under Article 23(3) of Directive
                                                                                70/524/EEC that it be awarded a temporary Community
                                                                                authorisation in respect of ToyoCerin for use on fattening
                                                                                chickens, laying hens, calves, fattening cattle, fattening
As far as the grounds for annulment are concerned, the
                                                                                rabbits and breeding rabbits;
applicant claims that it is clear from the correspondence and
meetings between the parties that the Commission had cause
to suspect the existence of State aid and to doubt its                    —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-158/12: Action brought on 5 April 2012 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v European Medicines Agency

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/15

         Action brought on 5 April 2012 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v European Medicines Agency
   (Case T-158/12)
   2012/C 184/28
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg), Evropaiki Dinamiki — Proigmena Sistimata Tilepikinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Medicines Agency (‘ΕΜΑ’) decision ΕΜΑ/67882/2012 of 31 January 2012, whereby the ΕΜΑ placed the applicants’ tender in second place in the open tendering procedure ΕΜΑ/2011/17/ICT, which related to its Lot 1;·

               —

               order the ΕΜΑ to pay compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity which the first priority framework contract would have brought, which they estimate at EUR 2 139 471,70, with interest from the date of delivery of the judgment and

               —

               Order the ΕΜΑ to pay the entirety of the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicants seek the annulment of the ΕΜΑ decision of 31 January 2012, whereby the ΕΜΑ placed the applicants’ tender in second place in the open tendering procedure ΕΜΑ/2011/17/ICT, which related to its Lot 1, and the payment of compensation to the applicants for the loss of opportunity which first place in the open tendering procedure ΕΜΑ/2011/17/ICT would have brought.
   The applicants claim that the contested decision should be annulled, in accordance with Article 263 TFEU, because of contravention of the rules of European Union law and, in particular, on the following three grounds:

               1.

               First, the ΕΜΑ, contrary to the Financial regulation, its implementing regulation and the technical specifications dossier, added at the stage of presentation the condition that the tenderers’ external collaborators be present, in order that they could be assessed, which was not referred to in the initial competition contract documents and, consequently, was a new award criterion.

               2.

               Second, the ΕΜΑ, contrary to the implementing regulation, assessed and attributed scores to the experience of the tenderers, which had already been examined as a qualitative selection criterion, at the stage of the award procedure.

               3.

               Third, the ΕΜΑ was in breach of the principle of transparency:

                           —

                           because one of the award criteria in the technical specifications dossier was formulated in such a way as to exclude the possibility of its objective assessment;

                           —

                           because the technical specifications dossier did not contain the algorithm on the basis of which there would result the applicants’ exact score (to the second decimal point).


title: Case T-697/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Bergbräu v OHIM — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/22

         Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Bergbräu v OHIM — Vilser Privatbrauerei (VILSER BERGBRÄU)
   (Case T-697/15)
   (2016/C 078/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bergbräu GmbH & Co. KG (Uslar, Germany) (represented by: B. Reiter, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vilser Privatbrauerei GmbH (Vils, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

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

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VILSER BERGBRÄU’ — Application for registration No 11 396 223

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 September 2015 in Case R 2675/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in the opposition proceedings between Privatbrauerei Bergbräu GmbH & Co. KG and Vilser Privatbrauerei GmbH (Opposition No B 002169764);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs;

               —

               fix a date for the hearing in the event that the assessment of the facts of the case by the Court is not possible without a hearing.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-758/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Infineon Technologies v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Smart card chips — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Exchanges of commercially sensitive information — Rights of defence — Infringement by object — Proof — Limitation period — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Value of sales)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Infineon Technologies v Commission
   (Case T-758/14) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Smart card chips - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Exchanges of commercially sensitive information - Rights of defence - Infringement by object - Proof - Limitation period - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Value of sales))
   (2017/C 038/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infineon Technologies AG (Neubiberg, Germany) (represented by: I. Brinker, U. Soltész and P. Linsmeier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, A. Dawes, J. Norris-Usher and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6250 final of 3 September 2014 relating to proceedings under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39574 — Smart Card Chips) or, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Infineon Technologies AG to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.


title: Case T-190/12: Action brought on 25 April 2012 — Tomana and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/25

         Action brought on 25 April 2012 — Tomana and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-190/12)
   2012/C 194/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Johannes Tomana (Harare, Zimbabwe); Titus Mehliswa Johna Abu Basutu (Harare); Happyton Mabhuya Bonyongwe (Harare); Flora Buka (Harare); Wayne Bvudzijena (Harare); David Chapfika (Harare); George Charamba (Harare); Faber Edmund Chidarikire (Harare); Tinaye Chigudu (Harare); Aeneas Soko Chigwedere (Harare); Phineas Chihota (Harare); Augustine Chihuri (Harare); Patrick Anthony Chinamasa (Harare); Edward Takaruza Chindori-Chininga (Harare); Joseph Chinotimba (Harare); Tongesai Shadreck Chipanga (Harare); Augustine Chipwere (Harare); Constantine Chiwenga (Harare); Ignatius Morgan Chiminya Chombo (Harare); Martin Dinha (Harare); Nicholas Tasunungurwa Goche (Harare); Gideon Gono (Harare); Cephas T. Gurira (Harare); Stephen Gwekwerere (Harare); Newton Kachepa (Harare); Mike Tichafa Karakadzai (Harare); Saviour Kasukuwere (Harare); Jawet Kazangarare (Harare); Sibangumuzi Khumalo (Harare); Nolbert Kunonga (Harare); Martin Kwainona (Harare); R. Kwenda (Harare); Andrew Langa (Harare); Musarashana Mabunda (Harare); Jason Max Kokerai Machaya (Harare); Joseph Mtakwese Made (Harare); Edna Madzongwe (Harare); Shuvai Ben Mahofa (Harare); Titus Maluleke (Harare); Paul Munyaradzi Mangwana (Harare); Reuben Marumahoko (Harare); G. Mashava (Harare); Angeline Masuku (Harare); Cain Ginyilitshe Ndabazekhaya Mathema (Harare); Thokozile Mathuthu (Harare); Innocent Tonderai Matibiri (Harare); Joel Biggie Matiza (Harare); Brighton Matonga (Harare); Cairo Mhandu (Harare); Fidellis Mhonda (Harare); Amos Bernard Midzi (Harare); Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa (Harare); Kembo Campbell Dugishi Mohadi (Harare); Gilbert Moyo (Harare); Jonathan Nathaniel Moyo (Harare); Sibusio Bussie Moyo (Harare); Simon Khaya Moyo (Harare); S. Mpabanga (Harare); Obert Moses Mpofu (Harare); Cephas George Msipa (Harare); Henry Muchena (Harare); Olivia Nyembesi Muchena (Harare); Oppah Chamu Zvipange Muchinguri (Harare); C. Muchono (Harare); Tobaiwa Mudede (Harare); Isack Stanislaus Gorerazvo Mudenge (Harare); Columbus Mudonhi (Harare); Bothwell Mugariri (Harare); Joyce Teurai Ropa Mujuru (Harare); Isaac Mumba (Harare); Simbarashe Simbanenduku Mumbengegwi (Harare); Herbert Muchemwa Murerwa (Harare); Munyaradzi Musariri (Harare); Christopher Chindoti Mushohwe (Harare); Didymus Noel Edwin Mutasa (Harare); Munacho Thomas Alvar Mutezo (Harare); Ambros Mutinhiri (Harare); S. Mutsvunguma (Harare); Walter Mzembi (Harare); Morgan S. Mzilikazi (Harare); Sylvester Nguni (Harare); Francis Chenayimoyo Dunstan Nhema (Harare); John Landa Nkomo (Harare); Michael Reuben Nyambuya (Harare); Magadzire Hubert Nyanhongo (Harare); Douglas Nyikayaramba (Harare); Sithembiso Gile Glad Nyoni (Harare); David Pagwese Parirenyatwa (Harare); Dani Rangwani (Harare); Engelbert Abel Rugeje (Harare); Victor Tapiwe Chashe Rungani (Harare); Richard Ruwodo (Harare); Stanley Urayayi Sakupwanya (Harare); Tendai Savanhu (Harare); Sydney Tigere Sekeramayi (Harare); Lovemore Sekeremayi (Harare); Webster Kotiwani Shamu (Harare); Nathan Marwirakuwa Shamuyarira (Harare); Perence Samson Chikerema Shiri (Harare); Etherton Shungu (Harare); Chris Sibanda (Harare); Jabulani Sibanda (Harare); Misheck Julius Mpande Sibanda (Harare); Phillip Valerio Sibanda (Harare); David Sigauke (Harare); Absolom Sikosana (Harare); Nathaniel Charles Tarumbwa (Harare); Edmore Veterai (Harare); Patrick Zhuwao (Harare); Paradzai Willings Zimondi (Harare); Cold Comfort Farm Cooperative Trust (Harare); Comoil (Private) Ltd (Harare); Divine Homes (Private) Ltd (Harare); Famba Safaris (Private) Ltd (Harare); Jongwe Printing and Publishing Company (Private) Ltd (Harare); M & S Syndicate (Private) Ltd (Harare); Osleg (Private) Ltd (Harare); Swift Investments (Private) Ltd (Harare); Zidco Holdings (Private) Ltd (Harare); Zimbabwe Defence Industries (Private) Ltd (Harare); Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp. (Harare) (represented by: D. Vaughan, QC (Queen’s Counsel), M. Lester and R. Lööf, Barristers, and M. O’Kane, Solicitor)

      Defendants: European Commission, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/97/CFSP of 17 February 2012 amending Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 47, p. 50), in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               Annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 151/2012 of 21 February 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 314/2004 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 49, p. 2), in so far as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2012/124/CFSP of 27 February 2012 implementing Decision 2011/101/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Zimbabwe (OJ 2012 L 54, p. 20), in so far as it concerns the applicants; and

               —

               Order the defendants to pay the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendants have included individuals and entities without a proper legal basis for doing so. Neither the Council nor the Commission has the power to impose restrictive measures on non-state actors in Zimbabwe on the sole grounds of unsubstantiated allegations of criminal misconduct in Zimbabwe. The unsubstantiated allegations are in many cases alleged to have taken place even before the Government of National Unity was formed. The institutions have acted beyond their limited competence in penal matters, and the measures in question are inappropriate and disproportionate to any legitimate Common Foreign and Security Policy objective.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendants erred manifestly in considering that the criteria for listing set out in the contested measures were fulfilled, because:

                           —

                           The defendants were not lawfully entitled to include applicants on the sole basis of assertions that they are a ZANU-PF member of the Government of Zimbabwe or an associate of such a person; and

                           —

                           The defendants were not lawfully entitled to include applicants on the basis of vague unsupported allegations of misconduct stated to have taken place in the past, in many cases before the Government of National Unity was formed.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendants failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for including individuals and entities in the contested measures.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendants failed to safeguard the applicants’ rights of defence and to effective judicial review, in that:

                           —

                           The defendants provided no particulars or evidence in support of their vague assertions of serious misconduct, and

                           —

                           The defendants provided no opportunity for the applicants to comment on the case and evidence against them.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the defendants infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicants’ fundamental rights, including their right to protection of their property, business, reputation and private and family life.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 April 2003 in Case T-280/02: Johannes Jacobus Pikaart and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Application for annulment — Actionable measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
23.8.2003                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 200/23
represented by W. Schuler, lawyer, against Commission of the                2.    The applicants shall bear their own costs and those incurred by
European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen and B. Eggers)                        the Commission.
— application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 imposing provisional safe-
guard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ                (1) OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.
2002 L 85, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 April
2003, in which it:
1.    Dismissed the action as inadmissible.
2.    Ordered the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the              ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Commission, including the costs relating to the procedure for
      interim relief.
                                                                                of 6 May 2003
( ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.02.
 1
                                                                            in Case T-321/02: Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin v
                                                                            European Parliament and Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
                                                                            (Application for annulment — Directive 2002/58/EC —
                                                                            Natural or legal persons — Standing to bring proceedings
                                                                                — Inadmissibility)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2003/C 200/42)
                            of 9 April 2003
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-280/02: Johannes Jacobus Pikaart and Others v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-321/02: Paul Vannieuwenhuyze-Morin, residing in
                                                                            Grigny (France), represented by G. Dupaigne, lawyer, against
                                                                            the European Parliament (Agents: H. Duintjer Tebbens and
(Application for annulment — Actionable measures — Inad-
                                                                            A. Caiola) and the Council of the European Union (Agent:
                               missibility)
                                                                            M.-C. Giorgi Fort) — application for partial annulment of
                                                                            Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the
                                                                            Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal
                            (2003/C 200/41)                                 data and the protection of privacy in the electronic commu-
                                                                            nications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic commu-
                                                                            nications) (OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37) — the Court of First
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
                                                                            P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
                                                                            an order on 6 May 2003, the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows:
In Case T-280/02: Johannes Jacobus Pikaart, residing in Papen-
drecht (Netherlands), Johanna Cornelia Pikaart-Leeuwestein,
residing in Papendrecht, Scheepvaartonderneming ‘Factotum’                  1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
vof, established in Papendrecht, represented by J. van Dam
and D. Ouwerling, lawyers, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — application for                     2.    It is unnecessary to rule on the applications for leave to
annulment of the decision of the Commission contained in                          intervene lodged by the Kingdom of Spain and the Commission.
the letter addressed to the applicants by its services on 16 July
2002 (D (2002) 11796) — the Court of First Instance (Third
                                                                            3.    The applicant shall bear his own costs and those incurred by
Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
                                                                                the Parliament and the Council.
M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 April
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7, 11.1.2003.
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.


title: Case C-246/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2009 — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

text:
               10.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 244/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2009 — Susanne Bulicke v Deutsche Büro Service GmbH
   (Case C-246/09)
   2009/C 244/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Susanne Bulicke

      Defendant: Deutsche Büro Service GmbH

      Question referred

   Does national legislation under which a time-limit of two months from receipt of a rejection of a job application — or by way of interpretation: from knowledge of the discrimination — applies (in the absence of provisions in a collective agreement) to the bringing in writing of a claim for damages and/or compensation based on discrimination in recruitment infringe primary law of the European Community (safeguarding effective legal protection) and/or the Community law prohibition of age discrimination, Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, (1) if three-year limitation periods apply to equivalent claims under national law, and/or the ‘prohibition of regression’ (reduction of protection) under Article 8 of Directive 2000/78/EC, if a previous national provision provided for a longer limitation period for discrimination on grounds of sex?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Action brought on 16 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-320/97)

text:
1 . 11 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 /13
Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 by the European                   Action brought on 16 September 1997 by the Commission
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 10 July                  of the European Communities against the Federal
1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                                  Republic of Germany
of the European Communities in Case T-36/96 between                                          ( Case C-320/97)
        Giuliana Gaspari and the European Parliament
                         Case C-3 16/97 P)                                                     ( 97/C 331/24 )
                          ( 97/C 331/23 )
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice on 16 September 1997
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997              by the Commission of the European Communities,
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the            represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
European Communities in Case T-36/96 between Giuliana                 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Gaspari and the European Parliament was brought on                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
12 September 1997 by Manfred Peter, Head of Division in               also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
the Legal Service, and Antonio Caiola, of the same                    Kirchberg.
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the European
Parliament, Kirchberg.                                                The Commission claims that the Court should :
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                      1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                          necessary to comply with Directive 94/3 7/EC (')
— annul the contested judgment delivered by the Court                     within the period prescribed, the Federal Republic of
     of First Instance on 10 July 1997 in Case T-36/96                    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     Giuliana Gaspari v. European Parliament ('),                         EC Treaty and that Directive,
— make the form of order sought by the Parliament                     2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
     before the Court of First Instance, namely:
     — declare the application unfounded,                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — order the applicant to pay the costs,
                                                                      The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty requires
— as to the costs before the Court of Justice, to make                Member States to transpose directives addressed to them
     such an order as seems equitable to the Court.                   into national law so that they take full effect before the
                                                                      period prescribed for transposition expires. Although that
                                                                      time-limit expired on 31 July 1995, the Federal Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   of Germany had not adopted the necessary provisions.
Breach of Community law:                                              H OJ L 194, 29 . 7. 1994, p . 65 .
— The application should have been dismissed as
     inadmissible since the pleas in law raised were not put
     forward in the prior administrative complaint.
— The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Stockholms
     the contested measure did not contain a statement of             Tingsratt by order of that court of 15 September 1997 in
     reasons or a sufficient statement of reasons . It is for         the case of Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wakeras
     the official concerned to show that the opinion of the                          Andersson v. the Swedish State
     examining doctor is not justified. If that were not the                                 ( Case C-321/97)
     case, the entire system laid down in Article 59 ( 1 ) of
     the Staff Regulations would no longer make sense .                                        ( 97/C 331 /25 )
— The Court of First Instance wrongly raised of its own
     motion a plea based on a supposed breach of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     rights of the defense .                                          European Communities by order of the Stockholms
                                                                      Tingsratt ( District Court, Stockholm ) of 15 September
                                                                      1997, received at the Court Registry on 17 September
(>) OJ C 252, 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 29 .
                                                                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ulla-Brith
                                                                      Andersson     and    Susanne       Wakeras-Andersson   v.  the
                                                                      Swedish State on the following questions:


title: Case C-595/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 25 November 2011 — Steinel Vertrieb GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld
   (Case C-595/11)
   2012/C 89/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Steinel Vertrieb GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Bielefeld

      Question referred

   Are

               (a)

               Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 (1) of 16 July 2001 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China
               and

               (b)

               Council Regulation (EC) No 1205/2007 (2) of 15 October 2007 imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and extending to imports of the same product consigned from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of the Philippines to be interpreted as meaning that they also cover the compact fluorescent lamps with a twilight switch imported by the claimant and described in greater detail in the order?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1322/2006 of 1 September 2006 (OJ 2006 L 244, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.


title: Case C-8/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Anna Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Officials — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Concept of work done for another State )

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Anna Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-8/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Officials - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Condition laid down by Article 4(1)(a), second indent, of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Concept of ‘work done for another State’)
   (2008/C 22/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: Anna Herrero Romeu (represented by: J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Peréz, A. Sayagéus Torres, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, J. Rivas Andrés and M. Canal, abogados)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 Herrero Romeu v Commission (T-298/02), dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission's decision of 10 June 2002 refusing to pay the applicant the expatriation allowance under Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and the allowances associated therewith
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Herrero Romeu to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case T-442/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Walderdorff v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Promotion — 2003 Promotion procedure — Decision not to promote — Award of promotion points — Consideration of the comparative merits — Equal treatment — General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Plea of illegality — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2007 — Walderdorff v Commission
   (Case T-442/04) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Promotion - 2003 Promotion procedure - Decision not to promote - Award of promotion points - Consideration of the comparative merits - Equal treatment - General provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Plea of illegality - Legitimate expectations)
   (2007/C 170/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Andrea Walderdorff (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, initially, and subsequently by G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment, first, of the Appointing Authority's decision of 19 July 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint against that authority's decision not to promote her to Grade A4 for the 2003 promotion procedure and, secondly, in so far as necessary, of the original decision which was the subject of that complaint.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 8.1.2005.