title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 5 May 1998 in Case C-157/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte: National Farmers' Union and Others (Agriculture - Animal health - Emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy - 'Mad cow disease')

text:
C 209/8               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4.7.98
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,             airport to a hotel with a stop, on occasions, at a tourist
J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate             attraction, where the precise route to be taken is not
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has         predetermined, does not constitute a regular service within
given a judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:          the meaning of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 3820/85 of
                                                                   20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social
                                                                   legislation relating to road transport.
Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of
                                                                   (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in
matters of social security must be interpreted as meaning
that, if national legislation has maintained a different
pensionable age for male and female workers, the Member
State concerned is entitled to calculate the amount of
pension differently depending on the worker's sex.
(1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 May 1998
                                                                   in Case C-157/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                   the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The
                                                                   Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and
                                                                   Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte: National
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 Farmers' Union and Others (1)
                       (First Chamber)
                                                                   (Agriculture Ð Animal health Ð Emergency measures
                       of 30 April 1998                            against bovine spongiform encephalopathy Ð Mad cow
                                                                                disease')
in Case C-47/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Richmond Magistrates' Court): criminal proceedings                                          (98/C 209/16)
against E. Clarke & Sons (Coaches) Ltd and D. J. Ferne (1)
(Social legislation relating to road transport Ð
Compulsory use of a tachograph Ð Exemption for
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
vehicles used for the carriage of passengers on regular
  services where the route covered does not exceed 50 km)
                         (98/C 209/15)
                                                                   In Case C-157/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
               (Language of the case: English)                     Bench Division (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                   in the proceedings pending before that court between the
                                                                   Queen and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
                                                                   and Commissioners of Customs & Excise, ex parte:
In Case C-47/97: reference to the Court under Article 177          National Farmers' Union, David Burnett and Sons Ltd,
of the EC Treaty from Richmond Magistrates' Court                  R. S. and E. Wright Ltd, Anglo Beef Processors Ltd,
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal          United Kingdom Genetics, Wyjac Calves Ltd, International
proceedings pending before that court against E. Clarke &          Traders Ferry Ltd, MFP International Ltd, Interstate Truck
Sons (Coaches) Ltd and D. J. Ferne Ð on the                        Rental Ltd, Vian Exports Ltd, interveners: Anglo Dutch
interpretation of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EEC)            Meat Exports Ltd, Beck Food Group Ltd, First City
No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the                 Trading Ltd, Weddel Swift Ltd, Carrex August Ltd,
international carriage of passengers by coach and bus              Meatal Supplies (Wholesale Meats) Ltd, Meat Marketing
(OJ L 74 of 20.3.1992, p. 1), and of Article 4(3) of               Services (UK) Ltd, NWL (Ireland) Ltd, Hibernia Foods
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December                 plc, Duggins Ltd (D.T.), Swallow Foods International Ltd,
1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation            British Association of Sheep Exporters Ð on the validity
relating to road transport (OJ L 370 of 31.12.1985, p. 1)          of Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of
Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet              27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against
(President of the Chamber), P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.            bovine spongiform encephalopathy (OJ L 78 of 20.3.1996,
Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,             p. 47) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.
30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                              Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
                                                                   Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray,
                                                                   D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
A passenger transport service, supplied on a number of             L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
occasions pursuant to a block reservation made by a tour           General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
operator and providing for a single journey from an                given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/9
Consideration of the question referred has disclosed no            4. Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its
factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1 of                own costs.
Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on
emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform            (1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
encephalopathy.
(1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 5 May 1998
                                                                   in Case C-386/96 P: SocieÂteÂ Louis Dreyfus & Cie v.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                       of 5 May 1998
                                                                   (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the
in Case C-180/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              States of the former Soviet Union Ð Loan Ð
Northern Ireland v. Commission of the European                     Documentary credit Ð Action for annulment Ð
Communities, supported by Council of the European                              Admissibility Ð Directly concerned')
                          Union (1)
                                                                                (98/C 209/18)
(Agriculture Ð Animal health Ð Emergency measures
against bovine spongiform encephalopathy Ð Mad cow                                (Language of the case: French)
                           disease')
                        (98/C 209/17)                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   In Case C-386/96 P: SocieÂteÂ Louis Dreyfus & Cie, a
                                                                   company incorporated under French law, established in
In Case C-180/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and              Paris, represented by Robert Saint-Esteben, of the Paris
Northern Ireland (Agents: Lindsey Nicoll, assisted by              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Nicholas Lyell, Paul Lasok and David Anderson) v.                  Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue Ð appeal
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Dierk              against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
Booû and James Macdonald Flett), supported by Council              European Communities (Third Chamber) of 24 September
of the European Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam and                1996 in Case T-485/93 Dreyfus v. Commission [1996]
Moyra Sims) Ð application for annulment of Commission              ECR II-1101, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency                   other party to the proceedings being the Commission of
measures to protect against bovine spongiform                      the European Communities represented by Marie-JoseÂ
encephalopathy (OJ L 78 of 28.3.1996, p. 47) and of                Jonczy, Legal Adviser, and Nicholas Khan Ð the Court,
certain other acts of the Commission Ð the Court,                  composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.               C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen                   and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho            J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                   D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),          L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges, Advocate General:
Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                  A. La Pergola, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on          Administrator, has given a judgment on 5 May 1998, in
5 May 1998, in which it:                                           which it:
1. Declares the action brought by the United Kingdom of            1. Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    Great Britain and Northern Ireland inadmissible in so               24 September 1996 in Case T-485/93 Dreyfus v.
    far as it seeks annulment of the Commission's                       Commission in so far as it dismisses as inadmissible
    statements of position of 10 April, 13 April and 8 May              the action for annulment brought by Louis Dreyfus &
    1996.                                                               Cie.
2. Dismisses the action brought by the United Kingdom              2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for
    of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in so far as it               judgment on the substance.
    seeks annulment of Commission Decision 96/239/EC
    of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect              3. Reserves costs.
    against bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
    Northern Ireland to pay the costs.


title: Case C-103/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 February 2005 in Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 February 2005 in Reisch Montage AG v Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH
   (Case C-103/05)
   (2005/C 132/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof (Germany) of 2 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 28 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Reisch Montage AG and Kiesel Baumaschinen Handels GmbH on the following question:
   Can a claimant rely on Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) when bringing a claim against a person domiciled in the forum state and against a person resident in another Member State, but where the claim against the person domiciled in the forum state is already inadmissible by the time the claim is brought, because bankruptcy proceedings have been commenced against him, which, under national law, results in a procedural bar?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22.12.2000 (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-610/16: Action brought on 16 May 2017 — PC v EASO

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/25

         Action brought on 16 May 2017 — PC v EASO
   (Case T-610/16)
   (2017/C 269/37)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: PC (represented by: L. Railas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the negative probationary period assessment report on the applicant and thereby require EASO to draw up a new assessment report for the applicant with the result that her employment is confirmed;

               —

               annul Decision EASO/ED/2015/358;

               —

               declare that the applicant’s dismissal was not by the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment (AECE);

               —

               annul Decision EASO/HR/2015/607 terminating the applicant’s employment at the end of the probationary period, so that her employment continues uninterruptedly from 1 March 2015 to 28 February 2020 (the date of termination of the employment relationship under the contract);

               —

               if EASO cannot restore the applicant’s employment relationship, require EASO to compensate the applicant for the damage suffered as a result of EASO’s wrongful decision by paying her as damages salary, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for the period from 1 December 2015 to 28 February 2020;

               —

               if EASO restores the applicant’s employment relationship, require EASO to pay the applicant as damages salary, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for the period in which she was without employment, from 1 December 2015 until her return to work;

               —

               order EASO to award the applicant a month’s salary and employer’s pension contributions in accordance with paragraph 5 of Case F-113/13;

               —

               order EASO to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law alleges that the assessor of the probationary period misused his discretion by drawing up a negative assessment report for the probationary period and groundlessly making public criticisms against the applicant. The applicant submits that EASO found without any reference to the case-law or other source of law that (each) ‘assessor enjoys an especially broad discretion in assessing the work of persons on whom he is to report, since the assessment report conveys the assessor’s freely expressed opinion’.

               2.

               The second plea in law alleges that EASO breached the principle of proper assessment when drawing up the probationary period assessment report. The assessment of the probationary period on which the decision to dismiss was based was done without taking account of ‘the facts as they were’, was contrary to the EU Staff Regulations and the EASO Guide to the Assessment of Probationary Staff, and took no account of the applicant’s written comments on the probationary period assessment report.

               3.

               The third plea in law alleges that EASO infringed the principle of equal treatment and that EASO misinterpreted the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by using them against the applicant.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law alleges that EASO misused its discretion when signing official EU document EASO/ED/2015/358 (delegation of powers), which was done unlawfully because of the lack of binding implementation rules of EASO’s board of administration, contains a clear conflict of interests, and in the applicant’s opinion was incorrectly dated.

               5.

               The fifth plea in law alleges that in the probationary period assessment report and subsequent dealings EASO made use of document EASO/ED/2015/358, which is dated retroactively.

               6.

               The sixth plea in law alleges that throughout the procedure for assessment of the probationary period EASO breached the procedural provisions applicable to the assessment procedure and the provisions concerning administrative inquiries, and infringed the applicant’s rights of defence. According to the applicant, the decision on the probationary period assessment report could have been the opposite, that is to say positive, if EASO had not infringed the EU Staff Regulations and the EASO Guide to the Assessment of Probationary Staff.

               7.

               The seventh plea in law alleges that the applicant validly presented arguments with the purpose of calling in question the lawfulness of the decision to dismiss. According to the applicant, EASO’s decision to terminate her employment contract is based on incorrect considerations and EASO’s deficiencies during the probationary period assessment procedure, including unlawful nomination of the maker of the decision to dismiss, his lack of expertise in staff matters and his lack of acquaintance with the probationary period assessment documents, with the mistakes in the assessment of the probationary period and with the applicant’s complaints and comments.


title: Case T-62/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France-KLM v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/39

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Air France-KLM v Commission
   (Case T-62/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Air France-KLM (Paris, France) (represented by: A. Wachsmann and S. Thibault-Liger, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Giolito, S. Noë and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents, and B. Lebrun, lawyer, and subsequently by C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Florindo Gijón, M. Simm and M. Balta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Air France-KLM;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Air France-KLM;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


C 161/12              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.6.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-237/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-344/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/22)                                                       (2001/C 161/25)
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-237/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-344/99: Italian Republic v Com-
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                     mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-120/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-359/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/23)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/26)
By order of 9 March 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from              By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of
the register of Case C-120/00: Commission of the European             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Communities v French Republic.                                        from the register of Case C-359/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Foix and l’Ariège,
                                                                      France): Réunion des Assureurs Maladie v Jean-Marc Laboup.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/95 (1)
                       (2001/C 161/24)                                       Removal from the register of Case C-21/00 (1)
By order of 12 March 2001 the President of the Court of                                      (2001/C 161/27)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-182/95: (reference for a preliminary      By order of 13 March 2001 the President of the Court of
ruling from Finanzgericht Hamburg): T. Port GmbH & Co v               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.                                           from the register of Case C-21/00: (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Giudice di pace di Massa): Hamadeh Adnan v
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.                                            Sociétà Fiat Sava SpA.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 28 March 1996 in Case C-160/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Non-transposition of Directive 91/156/EEC - Waste)

text:
 6 . 7. 96            EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 197/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 and subsequently by Council
                       ( Sixth Chamber)                             Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of30 October 1 989, must be
                                                                    interpreted as meaning that the expression 'unemployed
                     of 28 March 1996                               person. . . who draws unemployment benefits under the
in Case C-243/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling made           legislation of a Member State ' also covers unemployed
by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Alejandro Rincon Moreno v.         persons registered with the competent national authority
                 Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit O                        whose entitlement to unemployment benefit has been
(Social security for migrant workers — Family benefits —            suspended because compensation was paid to them by their
        Article 74 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)                  employer by reason of the fact that the employment
                                                                    relationship was terminated without observance ofa period
                          96/C 197/01 )                             of notice, or because payment of unemployment benefits in
                                                                    cash was temporarily excluded, in cases where, during that
               (Language of the case: German)                       period of exclusion, they are covered against the risks of
                                                                    sickness and accidents under the legislation of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        competent State.
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    (M OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
In Case C-243/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Sozialgericht ( Social Court)
Stuttgart ( Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Alejandro
Rincon Moreno and Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit — on the
interpretation of Article 74 of Council Regulation ( EEC )                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                                    (Fifth Chamber)
persons and to members of their families moving within the                               of 28 March 1996
Community ( OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 ),
as amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC )                in Case C- 1 60/95 : Commission of the European
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ L 230, 1983 , p. 6) and                          Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( l )
subsequently by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 3427/89 of             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
30 October 1989 ( OJ L 331 , 1989, p . 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth        Non-transposition of Directive 91/156/EEC — Waste)
Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                                        ( 96/C 197/02 )
President of the Chamber, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B.                              (Language of the case: Greek)
Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Ruhl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
28 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
follows :                                                                    published in the European Court Reports)
Article 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of                In Case C-l 60/95 : Commission of the European
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes          Communities ( Agent: Maria Kontou-Durande) v. Hellenic
to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                Republic (Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Evi
members oftheir families moving within the Community, as            Skandalou ) — application for a declaration that, by not
amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                     adopting or by not communicating to the Commission
 ---pagebreak--- No C 197/2           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    6 . 7. 96
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                1 . declares that, by not adopting within the period
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                 prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending                             measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ L 78 , 1991 , p . 32 ), the             91 /271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the           water treatment, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
EC Treaty and the first-mentioned Directive — the Court                    fulfil its obligations under Article 19 of that
( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward, President                   Directive;
of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P. Jann
and L. Sevôn ( Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                      2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
28 March 1996 , in which it:
                                                                      (M OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
1 , declares that, by not adopting within the period
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
     measures necessary to comply with Council Directive
     91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive
      75/442/EEC on waste, the Hellenic Republic has failed
     to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the
     first-mentioned Directive;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                            of 30 April 1996
                                                                      in Case C-13/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
H OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                       Industrial Tribunal, Truro ): P. v. S. and Cornwall County
                                                                                Council ^)
                                                                      (Equal treatment for men and women — Dismissal of a
                                                                                transsexual)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/04
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: English)
                       (Fifth Chamber )
                      of 28 March 1996                                In Case C-13/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
in Case C-161/95 : Commission of the European                         the EC Treaty by the Industrial Tribunal, Truro (United
            Communities v. Hellenic Republic 0 )                      Kingdom ), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                      pending before that court between P. and S. and Cornwall
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —               County Council, on the interpretation of Council Directive
Non-transposition of Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban                     76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of
                    waste water treatment
                                                                      the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
                         { 96/C 197/03 )                              regards access to employment, vocational training and
                                                                      promotion, and working conditions ( OJ L 39 , 1976, p . 40 ),
                (Language of the case: Greek)                         the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                      C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G.
                                                                      Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray,
          published in the European Court Reports)                     H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevôn, Judges; G. Tesauro,
                                                                      Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 April 1 996 , in which
 In Case C-161/95 : Commission of the European                         it ruled :
 Communities (Agent: Maria Kontou-Durande ) v. Hellenic
 Republic (Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Evi
 Skandalou ) — application for a declaration that, by not              in view of the objective pursued by Council Directive
 adopting or by not communicating to the Commission                    76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of
 within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                the principle of equal treatment for men and women as
 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council            regards access to employment, vocational training and
 Directive 91/271 /EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban                 promotion, and working conditions, Article 5 (1 ) of the
 waste water treatment ( OJ L 135 , 1991 , p . 40 ), the Hellenic      Directive precludes dismissal of a transsexual for a reason
 Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            related to a gender reassignment.
 Treaty and that Directive — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
 composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
 J.-P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevôn                    (!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
  (Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R.
  Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 March 1996 , in
  which it:


title: Joined Cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Land Oberösterreich and Republic of Austria v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Directive 2001/18/EC — Decision 2003/653/EC — Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms — Article 95(5) EC — National provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure justified by new scientific evidence and by a problem specific to one Member State — Principle of the right to be heard)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Land Oberösterreich and Republic of Austria v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 2001/18/EC - Decision 2003/653/EC - Deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms - Article 95(5) EC - National provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure justified by new scientific evidence and by a problem specific to one Member State - Principle of the right to be heard)
   (2007/C 269/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellants: Land Oberösterreich (represented by G. Hörmanseder, Agent, and by F. Mittendorfer, Rechtsanwalt), Republic of Austria (represented by H. Dossi and A. Hable, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and M. Patakia, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 2005 in Joined Cases T-366/03 Land Oberösterreich v Commission and T-235/04 Austria v Commission by which the Court of First Instance dismissed actions seeking annulment of Commission Decision 2003/653/EC of 2 September 2003 relating to national provisions on banning the use of genetically modified organisms in the region of Upper Austria notified by the Republic of Austria pursuant to Article 95(5) of the EC Treaty — National provisions derogating from a harmonisation measure justified by a problem specific to a Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2)

               Orders the Land Oberösterreich and the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.

      OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.


title: Case F-32/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 January 2009 — Klein v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Pensions — Invalidity pension — Death — Definition of dependent child — Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Death allowance — Death grant — Orphans' pension)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/51

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 January 2009 — Klein v Commission
   (Case F-32/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Pensions - Invalidity pension - Death - Definition of dependent child - Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Death allowance - Death grant - Orphans' pension)
   (2009/C 55/93)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Claude Klein (Grasse, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 4 May 2007 refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to a death grant, a death allowance and an orphans' pension.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Klein to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008, p. 36.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-476/98)

text:
13.3.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 71/13
The pleas in law and main arguments in support are                             radically amended and thus replaced agreements
similar to those in Case C-471/98 (5).                                         previously concluded, the Federal Republic of
                                                                               Germany has failed to comply with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 234 of the EC Treaty, with regard to
(1 ) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.                        agreements concluded before the EC Treaty entered
(2 ) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
(3 ) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
                                                                               into force, and under secondary law, with regard to
(4 ) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.                                                 those agreements which were concluded after the EC
(5 ) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.                                Treaty entered into force, by not rescinding the
                                                                               provisions contained in those previously concluded
                                                                               agreements which are incompatible with the EC
                                                                               Treaty, in particular Article 52, and with the
                                                                               secondary law adopted thereunder, and by failing to
                                                                               take all legally possible steps to that end;
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                      3. Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
of the European Communities against the Federal                                costs of the present proceedings.
                       Republic of Germany
                          (Case C-476/98)
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments in support are
                           (1999/C 71/22)                                 similar to those in Case C-471/98 (5).
                                                                          (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, pp. 1, 8 and 15 respectively.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 220, 29.7.1989, p. 1.
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     (3) OJ L 278, 11.11.1993, p. 1.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       (4) OJ L 14, 22.1.1993, p. 1.
Communities on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                         (5) See p. 10 of the present Official Journal.
of the European Communities, represented by Jörn Sack
and Frank Benyon, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the European Commission's
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               in Northern Ireland, by order of that court of 9 November
                                                                          1998, in the case of Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd
                                                                          against the Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland
1. Declare that, by having individually negotiated, signed
      and concluded, in 1994 and 1996, an Open Skies'                                             (Case C-477/98)
      agreement with the USA in the air-transport sector, the
                                                                                (1999/C 71/23)
      Federal Republic of Germany acted in breach of its
      obligations under the EC Treaty, including Articles 5
      and 52 thereof, and also contrary to the secondary law
      adopted thereunder, in particular Council Regulation                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      (EEC) No 2407/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on licensing of                European Communities by an order of the Court of
      air carriers, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)               Appeal in Northern Ireland of 9 November 1998, which
      of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers                was received at the Court Registry on 21 December 1998,
      to intra-Community routes, Council Regulation (EEC)                 for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eurostock Meat
      No 2409/92 (1) of 23 July 1992 on fares and rates for               Marketing Ltd against the Department of Agriculture for
      air services, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 (2)               Northern Ireland, on the following questions:
      of 24 July 1989, as amended by Regulation (EEC)
      No 3089/93 (3) of 29 October 1993, on a code of
      conduct for computerised reservation systems, and                   (1) May a Member State take interim protective measures
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 (4) of 18 January                      in accordance with Article 9(1) of Council Directive
      1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at                      89/662/EEC (1) when the Commission has made
      Community airports;                                                      Decision 97/534/EC (2) under Article 9(4) of the said
                                                                               Directive but postponed the coming into effect of that
                                                                               Decision?
2. In the alternative to part of the claim under (1),
      declare that:
                                                                          (2) If the answer to Question 1 is Yes, before the Member
                                                                               State may take such interim protective measures what,
                                                                               if any, degree of certainty, probability or possibility is
      In so far as the 1994 and 1996 agreements cannot, in                     required that the Commission will put into effect the
      view of specific provisions, be regarded as having                       said Decision?


title: Appeal brought on 15 April 1998 by Comité d'Entreprise de la Société Française de Production, Syndicat National de Radio-diffusion et de Télévision S.N.R.T. - C.G.T., Syndicat Unifié de Radio et de Télévision S.U.R.T. - C.F.D.T., Syndicat National Force Ouvrière de Radio-diffusion et de Télévision and Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel S.N.E.A. - C.F.E. - C.G.C. against the order delivered on 18 February 1998 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-189/97 between Comité d'Entreprise de la Société Française de Production and Others and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-106/98 P)

text:
4.7.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 209/19
Günther Bühring and the Council of the European Union               in Case T-189/97 between ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la
and the Commission of the European Communities was                  SocieÂteÂ francËaise de production and Others and the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 Commission of the European Communities was brought
Communities on 14 April 1998 by Günther Bühring,                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
represented by Hagen Lichtenberg, of the University of              on 15 April 1998 by ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ
Bremen, D-28359 Bremen.                                             FrancËaise de Production, Syndicat National de Radio-dif-
                                                                    fusion et de TeÂleÂvision S.N.R.T. Ð C.G.T., Syndicat UnifieÂ
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         de Radio et de TeÂleÂvision S.U.R.T. Ð C.F.D.T., Syndicat
                                                                    National Force OuvrieÁre de Radio-diffusion et de TeÂleÂvi-
(a) set aside the judgment delivered on 4 February 1998             sion and Syndicat National de l'Encadrement Audiovisuel
     by the Court of First Instance in Case T-246/93 (1),           S.N.E.A. Ð C.F.E. Ð C.G.C., represented by HeÂleÁne
                                                                    Masse-Dessen, a lawyer with right of audience before the
(b) award the compensation applied              for   in  the       French Conseil d'EÂtat and Cour de Cassation, with an
     proceedings at first instance (2),                             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Guy Thomas, 77 Boulevard de la Grande Duchesse
(c)  order the respondents to pay the costs.                        Charlotte.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
The appellant contests the dismissal of his action on the           Ð admit their appeal,
ground that the five-year limitation period laid down by
Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice started to        Ð set aside the contested order,
run at the point in time at which he lost his holding as a
result of its forced sale. That view of the law fails to take       Ð declare the action admissible,
account of the fact that
                                                                    Ð declare their action well-founded,
(a) he had lodged appeals before the competent national
     courts against the enforcement and the sale of the
     holding at auction. Consequently, until such time as           Ð consequently, annul Commission Decision 97/238/
     those appeals were finally and absolutely rejected, the             EC (1) of 2 October 1996,
     possibility existed that the appellant might recover
     his farm,                                                      Ð order the Commission to pay the costs and to pay
                                                                         each of the applicant organisations the sum of ECU
(b) the forced sale of the appellant's holding at auction                20 000 in respect of their costs.
     was itself a direct consequence of the damage caused,
     and cannot therefore be regarded as having                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     interrupted the continuing loss of profits suffered by
     the appellant.                                                 The finding that the recognised representatives of workers
                                                                    are not individually concerned by the decision:
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 18.
(2) OJ C 166, 17.6.1993, p. 11.                                     By giving a definition of the persons individually
                                                                    concerned which was legally incorrect since it did not take
                                                                    account of the specific situation of representatives of
                                                                    workers, as required by the distinctions already made in
                                                                    the case-law, and by misconstruing the circumstances of
                                                                    the present case, the Court of First Instance wrongly held
Appeal brought on 15 April 1998 by ComiteÂ d'Entreprise             that the applicants are not individually concerned by the
de la SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de Production, Syndicat National         contested decision.
de Radio-diffusion et de TeÂleÂvision S.N.R.T. Ð C.G.T.,
Syndicat UnifieÂ de Radio et de TeÂleÂvision S.U.R.T. Ð             The finding that the applicants are not directly concerned
C.F.D.T., Syndicat National Force OuvrieÁre de Radio-dif-           by the contested decision:
fusion et de TeÂleÂvision and Syndicat National de l'Enca-
drement Audiovisuel S.N.E.A. Ð C.F.E. Ð C.G.C. against              All the reasoning, which consists of the assertion that
the order delivered on 18 February 1998 by the Second               there is only a possibility that withdrawal of the aid might
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First                 have consequences since the undertaking's decision affects
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-189/97               those consequences, is based on an incorrect analysis of
between ComiteÂ d'Entreprise de la SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de          the decision itself, which implies and dictates those
Production and Others and the Commission of the                     consequences and of the compulsory nature of those
                   European Communities                             considerations and on a purely theoretical analysis of the
                      (Case C-106/98 P)                             economic and social situation.
                         (98/C 209/37)
                                                                    (1) Concerning aid granted by the French State to the audiovisual
                                                                        production company SocieÂteÂ FrancËaise de Production, OJ L 95,
An appeal against the order delivered on 18 February                    10.4.1997, p. 19.
1998 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities


title: Case C-167/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 23 March 2016 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander (Spain) lodged on 23 March 2016 — Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. v Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García
   (Case C-167/16)
   (2016/C 200/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 2 de Santander

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.

      Defendants: Fernando Quintano Ujeta and María Isabel Sánchez García

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts compatible with the fact that a finding that an accelerated repayment clause, which is the grounds for enforcement proceedings, is unfair does not give rise to any consequences in the legal proceedings in which that finding is made?

               2.

               Are Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13 compatible with an interpretation whereby the consequences of a finding that an accelerated repayment clause is unfair are made conditional upon the specific characteristics of the proceedings for which the seller or supplier may opt?

               3.

               Is an interpretation to the effect that, although a pre-formulated clause allows accelerated maturity in a long-term contract for breach that is not serious, leaving the consumer in worse circumstances than those resulting from the supplemental national provision, the clause would not be void solely because a corrective rule exists in the national procedural provision that is applicable only in the specific procedure chosen by the seller or supplier and only if certain conditions are fulfilled, compatible with Articles 6(1) and 7(1) of Directive 93/13?

               4.

               Is Article 693.3 [of the] Code of Civil Procedure (2) an appropriate and effective remedy that enables the consumer to remedy the effects of an unfair accelerated repayment clause, account being taken of the fact that he must pay the interest and costs?

               5.

               Is a national procedural law which grants rights to a consumer that he can rely upon in specially expedited enforcement proceedings which the seller or supplier may choose from among other options, in which such rights are unknown, consistent with the principle of effectiveness of Directive 93/13 and with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union? (3)

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (LEC).

      (3)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 November 1996 in Case C-313/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Chiavari): Fratelli Graffione SNC v. Ditta Fransa (Prohibition of the use of a trade mark in a Member State - Prohibition of importation from another Member State of a product bearing the same trade mark - Article 30 of the EC Treaty and the Trade Mark Directive)

text:
No C 40/2            [ EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H.                         undertaking from using its right to import into a
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has                         Member State products coming from another
given a judgment on 19 November 1996 , in which it has                         Member State where they are lawfully marketed
ruled :                                                                        and to market them under a particular trade mark
                                                                               in the Member State of importation, when other
The Second Council Directive (77/91 /EEC) of                                   traders have the same right, even if they do not use
13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which,                          it,
for the protection of the interests of members and others,
are required by Member States of companies within the
                                                                           — but not precluding a prohibition, on grounds of
meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the
                                                                               consumer protection, on the marketing by all
Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited                          traders of products coming from a Member State
liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of
                                                                               where they are lawfully marketed, provided that
their capital, with a view to making such safeguards                           the prohibition is necessary in order to ensure
equivalent, in particular Article 29 ( 1 ) and (4) thereof,                    consumer protection and proportionate to that
does not preclude a Member State 's domestic law from                          objective, which must be incapable of being
granting a right of pre-emption to shareholders in the                         achieved by measures which are less restrictive of
event of an increase in capital by consideration in kind                       intra- Community trade . The national court must,
and from subjecting the legality of a decision withdrawing                     in particular, examine whether the risk of
that right of pre-emption to a substantive review of the                       misleading consumers is sufficiently serious to be
kind laid down by the Bundesgerichtshof.                                       able to override the requirements of the free
                                                                               movement of goods .
H OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
                                                                      2 . Article 12 (2) (b) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
                                                                           21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the
                                                                           Member States relating to trade marks is to be
                                                                           interpreted as not precluding a prohibition on the
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      marketing of products coming from a Member State
                      of 26 November 1996                                  where they are lawfully marketed, on the ground that
in Case C-3 13/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 they bear a trade mark which the proprietor has been
the Tribunale di Chiavari ): Fratelli Graffione SNC v. Ditta               specifically prohibited from using in the Member State
                              Fransa (')                                   of importation because it has been held there to be
                                                                           liable to mislead consumers .
 (Prohibition of the use of a trade mark in a Member State
— Prohibition of importation from another Member State
 of a product bearing the same trade mark — Article 30 of             n OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
          the EC Treaty and the Trade Mark Directive)
                           ( 97/C 40/03 )
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
 In Case C-313 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                of 5 December 1996
 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale di Chiavari (District
 Court, Chiavari ), Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the            in Case C-69/95 Italian Republic v. Commission of the
 proceedings pending before that court between Fratelli                                  European Communities (')
 Graffione SNC and Ditta Fransa — on the interpretation
 of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty and Article 12                 (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1991 — Milk and
 (2 ) ( b ) of the First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of                                        milk products)
 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the                                                  97/C 40/04 )
 Member States relating to trade marks ( OJ No L 40, 11.2 .
  1989 , p. 1 ) — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
 Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon (Presidents of
  Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ),
 D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and H.                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
  Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A.                       published in the European Court Reports)
  Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
  a judgment on 26 November 1996 , in which it has ruled :             In Case C-69/95 : Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto
  1 . Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty are to be                    Leanza , assisted by Oscar Fiumara ) v. Commission of the
      interpreted as:                                                  FLuropean Communities ( Agent: Eugenio de March ) —
                                                                       application for partial annulment of Commission Decision
      — precluding reliance on protection against unfair                94/871 /EC of 21 December 1994 on the clearance of the
            competition as a ground for prohibiting an                  accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the


title: Case C-436/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie van Belgie by decision of that court of 5 October 2004 in the case of Léopold Henri Van Esbroeck against Openbaar Ministerie

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie van Belgie by decision of that court of 5 October 2004 in the case of Léopold Henri Van Esbroeck against Openbaar Ministerie
   (Case C-436/01)
   (2004/C 300/68)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hof van Cassatie van Belgie (Court of Cassation (Belgium)) of 5 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Léopold Henri Van Esbroeck against Openbaar Ministerie on the following questions:

               ‘1.

               Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen agreement be construed as meaning that it may apply in proceedings before a Belgian court in regard to a person against whom a prosecution is brought in Belgium after 25 March 2001 before a criminal court in respect of the same offences for which that person was convicted by judgment of Norwegian criminal court of 2 October 2000, and where the sentence imposed has already been served, in a situation where, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Agreement of 18 May 1999 concluded by the Council of the European Union with the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement is to be implemented and applied by Norway only as from 25 March 2001?’
               If the reply to Question 1 is affirmative:

               ‘2.

               Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances of any kind, including cannabis, and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Schengen agreement, or where the Schengen acquis is implemented and applied, are deemed to be the “same offences” as mentioned in Article 54 aforesaid?’


title: Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Noëlle Mattei against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-209/97)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 7/19
Action brought on 11 July 1997 by Olivier Brunet and                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                Ð annul the Commission's decision implicitly rejecting
                        (Case T-206/97)                                   the applicant's request that it give consideration to the
                           (98/C 7/56)                                    possible application of Article 31 (2) of the Staff
                                                                          Regulations,
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
An action against the Commission of the European                          decision of 11 April 1997 expressly rejecting the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         applicant's complaint,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 1997
by Olivier Brunet, residing in Brussels, Luigi Brusa,                Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
residing at Brazzaville (Congo), Peter Cavendish, residing
in Brussels, HeÂleÁne Chraye, residing in Brussels, Stella da        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Costa Santos, residing in Brussels, Tamara Diomede Basili,
residing in Brussels, Christina Laso Sanz, residing in
Brussels, GeÂrard Lhost, residing at Alsemberg (Belgium),            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Carlos Martinez Mongay, residing in Brussels, Viriato                relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).
Monteiro Da Silva, residing at Sint Stevens-Woluwe
(Belgium), Nicolioulas Panagiotis, residing in Brussels,             (1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
Carla Piccinni-Leopardi, residing in Brussels, Jorge
Manuel Pinheiro de Jesus Ferreira, residing in Brussels,
Angelo Salsi, residing in Brussels, and Graham Willmott,
residing at Genval (Belgium), represented by Marc-Albert
Lucas, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21, rue de               Action brought on 15 July 1997 by NoeÈlle Mattei against
Nassau.                                                                     the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-209/97)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 7/58)
Ð annul the Commission's            decision   rejecting  their
    requests to be regraded,                                                         (Language of the case: French)
Ð annul the Commission's            decision   rejecting  their      An action against the Commission of the European
    administrative complaints,                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                              by NoeÈlle Mattei, residing in Brussels, represented by
                                                                     Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue
                                                                     de Cessange.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Case T-16/97 (1).                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.                                      Ð annul the Commission's decision of 24 October 1996
                                                                          expressly rejecting the applicant's request that it give
                                                                          consideration to the possible application of
                                                                          Article 31 (2) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                     Ð annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
Action brought on 15 July 1997 by Guy Tachelet against
                                                                          decision of 29 April 1997 expressly rejecting the
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          applicant's complaint,
                        (Case T-208/97)
                           (98/C 7/57)                               Ð order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
Instance of the European Communities on 15 July 1997                 relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).
by Guy Tachelet, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            (1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue
de Cessange.


title: Case F-25/09: Action brought on 16 March 2009 — Van Neyghem v Council

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/48

         Action brought on 16 March 2009 — Van Neyghem v Council
   (Case F-25/09)
   2009/C 113/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kris van Neyghem (Tienen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 for the 2008 promotion year and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote officials of lesser merit to that grade.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 for the 2008 promotion year and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote officials of lesser merit to that grade;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case T-71/99: Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
3.7.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/27
employees of the General Secretariat may be allowed access to            emergency aid on the basis of Articles 147(b) and 164 of
classified information held by the Council (OJ 1998 L 140                Council Decision 91/482/EEC of 25 July 1991 on the associ-
p. 12). The Court (Third Chamber) composed of M. Jaeger,                 ation of the overseas countries and territories with the
President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges, and H. Jung,                European Economic Community. (1)
Registrar, made an order on 22 March 1999, the operative
part of which provides:
                                                                         By letter of 17 February 1999, that request was refused on the
                                                                         ground that, according to the regulations and decisions of the
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                              Council, such aid could not be granted directly to private
                                                                         individuals or private undertakings.
2. The applicant is to be bear the costs.
                                                                         The applicant submits that that decision is incompatible with
(1) OJ 1998 No C 299.                                                    the abovementioned Decision 91/482/EEC and with the
                                                                         Declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the
                                                                         Commission of 11 June 1986 against racism and xeno-
                                                                         phobia (2) and does not take into account Article 92(2)(a) of
                                                                         the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 263,19.9.91, p. 1.
                                                                         (2) OJ C 158, 25.6.86, p. 1.
Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-71/99)
                         (1999/C 188/63)
                                                                         Action brought on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-72/99)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,                                           (1999/C 188/64)
of Uturoa, Raiatea, French Polynesia, represented by Jean-
Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Mr Pakowski,                                    (Language of the case: French)
20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 March 1999 by Karl L. Meyer,
— hold that the content of the letter of Directorate-General             of Uturoa, Raiatea, French Polynesia, represented by Jean-
    VIII of 17 February 1999 is incompatible with both the               Dominique des Arcis, of the Papeete Bar, with an address for
    applicable legislation of and fundamental rights in the              service in Luxembourg at the offices of Mr Pakowski, 20-22
    European Union, and order that institution to comply                 Avenue Emile Reuter.
    properly, and without the exercise of discretion, with the
    content and spirit of Council Decision 91/482/EEC of
    25 July 1991 and Article 92(2)(a) of the Treaty of Rome;             The applicant claims that the Court should:
— hold that the European Commission is liable to the                     — hold that the EDF Agency of the Commission is, by its
    applicant for failure to comply with the above-mentioned                 inaction, guilty of a culpable failure to fulfil an obligation,
    European provisions;                                                     compounded by a failure to satisfy a legitimate expectation;
— in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the             — hold that the EDF Agency of the Commission failed to
    sum of FRF 20 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which                fulfil its obligation to ensure the application of the
    he had to incur to protect his interests.                                provisions adopted by it;
                                                                         — find that the applicant has suffered damage in the sum of
                                                                             FRF 181 518, and order that the said sum, due as of 1992,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              be paid together with interest on account of delay;
The applicant, who is the owner of a plantation in French                — in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the
Polynesia, states that, following a series of natural disasters, he          sum of FRF 20 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which
applied to the Commission’s Directorate-General VIII for                     he had to incur to protect his interests.


title: Case T-249/10: Action brought on 31 May 2010 — Kitzinger v OHIM — Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (KICO)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/49

         Action brought on 31 May 2010 — Kitzinger v OHIM — Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (KICO)
   (Case T-249/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/74
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kitzinger & Co (GmbH & Co. KG) (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Kitzinger, 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: Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (body governed by public law) (Leipzig, Germany), Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (body governed by public law) (Mainz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 March 2010 in Case R 1388/2008-4 to the extent that the decision of the Opposition Division of 28 July 2008 on opposition No B 1 133 612 is annulled and the opposition rejected;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 March 2010 in Case R 1388/2008-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark in blue and grey colours, which contains the word element ‘KICO’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 39.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk (body governed by public law) and Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (body governed by public law).

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘KIKA’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38 and 41 and German figurative mark in black and white colours which contains the word element ‘KIKA’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 32, 38, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

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


title: Case C-144/07 P: Appeal brought on 13 March 2007 by K-Swiss, Inc. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2006 in Case T-14/06: K-Swiss, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Mark and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/16

         Appeal brought on 13 March 2007 by K-Swiss, Inc. against the order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2006 in Case T-14/06: K-Swiss, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Mark and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-144/07 P)
   (2007/C 117/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: K-Swiss, Inc. (represented by: H.E. Hübner, Advocate)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks end Designs) (OHIM) to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that in declaring its action out of time the Court of First Instance violated Rules 61, 62 and 68 of Commission regulation (EC) No 2868/95, of 13 December 1995, implementing Council regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1).

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1.


C 163/36              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10.6.2000
Removal from the register of Case T-518/97 to T-564/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case T-186/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/73)                                                           (2000/C 163/76)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 21 March 2000, the President of the Second
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-518/97 to T-564/97: Fernando Eugénio de Abreu and                 Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 Case T-186/99: Saehan Media Ireland Limited v Commission
the European Communities.                                                of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Removal from the register of Case T-565/97 to T-595/97 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-356/99 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/74)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/77)
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)
By order of 14 December 1999, the President of the Third                                    (Language of the case: English)
Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                 By order of 28 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Case T-565/97 to T-595/97: João Luı́s de Sousa de Abreu and             of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                 has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-356/99:
the European Communities.                                                Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
Removal from the register of Case T-615/97 to T-618/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 163/75)                                          Removal from the register of Case T-1/00 (1)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                 (2000/C 163/78)
By order of 16 December 1999, the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                                      (Language of the case: German)
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-615/97 to T-618/97: Albery Frères and Others v                    By order of 31 March 2000, the President of the First Chamber
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                    has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/00:
                                                                         Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                Communities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 31 July 1996 in the case of Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Hamburg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit) (Case C-414/96)

text:
22 . 3 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/3
      92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
     for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous            Hamburg by order of that court of 31 July 1996 in the
     fuels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its            case of Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse
      obligations under Article 9 (1 ) of that Directive;              Hamburg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit)
                                                                                Case C-414/96)
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                                ( 97/C 94/06 )
(') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the 22nd Chamber
                                                                       of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court) Hamburg of 31 July
                                                                       1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       30 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                  burg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit) on
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                       the following questions :
                      of 21 January 1997                               ( a ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
in Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors                     employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
               of the European Communities (')                               compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
(Appeal — Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible                        of Directive 79/7/EEC ( J ), if disproportionately more
with the dignity of the official's office — Duty of loyalty                  women than men are affected by that exclusion;
     — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
                           ( 97/C 94/05 )                              ( b ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
                                                                             employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
                                                                             of Directive 79/7/EEC, if a worker has several
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               employment contracts which together amount to
           published in the European Court Reports)                          more than 90 % of full-time employment, and if
                                                                             disproportionately more women than men are affected
                                                                             by that exclusion ?
In Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams, a former official of
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,                     (') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 .
residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Fort Rheinsheim — appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
( Fifth Chamber ) of 7 March 1996 in Case T-146/94
Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors [ 1996] ECR-SC II                Action brought on 30 December 1996 by the Kingdom
329, seeking to have that judgment set aside — the other               of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
party to the proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the
European Communities, represented by Jean-Marie                                                   Case C-415/96 )
Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta, of the Legal                                              ( 97/C 94/07)
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the seat of the Court of Auditors, 12 rue
Alcide de Gasperi, Kirchberg — the Court ( First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                the European Communities on 30 December 1996 by the
A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,                  Kingdom of Spain, represented by Luis Perez de Ayala Be
made an order on 21 January 1997, the operative part of                cerril, Abogado del Estado, of the State Legal Department
which is as follows :
                                                                       dealing with matters before the Court of Justice, acting as
                                                                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . the appeal is dismissed;                                           Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
W OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                       1 . declare null and void the decision adopted by the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities on
                                                                             18 September 1996 amending Decision 317/92/EEC (*)
                                                                             of 25 March 1992;


title: Case F-18/07: Action brought on 10 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/18

         Action brought on 10 July 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-18/07)
   (2007/C 223/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 25 October 2005 issued by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the European Communities by which the defendant rejected the claim of 11 October 2005 brought by the applicant for recognition within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities; that he has a serious illness

               —

               annul, in so far as is necessary, the decision of the Appointing Authority of 30 November 2005, ref. ADMIN.B.2/MB/nb D(06) 27556, rejecting, in part, the complaint dated 23 August 2006 brought by the applicant against and for the annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               declare that there is no legal basis for or, in the alternative, annul, in so far as is necessary and if it actually exists, which is uncertain at this stage, the alleged opinion of the relevant medical board referred to in the note dated 30 November 2006, the details of which are unknown to the applicant;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following three pleas in law:

               (1)

               absolute failure to state reasons, also on the basis that the grounds put forward by the defendant are illogical, inconsistent, tautologous, confused, show a failure to make preliminary inquiries and are in the nature of a pretext;

               (2)

               manifest error of assessment and infringement of the law;

               (3)

               breach of the obligation to have due regard to the welfare of officials and of the principle of sound administration.