19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 397/27
The Commission considers that that system, resulting                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
from the legislation in force, is capable of hindering,
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-
Community trade in petroleum products.                              Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                    directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                    upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                    Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty,
It contends, furthermore, that the Hellenic Republic
                                                                    Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
cannot rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty as a
                                                                    whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
justification. A Member State may invoke Article 36 in
                                                                    obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
order to justify a measure having equivalent effect to a
                                                                    action taken by thge institutions of the Community. The
quantitative restriction on imports only if no other
                                                                    abovementioned provisions require the Member States to
measure, less restrictive from the point of the view of the
                                                                    make their legislation consistent with Community
free movement of goods, is capable of achieving the same
                                                                    directives within the periods which those directives lay
objective. The objective of maintaining security of supply,
                                                                    down. A Member State may not invoke provisions,
which the Greek authorities state is the objective pursued
                                                                    practices or circumstances existing in its legal order in
by them, can be achieved by measures which are less
                                                                    order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and
restrictive of the free movement of goods.
                                                                    time-limits laid down by Community directives. It is not
                                                                    disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                    measures to comply with Directive 94/47/EC. The time-
The Commission thus considers that the contested Greek              limit laid down by Article 12 of that directive expired on
legislation constitutes a measure which has equivalent              29 April 1997 without the Hellenic Republic having
effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Article 30        adopted the laws, regulations and administrative
of the Treaty, and cannot be justified on any of the                provisions necessary to comply with the directive or
grounds set out in Article 36 of the Treaty, and in                 having notified them to the Commission.
particular not on the basis of security of supply.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
Action brought on 10 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic                          Removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (1)
                           Republic                                                         (98/C 397/48)
                        (Case C-401/98)
                         (98/C 397/47)                              By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (reference for
                                                                    a preliminary ruling from the Royal Court of Jersey):
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    Emidio Marco Rios v. His Excellency the Lieutenant
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    Governor of Jersey.
on 10 November 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (1)
Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                                   (98/C 397/49)
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
     the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (reference for a
     relating to the pourchase of the right to use
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the Sù- og Handelsret): 3Com
     immovable properties on a timeshare basis, or by not
                                                                    Corporation v. Bluecom Danmark A/S and KISS Nordic
     notifying them to the Commission, the Hellenic
                                                                    A/S.
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations udner that
     directive;
                                                                    (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


7.12.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 305/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-124/01 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-45/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/36)                                                      (2002/C 305/39)
By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 10 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               of the European Communities ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-124/01: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-45/02: Commission of the European
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-150/01 ( 1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-70/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/37)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/40)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-150/01: Commission of the
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                      from the register of Case C-70/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-443/01 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 305/38)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-221/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/41)
By order of 28 August 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-443/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Vestre Landsret): Poul Nørgaard v Skatteminis-          By order of 25 September 2002 the President of the Court of
teriet.                                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-221/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Case T-11/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Internet Consulting v EUIPO Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL) (EU trade mark — Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity — EU word mark SUEDTIROL — Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Absolute ground for refusal — Geographical indication of origin — Descriptive character)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — Internet Consulting v EUIPO Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige (SUEDTIROL)
   (Case T-11/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity - EU word mark SUEDTIROL - Article 7(1)(c) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Absolute ground for refusal - Geographical indication of origin - Descriptive character))
   (2016/C 326/44)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Internet Consulting GmbH (Brunico, Italy) (represented by: L. Miori and A. Bertella, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige (Italy) (represented by: C. Volkmann, lawyer) (Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2014 (Case R 574/2013-G), relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between the Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano-Alto Adige and Internet Consulting.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Internet Consulting GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 2.3.2015.


title: Case F-123/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2012 — Bancale and Buccheri v Commission (Civil Service — Temporary staff — Internal competitions — Conditions for admission — Professional experience acquired after obtaining the diploma — Diploma — Qualifications obtained before obtaining the diploma — Equivalence)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 1 February 2012 — Bancale and Buccheri v Commission
   (Case F-123/10) (1)

   (Civil Service - Temporary staff - Internal competitions - Conditions for admission - Professional experience acquired after obtaining the diploma - Diploma - Qualifications obtained before obtaining the diploma - Equivalence)
   2012/C 138/56
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Giovanni Bancale (Waterloo, Belgium) and Roberto Buccheri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by B. Eggers and P. Pecho, Agents, and subsequently by B. Eggers, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decisions of the Selection Boards in Competitions COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD8 and COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 not to admit the applicants to the competitions.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mr Bancale and Mr Buccheri to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 67.


title: Case C-73/17: Action brought on 9 February 2017 — French Republic v European Parliament

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/37

         Action brought on 9 February 2017 — French Republic v European Parliament
   (Case C-73/17)
   (2017/C 104/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: F. Alabrune, D. Colas, B. Fodda and E. de Moustier, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the agenda of the meeting of the European Parliament of Wednesday 30 November 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)11-30), in so far as it makes provision for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget agreed by the Conciliation Committee; the agenda of the meeting of Thursday 1 December 2016 (document P8_0J (2016)12-01), in so far as it makes provision for a vote followed by explanations of votes on the joint text on the draft general budget; the European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 on the joint text on the draft general budget (document TS-0475/2016, P8_TA-PROV(2016)0475 in its provisional version), and the act by which, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget had been definitively adopted;

               —

               maintain the effects of the act by which the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017 had been adopted until that budget is definitively adopted by an act in conformity with the Treaties within a reasonable period of time after the date of the judgement;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By its action, the French Government requests the annulment of four acts adopted by the European Parliament in the context of the exercise of its budgetary powers, at the additional plenary session which took place on 30 November and 1 December 2016 in Brussels.

               2.

               The first and second acts annulment of which is sought by the French Government are agendas of meetings of the European Parliament of Wednesday 30 November 2016and Thursday 1 December 2016, in so far as they make provision respectively for plenary debates on the joint text on the draft general budget for the financial year 2017 and a vote followed by explanations of votes on that joint text on the draft general budget.

               3.

               The third contested act is the European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 on the joint text on the draft general budget.

               4.

               Finally, the French Government requests the annulment of the act by which, in accordance with Article 314(9) TFEU, the President of the European Parliament concluded that the general budget of the Union for the financial year 2017 had been definitively adopted. As is apparent in particular from the agenda of the meeting of the European Parliament of Thursday 1 December 2016, it concerns the declaration of the President of the European Parliament followed by the latter’s signature of the general budget, which took place following the vote on the legislative resolution on the joint text on the draft general budget.

               5.

               By its single plea in law, the French Government considers that the four contested acts must be annulled on the ground that they infringe Protocol No 6 annexed to the TEU and the TFEU and Protocol No 3 annexed to the ECSC Treaty, which relate to the location of the seats of the institutions and of certain bodies, agencies and departments of the European Union.

               6.

               It follows both from the protocols on the seat of the institutions and the case-law of the Court that the European Parliament may not exercise the budgetary powers conferred upon it by Article 314 TFEU during additional plenary sessions held in Brussels, but must exercise them during ordinary plenary sessions held in Strasbourg.

               7.

               However, in so far as the lawfulness of the contested act of the President of the European Parliament is disputed, not as a result of its purpose or contents, but solely because that act should have been adopted during an ordinary plenary session in Strasbourg, the need to ensure the continuity of the European public service together with important considerations of legal certainty justify, according to the French Government, the maintenance of the legal effects of that act until the adoption of a new act compatible with the treaties.


title: Case C-164/03: Action brought on 9 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
C 124/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        24.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            represented by Dr Ulrich Wölker, Commission Legal Adviser,
                                                                           and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant available to the
—     Breach of the Staff Regulations and of the Conditions                Commission Legal Service under an exchange scheme, with an
      of Employment of Other Servants of the European                      address for service in Luxembourg.
      Communities
      According to Article 30 of Council Decision 2002/                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
      187/JHA of 28 February 2002 establishing Eurojust to
      strengthen the fight against serious forms of crime ( 1),            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
      Eurojust staff are to be subject to the rules and regulations              the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
      applicable to the officials and other servants of the                      provisions necessary in order to implement Council
      European Communities.                                                      Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
                                                                                85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
      Under Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment,                          public and private projects on the environment (1) in the
      candidates are only required to have a thorough know-                      provinces of Burgenland and Salzburg, the Republic of
      ledge of one language and a satisfactory knowledge of                      Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      another.                                                                   directive;
—     Breach of the linguistic rules of Eurojust                           2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      Article 31 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA provides
      that the official linguistic arrangements of the Union are
      to apply to Eurojust proceedings. No provision of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      decision expressly states that the working languages of
      Eurojust are to be English and French.                               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                           which provides that a directive is binding as to the result to be
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination                        achieved upon each Member State, the Member States are
      The requirement that part of the documents to be                     obliged to comply with the time-limit for implementation laid
      submitted should be drawn up in English and, most of                 down in directives. The period for implementation laid down
      all, the requirement of excellent knowledge of English               in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March
      and French amounts to clear discrimination grounds of                1999 without the Republic of Austria having adopted the
      nationality, prohibited by Article 12 EC.                            necessary provisions for the provinces of Burgenland and
                                                                           Salzburg.
( 1) OJ 2002 L 63, p. 1.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
Action brought on 9 April 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)
                              Austria
                                                                                (2003/C 124/27)
                          (Case C-164/03)
                          (2003/C 124/26)                                  By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                           register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before               Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002.


title: Case C-305/02: Action brought on 28 August 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
12.10.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/9
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by the Commission                             —     failed to record infringements which the national
of the European Communities against the French Republic                              authorities could have found to exist and to charge
                                                                                offenders.
                          (Case C-304/02)                                      The apparent absence of control activities was recorded
                                                                               during frequent inspections over several years and not-
                                                                               withstanding the improvements in methods of control
                          (2002/C 247/14)                                      and the number of inspections which the French auth-
                                                                               orities pointed out in their correspondence with the
                                                                               Commission services. In addition, the Commission never
                                                                               denied that there had been findings of infringements.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                   None the less, it determined, and complained to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 August                      French authorities, that the inspections were insufficient
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            in number and lacking in thoroughness and that there
represented by M. van Lier and M. van Rijn, acting as Agents,                  are indications that turning a blind eye to breaches related
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     to certain undersized fish is generally tolerated.
                                                                        —      Penalty
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                              The Commission, referring to its communications of
                                                                               21 August 1996 (6) and 28 February 1997 ( 7), is applying
                                                                               to the basic amount of EUR 500 a factor of 10 (out of a
—     Declare that, by continuing to fail to undertake control
      activities ensuring compliance with the technical                        possible maximum of 20) for the seriousness of the
      measures for the conservation of fishery resources laid                  infringement, taking account in particular of the
                                                                               reduction of complaints in relation to the initial infringe-
      down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 171/83 of 25 Janu-
      ary 1983 ( 1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 3094/86                    ment, a factor of 3 (possible maximum: 3) for its duration
      of 7 October 1986 (2), and by thus failing to comply                     and a factor of 2.1 for France’s ability to pay.
      with the obligations laid down in Article 1 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 estab-
      lishing certain control measures for fishing activities by        (1 ) OJ L 24 of 27.01.1983, p. 14.
      vessels of the Member States ( 3) and Article 1 of Council        (2 ) OJ L 288 of 11.10.1986, p. 1.
      Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 estab-                (3 ) OJ L 220 of 29.7.1982, p. 1.
      lishing certain control measures for fishing activities ( 4),     (4 ) OJ L 207 of 29.7.1987, p. 1.
      the French Republic has failed to apply all the measures          (5 ) ECR [1991] I-2748.
      necessary to implement the judgment of 11 June 1991,              (6 ) OJ C 242, p. 6.
                                                                        (7 ) OJ C 63, p. 2.
      Commission v France (C-64/88) ( 5) and has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 228 of the EC Treaty;
—     Order the French Republic to pay to the Commission
      of the European Communities, into the account ‘own
      resources of the EC’, a penalty of EUR 316 500 per day
      of delay in implementing the necessary measures to
      comply with the judgment in Commission v France cited
      above, starting from the delivery of the present judgment
      and until the implementation of the judgment in Com-
      mission v France, cited above;                                    Action brought on 28 August 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
—     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-305/02)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2002/C 247/15)
—     Infringement of Community law, Article 228 EC:
      The Commission states that France did not act on the
      judgment of 11 June 1991 in Case C-64/88, in that it              An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 August
      —     failed to ensure compliance with technical conser-          2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
            vation measures relating to the minimum size of             represented by Lena Ström, acting as agent, with an address
            fish, in particular hake, and                               for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/10                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.10.2002
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
1)     declare that by failing to adopt for Gibraltar the laws,              —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                      or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       comply with Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of                          Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
       25 April 2000 concerning the list of Community legis-                       concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
       lation referred to in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of                  in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive
       Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2), or in any event, by                      67/548/EEC, the French Republic failed to fulfil its
       failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the                    obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       that directive;                                                       —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
2)     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             The obligations flowing from the third paragraph of
                                                                             Article 249 of the EC Treaty includes that of observing the
                                                                             time-limits laid down in directives. That time-limit expired on
The Commission considers that it is the duty of the authorities              1 April 2002 without France having brought into force the
of the United Kingdom to initiate, in due time, the procedures               necessary provisions.
necessary for incorporating the directive into domestic law so
that such process is complete within the time-limit laid down,
irrespective of the nature of such procedures, and to inform
                                                                             (1 ) OJ 2000 L 103, p. 70.
the Commission thereof.
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted to comply with the directive
concerned for Gibraltar, the United Kingdom has thus failed
to fulfil its obligations under the directive as regards Gibraltar.
                                                                             Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of
( 1) OJ L 103, 28.4.2000, p. 70.                                             the European Communities against Grand Duchy of
( 2) of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and                                      Luxembourg
     administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging
     and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 196, 16.8.1967, p. 1
     [SE SER1 71(I) p. 180).                                                                          (Case C-308/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 247/17)
                                                                             An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                             brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Action brought on 29 August 2002 by Commission of the                        ties on 29 August 2002 by the Commission of the European
       European Communities against French Republic                          Communities, represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent,
                                                                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-307/02)
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2002/C 247/16)                                    —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Commission Directive 2000/21/EC (1) of 25 April 2000
                                                                                concerning the list of Community legislation referred to
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                       in the fifth indent of Article 13(1) of Council Directive 67/
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 August                          548/EEC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed to fulfil
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;
represented by Lena Ström, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                                   —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.


title: Case C-121/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/18/EC — Deliberate release into the environment and placing on the market of GMOs — Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Non-compliance — Article 228 EC — Judgment complied with during the proceedings — Pecuniary penalties)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-121/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/18/EC - Deliberate release into the environment and placing on the market of GMOs - Judgment of the Court establishing the failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-compliance - Article 228 EC - Judgment complied with during the proceedings - Pecuniary penalties)
   (2009/C 44/12)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, S. Gasri and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: initially, T. Boček and, subsequently, M. Smolek, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03 concerning the failure to transpose the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1), which diverge from or go beyond the provisions of that directive — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum payment
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, by the date on which the deadline imposed in the reasoned opinion expired, all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 15 July 2004 in Case C-419/03 Commission v France concerning its failure to transpose into national law the provisions of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, which diverge from or go beyond the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 10 million;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-131/03 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 — R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., Japan Tobacco, Inc. v Philip Morris International Inc., Commission of the European Communities, European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Appeal — Commission's decision to bring proceedings before a court of a non-Member State — Action for annulment — Inadmissible)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 September 2006 — R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., Japan Tobacco, Inc. v Philip Morris International Inc., Commission of the European Communities, European Parliament, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic, Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Republic of Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-131/03 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Commission's decision to bring proceedings before a court of a non-Member State - Action for annulment - Inadmissible)
   (2006/C 294/02)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellants: R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., Japan Tobacco, Inc. (represented by: P. Lomas, Solicitor, and O.W. Brouwer, Lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Philip Morris International Inc., Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey, X. Lewis and C. Ladenburger, Agents), European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Baas), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, Agent), Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and M. Fiorilli, Lawyer), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes et A. Seiça Neves, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, Agents), Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and W.-D. Plessing, Agents), Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: J.G.M. van Bakel, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the Commission: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and T. Blanchet, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 January 2003 in Joined Cases T-377/00, T-379/00, T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01 Philip Morris International and Others v Commission, by which it declared inadmissible the actions for annulment of the Commission's decision to bring a civil action against the appellants before a United States court following their alleged involvement in smuggling cigarettes into the European Union, in order to obtain compensation for the financial loss suffered by the Union and a court order that the smuggling is to cease — Interpretation of Article 230 EC and the case-law of the Court — Legal effects of the Commission's decision to bring a civil action before a court of a non-Member State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International, Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., are ordered to pay the costs.

               3.

               The Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 21.06.2003.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 February 2003 in Case T-253/02: Chafiq Ayadi v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Council Regulation — Action brought against the Council and the commission — Partial inadmissibility)

text:
C 101/34                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           26.4.2003
(Belgium), represented by M. van Dam, Avocat, against the                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: H. van                                                     INSTANCE
Vliet and W. Wils) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision SG (2001) D/286098 of 9 February                                                 of 31 January 2003
2001, whereby the Commission rejected the application by
the applicant for exclusion of the boat Arizona from the scope
of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999                      in Case T-224/02 R: Miguel Forcat Icardo v Commission
on a Community-fleet capacity policy to promote inland                                        of the European Communities
waterway transport (OJ 1999 L 90, p. 1) — the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,                (Proceedings for interim measures — Officials — Inadmissi-
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an                              bility — Urgency — No urgency)
order on 13 December 2002, in which it:
                                                                                (2003/C 101/63)
1)    Declares that there is no further need to adjudicate;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2)    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 186, 30.6.2001.                                                    In Case T-224/02 R: Miguel Forcat Icardo, an official of
                                                                             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                             Brussels, represented by M.A. Lucas, avocat, against Com-
                                                                             mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
                                                                             H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application, essentially, in the first
                                                                             place, for compliance with the Commission’s undertaking to
                                                                             second the applicant to the United Nations Organisation for
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Food and Agriculture in Rome and, second, for suspension of
                                                                             the applicant’s staff report of 18 March 2002 covering the
                                                                             period from 1999 to 2001 — the President of the Court of
                       of 11 February 2003                                   First Instance has made an order on 31 January 2003, the
                                                                             operative part of which is as follows:
in Case T-83/02: Jan Pflugradt v European Central Bank (1)
                                                                             1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
(Staff of the European Central Bank — Formal warning —
Measure having an adverse effect — Pre-litigation procedure                  2.    The costs are reserved.
                        — Inadmissibility)
                          (2003/C 101/62)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 February 2003
In Case T-83/02: Jan Pflugradt, residing in Frankfurt-am-Main
(Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, Rechtsanwalt, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, against European Central                  in Case T-253/02: Chafiq Ayadi v Council of the European
Bank (Agents: V. Saintot, T. Gilliams and B. Wägenbaur) —                    Union and Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
application for the annulment of the letter of 28 February
2002 by which the European Central Bank informed the                         (Action for annulment — Council Regulation — Action
applicant that a formal-warning procedure was being instituted               brought against the Council and the commission — Partial
against him — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),                                              inadmissibility)
composed of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and
J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                                (2003/C 101/64)
11 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
1.    The application is inadmissible.
2.    Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                                                             In Case T-253/02: Chafiq Ayadi, residing in Dublin, represent-
                                                                             ed by A. Lyon, Solicitor, and S. Cox, Barrister, against Council
( 1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.                                                  of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop)
                                                                             and Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                             M. Wilderspin and C. Brown) — application for partial
 ---pagebreak--- 26.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/35
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May                    1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed
against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin                2.    The costs are reserved.
Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export
of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening
the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other
financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ
2002 L 139, p. 9), — the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and
A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                     Action brought on 18 December 2002 by Success-Market-
3 February 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                   ing Unternehmensberatungesellschaft m.b.H. against the
                                                                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs)
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it is directed
       against the Commission.
                                                                                (Case T-380/02)
2.     The applicant is ordered to pay the costs relating to this part of                               (2003/C 101/66)
       the action.
                                                                              (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                              Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application drafted in
( 1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
                                                                                German)
                                                                              An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                              Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                              18 December 2002 by Success-Marketing Unternehmensbera-
                                                                              tungesellschaft m.b.H., Linz (Austria), represented by G. Seck-
                                                                              lehner, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                  bourg. Additional party before the Board of Appeal: Chipita
                             INSTANCE                                         International S.A., Athens.
                       of 19 December 2002                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              —     set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
in Case T-320/02 R: Monika Esch-Leonhardt and Others v                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                      European Central Bank                                         2 October 2002 ( 1);
                                                                              —     order the Office to allow restitution in integrum;
   (Proceedings for interim relief — Urgency — No urgency)
                                                                              —     order the Office to pay all the costs of the proceedings,
                                                                                including those for the procedure before the Board of
                          (2003/C 101/65)                                           Appeal.
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              The applicant applied to the Office for registration of the word
In Case T-320/02 R: Monika Esch-Leonhardt, residing in                        mark ‘PAN & CO’ for goods and services of classes 11, 30, 35,
Frankfurt-am-Main (Germany), Tillmann Frommhold, residing                     37 and 42 (Application No 634287). Chipita International
in Karben (Germany), and Emmanuel Larue, residing in                          S.A., owner of the pictorial mark ‘PAN SPEZIALITÄTEN’ for
Frankfurt-am-Main, represented by B. Karthaus, Rechtsanwalt,                  goods of class 30 (Community Mark No 382374) lodged an
with an address for service in Luxembourg, against European                   opposition to such registration.
Central Bank (Agents: T. Gilliams, G. Gruber and B. Wägen-
baur) — application for the temporary removal of a document
from the personal files of the applicants — the President of the              The Opposition Division set a time-limit for the applicant to
Court of First Instance made an order on 19 December 2002,                    submit its position on the opposition. The applicant did not
the operative part of which is as follows:                                    submit a position within that time-limit. By decision of


title: Case T-835/16: Order of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Louvers Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment and compensation — Public goods and services contracts — Procurement procedure — Supply of curtains, draperies and interior blinds and fitting, cleaning and maintenance services — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Annulment of the procedure — No need to adjudicate — Action manifestly devoid of any foundation in law)

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/12

         Order of the General Court of 8 September 2017 — Louvers Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-835/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment and compensation - Public goods and services contracts - Procurement procedure - Supply of curtains, draperies and interior blinds and fitting, cleaning and maintenance services - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Annulment of the procedure - No need to adjudicate - Action manifestly devoid of any foundation in law))
   (2017/C 357/16)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Louvers Belgium Co. (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: V. Lejeune, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Verheecke and A. Katsimerou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Firstly, application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 19 September 2016 not to award contract No OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703 to the applicant and, secondly, application based on Article 268 TFEU seeking damages in compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the unlawful conduct of the Commission in that procurement procedure.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 19 September 2016 not to award contract No OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703 to Louvers Belgium Co. or on the application for damages insofar as it concerns the alleged loss of earnings resulting of the non-award of the contract.

               2.

               The application for damages is rejected as manifestly devoid of any foundation in law insofar as it concerns the costs and expenses of Louvers Belgium Co. involved in the participation of Louvers Belgium Co. in procurement procedure OIB.02/PO/2016/012/703.

               3.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 30.1.2017.


title: Case C-21/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Benevento (Provincial Tax Court, Benevento) lodged on 14 January 2011 — Volturno Trasporti SAS di Santoro Nino & C. v Camera di Commercio Benevento; Concessione Equitalia Sestri S.P.A.

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Benevento (Provincial Tax Court, Benevento) lodged on 14 January 2011 — Volturno Trasporti SAS di Santoro Nino & C. v Camera di Commercio Benevento; Concessione Equitalia Sestri S.P.A.
   (Case C-21/11)
   2011/C 95/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Benevento

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Volturno Trasporti SAS di Santoro Nino & C.

      Defendants: Camera di Commercio Benevento; Concessione Equitalia Sestri S.P.A.

      Question referred

   Is the Italian Chamber of Commerce fee, in particular, Article 18(3) of Italian Law No 580 of 29 December 1993 on the reorganisation of the Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Craftsmanship and Agriculture, as amended and supplemented, compatible with Council Directive No 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969, in particular, with Articles 10(c) and 12(e)?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.


title: Case T-227/09: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Feng Shen Technology v OHIM — Majtczak (FS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark FS — Applicant acting in bad faith — Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Feng Shen Technology v OHIM — Majtczak (FS)
   (Case T-227/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark FS - Applicant acting in bad faith - Article 51(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 133/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd (Guieshan Township, Taïwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: (Jarosław Majtczak (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: initially by J. Wyrwas, and subsequently by J. Radłowski, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2009 (Case R 529/2008-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd and Jarosław Majtczak

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 1 April 2009 (Case R 529/2008-4);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and pay the costs of Feng Shen Technology Co. Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Mr Jarosław Majtczak to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-434/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014  — European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp. (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Succession of legal entities — Attributability of unlawful conduct — Reduction of the fine by the General Court — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2014 — European Commission v Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp.
   (Case C-434/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Succession of legal entities - Attributability of unlawful conduct - Reduction of the fine by the General Court - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 065/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë, V. Bottka and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Parker Hannifin Manufacturing Srl, formerly Parker ITR Srl, Parker-Hannifin Corp. (represented by: F. Amato, F. Marchini Càmia and B. Amory, avocats)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Parker ITR and Parker-Hannifin v Commission (T-146/09, EU:T:2013:258);

               2)

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a ruling on the merits of the action;

               3)

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case T-36/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Coats Holdings Limited and J & P Coats Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/32

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Coats Holdings Limited and J & P Coats Limited against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-36/05)
   (2005/C 93/62)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Coats Holdings Limited, established in Uxbridge (United Kingdom) and J & P Coats Limited established in Uxbridge (United Kingdom), represented by W. Sibree and C. Jeffs, Solicitors.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare void and annul the Commission's Decision of 26 October 2004 in Case COMP/F-1/38.338/PO - Needles Doc. C(2004) 4221-final);

               —

               in the alternative, annul such parts of the decision as the Court finds that the Commission has failed to prove or are vitiated by manifest error or inadequate reasoning;

               —

               annul or reduce the fine imposed on the applicants.

               —

               order the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission found that during the period extending from 10 September 1994 to 31 December 1999, the applicants, among other undertakings, had infringed Article 81(1) EC by engaging in concerted practices and entering into a series of agreements which amounted to a tripartite agreement having the effect and object of (i) sharing the European hard haberdashery market, a fact which amounts to product market sharing between the hand sewing and special needles market with the wider markets for needles and with other hard haberdashery markets, and (ii) partitioning the European market for needles, a fact which amounts to geographic market sharing in the needles market.
   In support of their application the applicants invoke first of all a series of manifest errors of assessment on the part of the Commission. The applicants do not contest the Commission's findings in relation to the existence of a cartel between the other undertakings mentioned in the contested decision. However, the applicants claim that the Commission's finding that the applicants had also participated in the same cartel is based on speculation, unjustified inference, a large number of simple factual errors and a series of strained interpretations of events. The applicants consider that the Commission's errors are inevitable since it conducted a defective investigation during which it failed to address any pertinent questions to the applicants about the meetings and agreements in question and has failed to appreciate the commercial context in which the applicants operated and which led them to enter into entirely legitimate agreements for the sale of a business and the subsequent supply of needles.
   The applicants further claim that even if the Court were to uphold all or part of the alleged infringement the fine should be reduced substantially. According to the applicants the Commission imposed the same fine on the Applicants as that imposed on another participant, despite the fact that even in the Commission' s version of events the applicants played only a minor role compared to the other undertakings. The applicants also considers that the fine is grossly disproportionate to their turnover in the needles market, the only market where their participation could have had any impact, and in this sense grossly disproportionate to any potential economic benefit to themselves or harm to consumers.


title: Case C-31/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Directive 2004/83/EC — Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees — Stateless person of Palestinian origin who has not sought protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) — Application for refugee status — Refusal based on a failure to meet the conditions laid down in Article 1A of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 — Right of that stateless person to be recognised as a refugee on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Republic of Hungary)) — Nawras Bolbol v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-31/09) (1)

   (Directive 2004/83/EC - Minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees - Stateless person of Palestinian origin who has not sought protection or assistance from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) - Application for refugee status - Refusal based on a failure to meet the conditions laid down in Article 1A of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951 - Right of that stateless person to be recognised as a refugee on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83)
   2010/C 221/13
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nawras Bolbol

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fövárosi Bíróság (Hungary) — Interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12) — Stateless person of Palestinian origin who has not availed herself of the protection and assistance of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), whose application seeking the grant of refugee status has been refused on the ground of failure to meet the conditions laid down in Article 1A of the Geneva Convention — Right of that stateless person to be granted refugee status on the basis of the second sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 2004/83/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   For the purposes of the first sentence of Article 12(1)(a) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, a person receives protection or assistance from an agency of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when that person has actually availed himself of that protection or assistance.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.


title: Case T-381/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/38

         Action brought on 30 May 2014 — Pshonka v Council
   (Case T-381/14)
   2014/C 261/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Pavlovych Pshonka (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Constantina and J.-M. Reymond, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they concern the applicant and, more specifically, order:

                           —

                           to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Regulation N. 208/2014 of 5 March 2014;

                           —

                           to remove the applicant’s name from Annex I of the Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014;

               —

               partially annul, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 and Council Regulation No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014, insofar as they do not conform to the Joint Proposal;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of this suit and award costs to the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-380/14, Pshonka v Council.


title: Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Lea Tessaro-Treibenreif against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-210/98)

text:
27.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 86/21
Ð the Commission has erroneously disregarded the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicants' immunity from fines in respect of the
     alleged restrictions on the availability and contents of
     service contracts;                                              In this application, the applicant, an official in Grade A 4,
                                                                     step 8, assigned to DG C2 of the Secretariat General of
                                                                     the Council, is seeking compensation for the loss suffered
Ð the Commission has failed to apply a rational and                  as a result of the numerous erros committed by the
     coherent methodology to its calculation of the fines,           defendant which left her without a post for a long period
     contrary to fundamental principles of Community law;            in her career and committed errors and faults in drawing
                                                                     up her Staff Report for the period 1993 to 1995.
Ð the Commission's assessment of the gravity and
     duration of the alleged infringements is flawed;
                                                                     According to the applicant, the defendant discriminated
                                                                     against her with regard to colleagues who were in
Ð the Commission has failed to take into account the                 situations identical to, or even less favourable than, her
     individual positions of each applicant and various              own (and were promoted), thus adversely affecting the
     mitigating factors.                                             proper progress of her career and, in particular, the
                                                                     promotion she was entitled to expect by virtue both of her
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986          ability and her length of service. The defendant also
    laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85    disregarded the principles governing the Council Decision
    and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport (OJ L 378,            of 18 October 1981 laying down the general provisions
    31.12.1986, p. 4).                                               for implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                     of Officials concerning Staff Reports.
                                                                     The harm suffered by the applicant results both from the
                                                                     absence of her 1993 to 1995 Staff Report at the time of
                                                                     the 1996 promotion procedure, and from the adverse
Action brought on 17 December 1998 by Gisela                         effect on her career progress, in particular the fact that she
    Stodtmeister against Council of the European Union               was not promoted.
                        (Case T-200/98)
                         (1999/C 86/40)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Lea
An action against the Council of the European Union was              Tessaro-Treibenreif against the Commission of the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                              European Communities
Communities on 17 December 1998 by Gisela
Stodtmeister, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented                                   (Case T-210/98)
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
                                                                                (1999/C 86/41)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
Ð award her compensation for her loss, in the sum of                 Instance of the European Communities on 24 December
     BEF 500 000, resulting from the absence of her Staff            1998 by Lea Tessaro-Treibenreif, residing in Luxembourg,
     Report for the period 1993 to 1995, on the occasion             represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar,
     of the 1996 promotion procedure;                                with an address for service in Luxembourg at 180 Route
                                                                     de Longwy.
Ð award her a sum, by way of damages, equivalent to
     the difference in her salary between Grade A 3, to
     which she could legitimately have hoped to have been            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     appointed in January 1996, and Grade A 4, step 8,
     which she currently holds, and restoration of her
     career path together with the financial implications            Ð annul the decision of the European Commission
     thereof;                                                            suspending with retroactive effect from 1 January
                                                                         1997 the double dependent child allowance paid to
                                                                         the applicant pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Staff
Ð order the Council to pay all the costs.                                Regulations of Officials until June 1998;
 ---pagebreak--- C 86/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               27.3.1999
Ð annul the decision of the European Commission by                    Action brought on 11 January 1999 by Elbe-Stahlwerke
    which it considered that the dependent child                      Feralpi GmbH against the Commission of the European
    allowances paid pursuant of Article 67(3) of the Staff                                    Communities
    Regulations from January 1997 to June 1998,
                                                                                (Case T-6/99)
    amounting to a global sum of LUF 181 446, were not
    due and payable, and that it was authorised, under                                       (1999/C 86/42)
    Article 85 of the Staff Regulations and on the basis of
    Article 43 of Annex VIII thereto, to recover that sum
    by way of deduction from the retirement pension paid                            (Language of the case: German)
    monthly by the European Commission to the
    applicant;
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
Ð declare unlawful, if not unjustified, the suspension by             Communities was brought before the Court of First
    the Commission on 14 July 1988 of the grant of the                Instance of the European Communities on 11 January
    dependent child allowance to the applicant pursuant               1999 by Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH, of Riesa,
    to Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations;                        Germany, represented by Wolf Michael Kühne of Sozietät
                                                                      Schürmann & Partner, Frankfurt am Main and Milan,
                                                                      with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð declare unlawful and unjustified the application by the
                                                                      Chambers      of    Schaeffer   Hangel     Dennewald     &
    Commission of the rule provided for in Article 85 of
                                                                      Hellenbrand, 12, Avenue de la Porte-Neuve, Luxembourg.
    the Staff Regulations concerning recovery of undue
    payments;
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the European Commission to repay to the
    applicant the sums deducted from her retirement
    pension from July 1998 onwards, up to the total sum               1. order the Commission pursuant to Article 23 of the
    of LUF 181 446;                                                       ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice to produce
                                                                          various records (papers, minutes etc.) documenting the
Ð order the European Commission to pay the costs.                         circumstances in which the contested decision was
                                                                          adopted;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      2. authorise the applicant to inspect the documents
The applicant, a retired official, is the mother of a son                 produced;
who suffers from a serious illness. Since 30 June 1993 she
has been in receipt of a double dependent child allowance
pursuant to Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, since
                                                                      3. declare the Commission's decision of 11 November
her son lives with his parents. Upon verifying the request
                                                                          1998 on German aid to ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi
for extension of that allowance, the Commission found
                                                                          GmbH, Riesa, Sachsen, to be null and void;
that the applicant's son had been married since 1991; it
therefore adopted the contested decisions.
                                                                      4. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
In support of her application, the applicant pleads                       proceedings.
infringement of:
Ð Article 67(3) of the Staff Regulations, in that a                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    decision taken under that Article must be duly
    supported by a statement of reasons;
                                                                      The contested decision declared the investment aid of
Ð the general principle that an administrative decision               DEM 8 173 million, the additional investment of
    must contain a statement of the reasons on which it is            DEM 1 236 million and the loan containing an aid
    based;                                                            element of DEM 12 million granted in 1995 by Germany
                                                                      to the applicant, a steel company, to be incompatible with
                                                                      Decision No 2496/96/ECSC and with the common market
Ð the principle that an administrative decision may not               for coal and steel. It further found that the aid element
    have retroactive effect, save in exceptional                      contained in the loan awarded at the end of 1994 was not
    circumstances duly justified by a statement of reasons;           authorised for working capital advances of DEM 7,2
    and                                                               million and DEM 4,8 million and was therefore also
                                                                      incompatible with the decision cited above and the
Ð Article 85 of the Staff Regulations, in that the                    common market.
    provisions of that Article have been applied without
    its having been shown that the conditions governing
    its applicability are fulfilled in the present case.              The applicant pleads infringement of the Treaty or of rules
                                                                      of law relating to its application, and misuse of powers
                                                                      pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty.


title: Case F-13/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 26 June 2014 — DL v Commission (Removal from the register — Withdrawal by the applicant — Article 89(7) of the Rules of Procedure — Agreement of the parties on costs)

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/30

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 26 June 2014 — DL v Commission
   (Case F-13/14) (1)

   ((Removal from the register - Withdrawal by the applicant - Article 89(7) of the Rules of Procedure - Agreement of the parties on costs))
   2014/C 351/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: DL (Orp-Jauche, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and V. Joris, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request for extension, for the year 2012/2013, of the reimbursement of the costs of speech therapy for the applicant’s son as part of the treatment of his serious illness.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Case F-13/14 is removed from the register of the Tribunal.

               2.

               DL and the European Commission are to pay the costs in accordance with their agreement.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014, p. 46.


               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/40

         Removal from the Register of Case T-197/03 (1)

   (2005/C 115/72)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 19 January 2005, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-197/03, Proras Srl Engineering and Contracting v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.