title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 1995 in Case C-52/95: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Anchovy catch quotas - Control measures - Obligations of the Member States)

text:
 17. 2 . 96           I EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 46/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      obligations under Article 1 of Regulation (EEC)
                          ( Fifth Chamber)                                 No 2241 /87;
                        of 7 December 1995
                                                                      3 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
in     Case    C-52/95 :      Commission   of the      European
               Communities v. French Republic (*)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .
 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Anchovy catch quotas — Control measures — Obligations
                       of the Member States)
                              96/C 46/04 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 12 December 1995
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          in Joined Cases C-3 19/93 , C-40/94 and C-224/94
          published in the European Court Reports)                    ( references for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,
                                                                      Leeuwarden,          and    the    Arrondissementsrechtbank,
                                                                      's-Hertogenbosch ): Hendrik Evert Dijkstra v. Friesland
In Case C-52/95 : Commission of the European                                  ( Frico Domo ) Coöperatie BA and Others ( l )
Communities ( Agent: G. Rozet) v. French Republic ( Agents :          (Competition — Status ofdairy cooperative associations —
E. Belliard, G. Mignot and I. Latournarie ) — application for        Feepayable on withdrawal or expulsion — Interpretation of
a declaration by the Court that by not provisionally                                  Article 2 of Regulation No 26)
prohibiting fishing by its vessels of anchovy stocks in ICES
                                                                                96/C 46/05
Zone VIII so as to ensure compliance with the fishing quotas
allocated to it in 1991 and 1992 and by not taking action
against the persons responsible for fishing and                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
fishing-related activities carried out in respect of such stocks
after fishing was prohibited by the Commission in 1991 and
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1992 , the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
under Articles 11 ( 2 ) and 1 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
No 2241 /87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control
measures for fishing activities ( OJ 1987 L 207, p. 1 ), as          In Joined Cases C-3 19/93 , C-40/94 and C-224/94 :
amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3483/88 of                  references to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty
7 November 1988 ( OJ 1988 L 306 , p. 2 ), in conjunction             by the Gerechtshof ( Regional Court of Appeal ),
with Article 3 of, and the Annexes to, both Council                  Leeuwarden, and the Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3926/90 of 20 December 1990 fixing,            Court ), ' s-Hertogenbosch ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total         ruling in the proceedings pending before those courts
allowable catches for 1991 and certain conditions under              between Hendrik Evert Dijkstra and Friesland ( Frico domo )
which they may be fished ( OJ 1990 L 378 , p. 1 ) and Council        Coöperatie BA, between Cornelis van Roessel and others
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3882/91 of 18 December 1991 fixing,            and De coöperatieve vereniging Zuivelcoöperatie Campina
for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total         Melkunie BA, and between Willem de Bie and others and De
allowable catches for 1992 and certain conditions under              Coöperatie Zuivelcoöperatie Campina Melkunie BA, on the
which they may be fished ( OJ 1991 L 367, p. 1 ) — the Court         interpretation of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 26 of the
( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward                        Council of 4 April 1962 applying certain rules of
( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet,          competition to production of and trade in agricultural
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet,               products ( OJ, English Special Edition 1959— 1962, p. 129 )
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General ; R. Grass, Registrar,         — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
gave a judgment on 7 December 1995 , in which it:                    President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet
                                                                     and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                     Almeida ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.
1 . declares that, by not provisionally prohibiting fishing by       Murray, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
     its vessels of anchovy stocks in ICES Zone VIII so as to        General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the
     ensure compliance with the fishing quotas allocated to it       Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1995 , in
     in 1991 and 1992, the French Republic has failed to             which it rules :
     fulfil its obligations under Article 1 1 (2) of Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 2241 /87 of 23 July 1987
     establishing certain control measures for fishing                1 . The inapplicability of Article 85 of the Treaty to
     activities;                                                           agreements, decisions and practices offarmers, farmers '
                                                                           associations or associations of such associations is
                                                                           exclusively subject to the conditions laid down in the
2 . declares that, by not taking action against the persons                second sentence of Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26. If
     responsible for fishing and fishing-related activities                an agreement or decision falls within the scope of
     carried out in respect of the stock in question after                 Article 85 (1 ) of the Treaty and the criteria for
     fishing was prohibited by the Commission in 1991 and                  exemption referred to in the second sentence of
     1992, the French Republic has failed to fulfill its                   Article 2 (1 ) of Regulation No 26 are not fulfilled, and it


title: Case C-189/06 P: Appeal brought on  13 April 2006  by TEA-CEGOS, SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on  14 February 2006  in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS, SA, STG SA and GHK Consulting Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/13

         Appeal brought on 13 April 2006 by TEA-CEGOS, SA and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 14 February 2006 in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05 TEA-CEGOS, SA, STG SA and GHK Consulting Ltd v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-189/06 P)
   (2006/C 165/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellants: TEA-CEGOS, SA, Services techniques globaux (STG) SA (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: GHK Consulting Ltd, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of 14 February 2006 of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05;

               —

               consequently, grant the appellants the relief they claimed at first instance and, therefore,

               —

               annul the decision of 12 October 2005 rejecting the candidature and bid of the TEA-CEGOS consortium and withdrawing the decision awarding the framework contract to the TEA-CEGOS consortium under the call for tenders EuropeAid — 2/119860/C-LOT No 7;

               —

               annul all the other decisions taken by the defendant under that call for tenders following the decision of 12 October 2005 and, in particular, the award decisions and the contracts concluded by the Commission implementing those decisions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellants base their appeal on breach of Community law by, and on procedural irregularities before, the Court of First Instance. The appellants submit that the Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of legal certainty, its obligation to state reasons and the principle of sound administration and distorted the evidence.


title: Case T-148/02: Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 180/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.7.2002
Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &                       Pleas in law relied on:        —    Infringement                of
Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in                                                     Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                        No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                —    No need to refuse the mark
                                                                                claimed registration
                        (Case T-148/02)
                                                                                —    Infringement                of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                        (2002/C 180/45)                                                                     No 40/94
                                                                                —    German registrations       for
                                                                                upright bottles
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May
2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke,
U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
lawyers.
                                                                        Action brought on 8 May 2002 by Deutsche SiSi-Werke
                                                                        GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against Office for the Harmonis-
                                                                           ation of the Internal Market (trade marks and designs)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                                    (Case T-149/02)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 722/
      1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application                                       (2002/C 180/46)
      number 573 428, in so far as it relates to goods in
      Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
      following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;                               (Language of the case: German)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before the
                                                                        Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May
                                                                        2002 by Deutsche SiSi-Werke Gmb H & Co. Betriebs KG,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Eppelheim (Germany), represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth,
                                                                        U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt,
                                                                        A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and
Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the             B. Ertle.
                              shape of an upright bottle —
                              application No 573 428
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods
                              and services: goods in Class 32
                              (fruit drinks and fruit juices)           —     Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                              Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade
                                                                              marks and designs) of 28.2.2002 in Case R 720/1999-2
Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-                concerning the application for Community Trade Mark
before the Board of           iner                                            No 573 048 in so far as it concerns goods falling within
Appeal:                                                                       class 32 of the Nice Agreement with the following
                                                                              description: fruit drinks and fruit juices:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:                                                                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-524/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris — France) — Ville de Lyon v Caisse des dépôts et consignations (Preliminary rulings — Aarhus Convention — Directive 2003/4/EC — Public access to information in environmental matters — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 — Standardised, secured system of registries — Access to data on greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Refusal to report — Central administrator — Administrators of national registries — Confidential nature of the data held in the registries — Exceptions)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Paris — France) — Ville de Lyon v Caisse des dépôts et consignations
   (Case C-524/09) (1)

   (Preliminary rulings - Aarhus Convention - Directive 2003/4/EC - Public access to information in environmental matters - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 - Standardised, secured system of registries - Access to data on greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Refusal to report - Central administrator - Administrators of national registries - Confidential nature of the data held in the registries - Exceptions)
   2011/C 63/18
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ville de Lyon

      Defendant: Caisse des dépôts et consignations

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Paris — Interpretation of Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26) and Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), and also Articles 9 and 10 of Annex XVI to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87 and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2004 L 386, p. 1) — Access to information relating to greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Refusal to communicate that information — Respective jurisdiction of the central administrator and the administrators of national registries — Confidential nature of the information held in the registries and possible exceptions

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A request for the reporting of trading data such as that requested in the main proceedings, relating to the names of holders of the transferring accounts and acquiring accounts of the emission allowances, allowances or Kyoto units involved in those transactions and the date and time of those transactions, comes exclusively under the specific rules governing public reporting and confidentiality contained in Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC, in the version resulting from Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004, and in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87 and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               2.

               Trading data such as that requested in the main proceedings by a public authority wishing to renegotiate an agreement on public service delegation is confidential data within the meaning of Regulation No 2216/2004 and, under Articles 9 and 10 of that regulation, read in conjunction with paragraphs 11 and 12 of Annex XVI to that regulation, such data, in the absence of the prior consent of the relevant account holders, may be freely consulted by the general public only in the public area of the Community independent transaction log’s website from 15 January onwards of the fifth year (X+5) following the year (X) of completion of the transactions relating to transfers of emission allowances;

               3.

               Although, for the purposes of implementation of Regulation No 2216/2004, it is the Central Administrator who has sole competence to report to the general public the data referred to in paragraph 12 of Annex XVI to that regulation, the administrator of the national registry who has received a request for reporting of such trading data must independently reject that request since, in the absence of the prior consent of the relevant account holders, that administrator is required to guarantee the confidentiality of that data until it has become legally reportable to the general public by the Central Administrator.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabeüberwachungsausschuß des Bundes (Public Procurement Awards Supervisory Board of the Federal Republic) First Chamber, of 5 February 1996 in public procurement awards supervisory proceedings between Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, the applicant, and Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH, the awarding authority (Case C-54/96)

text:
No C 108/6              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           13 . 4 . 96
— misuse of discretionary powers : the fact that the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    European Commission adopts, in its entirety, a decision
    made by the Thermie Committee does not mean that                     — The appellant maintains that, by rigidly linking the
    that decision is free from errors committed in the                          judgment in Baiwir (2 ) to the applicability of Article 32
    exercise of discretionary powers . Moreover, the                            of the Staff Regulations, relating to recruitment, or
    judgment fails to recognize that that committee is not                      Article 46 , relating to promotion, the Court of First
    composed of independent technical experts ;                                 Instance arrived at an erroneous conclusion . The
                                                                                appellant maintains that the principle emerging from the
— infringement of the third paragraph of Article 175 of the                     judgment in question is that of equality of treatment
    EC Treaty and of the fourth paragraph of Article 173                        between successful internal and external candidates as
    and Article 176 thereof.                                                    regards taking into account the professional experience
                                                                                acquired by them prior to their entry into service .
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 , p . 18 .
                                                                         — The Court of First Instance wrongly applied
                                                                                Article 87 ( 3 ) of its Rules of Procedure; the appellant was
                                                                                forced to bring legal proceedings by reason of his
                                                                                inability to obtain from the defendant any convincing
                                                                                explanations concerning his regrading .
Appeal brought on 20 February 1996 by Nicolaos Progoulis
against the order made on 15 December 1995 by the Fifth                  (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                   ( 2 ) Judgment of 28 . 9 . 1993 in Case T-l 03/92, OJ No C 287,
    Communities in Case T-131 /95 between Nicolaos                             23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 10 .
      Progoulis and the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                         Case C-49/96 P
                          ( 96/C 108/10 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabe
An appeal against the order made on 15 December 1995 by                  iiberwachungsausschul? des Bundes ( Public Procurement
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  Awards Supervisory Board of the Federal Republic) First
European Communities in                  Case T-131 /95   between        Chamber, of 5 February 1996 in public procurement
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European                    awards supervisory proceedings between Dorsch Consult
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, the applicant, and
European Communities on 20 February 19 96 by Nicolaos                            Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH, the awarding
Progoulis , represented by Konstantinos Adamantopoulos                                                        authority
and Vassilios Akritidis , of the Athens Bar, with an address                                             ( Case C-54/96 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/11 )
Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Vergabe
1,  set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the            uberwachungsausschutë des Bundes ( First Chamber ) of 5
    European Communities of 15 December 1995 in Case                     February 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
    T-131 /95 ('), in so far as, first, it dismisses his                21 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the public
    application as inadmissible and, second , it orders him to          procurement awards supervisory proceedings between
    pay all of the costs ;                                              Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, the applicant,
                                                                         and Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH, the awarding
2 , annul the decision of the defendant, addressed to the               authority, on the following question :
    appellant by letter of 20 March 1995 , rejecting his
    application to be regraded in step 2 of grade B1 with                is Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
    retroactive effect from 1 March 1983 and for the                     1 992 ( 1 ) to be interpreted to the effect that after
    financial consequences of the regrading applied for to be            30 June 1993 the bodies set up by the Member States in
                                                                         accordance         with      Council       Directive 89/665/EEC      of
    taken into account and calculated retroactively from
    1 March 1983 , together with compound legal interest at              21 December 1989 to review decisions taken by the
    the annual rate of 10% ;                                            contracting authorities as regards contract award
                                                                         procedures falling within the scope of Directives
3 , adopt measures of organization of procedure on the                   71 /305/EEC and 77/62/EEC are also competent to review
    basis of Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court           decisions taken in procedures for the award of public service
    of Justice of the European Communities, in accordance                contracts within the meaning of Directive 92/50/EEC on the
    with the application made by the appellant in                        grounds that such decisions have allegedly infringed
    paragraph 18 of the appeal ;                                         Community law in the field of public procurement or
                                                                         national rules implementing that law ?
4 , order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal
    together with all of the costs incurred in Case T-131 /95            (>) OJ 1992 L 209 , p . 1 .
    before the Court of First Instance of the European
    Communities .


title: Case C-79/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'appello di Milano by order of 29 January 2001 in the appeal brought by Payroll Data Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA

text:
7.4.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 108/11
The Appellant claims that:                                               —     it infringed Articles 190 and 215 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                               Articles 253 and 288 EC), and the general legal principle
                                                                               of coherence in that it held that the argument that the
—     the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 Novem-                 Measure Challenged was unlawful for failure to state
      ber 2000 in case T-213/97 be annulled in so far as it                    reasons cannot be upheld and, additionally, it implied that
      applies to the Appellants;                                               the Council had complete freedom of action unfettered by
                                                                               the Basic Regulation.
—     the Council’s Decision not to adopt the proposal for a             (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997, p. 23.
      regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
      imports of unbleached (grey) cotton fabrics in the People’s
      Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
      Turkey (COM (97) 160 final, of 21 April 1997) be
      annulled in so far as it applies to the Appellants;
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’appello
—     the Appellants’ claim for compensation for the damage              di Milano by order of 29 January 2001 in the appeal
      in case T-213/97 be declared founded and the determi-              brought by Payroll Data Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe
      nation of the amount of compensation referred back to                                    SA and ADP GSI SA
      the Court of First Instance;
                                                                                (Case C-79/01)
—     the Council be ordered to pay the Appellants’ costs both
      in the present appeal and also in case T-213/97.                                            (2001/C 108/16)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of 29 January 2001 by the
                                                                         Corte d’appello di Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan), which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 15 February 2001, for a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Payroll Data
                                                                         Services (Italy) srl, ADP Europe SA and ADP GSI SA on the
                                                                         following question:
The Appellants submit that the Court of First Instance infringed         Do Articles 43 EC and 49 EC preclude Italian courts from
Community law in the following ways:                                     applying Article 1 of Law No 12 of 11 January 1979, as
                                                                         amended by Article 58(16) of Law No 144 of 17 May 1999,
                                                                         regulating the profession of employment consultant, to the
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230         extent to which it prohibits, in absolute terms, external
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally, as           undertakings providing services relating to the preparation
      read in the light of Article 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 and of          and printing of pay slips from providing their services to
      the GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) and the                      undertakings having less than 250 employees?
      general legal principle of coherence, in that it held the
      Measure Challenged was not a reviewable act within the
      meaning of the said Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now
      Article 230 EC);
—     it infringed Article 19 of the EC Statute of the Court of          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
      Justice and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the            stance de Châteauroux by Judgment of 26 January 2001
      Court of First Instance in that it held that the Appellants            in the case of SARL Michel v Recettes des Douanes
      had submitted a new claim in breach of those dispositions;
                                                                                (Case C-80/01)
—     it infringed Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230
      EC) as interpreted by the case law (and additionally as                                     (2001/C 108/17)
      read in the light of Articles 9.1, 6.9, 12.2 and 13 of the
      GATT 1994 Anti-dumping Agreement) in that it held                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      that the mere expiry of the 15-month period provided               European Communities by judgment of 26 January 2001
      for in Article 6(9) of the Basic Regulation does not               by the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux (District Court,
      constitute a decision by the Council which could be the            Châteauroux), which was received at the Court Registry on
      subject of an action for annulment on the basis of Article         16 February 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SARL
      173 of the EC Treaty (now Article 230 EC); and                     Michel v Recettes des Douanes on the following question:


title: Action brought on 4 November 1996 by Cornelis Volger against the European Parliament (Case T-176/96)

text:
No c 388/ 10           Len                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21 . 12 . 96
      at all correspond to the qualifications and competence              defendant observes that Article 6 of Annex V to the Staff
      acquired in her previous post.                                      Regulations uses in this regard the expression ' may' grant,
                                                                          and that consequently, in so far as that provision gives it a
She further considers that the decision in question caused                discretion, it does not confer any right on officials to
her material damage, first, because her chances of                        special leave in the event of a serious illness of a child. In
promotion are greatly reduced as a result of her transfer                 stating its reasons for refusing her application, the
and, secondly, because the aforementioned health                          Commission also refers to internal directives requiring the
problems entail an additional financial burden for her.                   applicant to submit medical certificates attesting to a
                                                                          serious illness .
The applicant concludes that the Commission's liability is
thereby established and that it must make good the                        The applicant argues in the first place that, apart from
damage caused.                                                            annual leave, which is an automatic entitlement, the Staff
                                                                          Regulations provide for special leave which must be
                                                                          granted in so far as the conditions for entitlement thereto
As regards the delay in drawing up her staff report for the               are fulfilled and the official applies for it. Accordingly, the
period 1991 to 1993 , the applicant observes that the draft               expressions ' may be granted ' or 'may grant' do not mean
report was not presented to her until 13 September 1995 ,                 that the institution has a discretion in the matter, but
and then only after she had formally required the                         simply declares that it has the legal capacity to grant such
appointing authority to fulfil its duties towards her. In                 leave .
consequence of that delay, it was not possible for her to be
taken into consideration by the Promotion Committee
when considering promotions from one career bracket to                    As far as the internal directives are concerned, the
another for 1994 and 1995 . The delay thus adversely                      applicant categorically denies that they may be relied upon
affected her legitimate expectations and rights in respect                against her. She is completely ignorant of those directives.
of promotions and the defendant should make good the                      What is more, the Commission has not provided her with
material damage arising therefrom.                                        any information which would enable her to identify them
                                                                          or refer to them . Accordingly, she does not know which
                                                                          authority adopted those directives or under what
f 1 ) Case T-78/96 , OJ No C 233 , 19 . 8 . 1996 , p. 12 .
                                                                          procedure they were issued. By the same token, she does
                                                                          not know what the legal force of those directives may be .
Action brought on 29 October 1996 by Teresa Maria
Rodrigues Gomes De Oliveira against the Commission of                     Action brought on 4 November 1996 by Cornelis Volger
                     the European Communities                                            against the European Parliament
                          ( Case T-173 /96 )
                                                                                Case T-l 76/96 )
                            ( 96/C 388/ 19 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/20 )
                  (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European                          An action against the European Parliament was brought
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         hefore the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October                        Communities on 4 November 1996 by Cornelis Volger,
 1996 by Teresa Maria Rodrigues Gomes De Oliveira,                        resident at Heffingen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Jean
resident in Luxembourg, represented by Alain Lorang, of                   Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure And Ariane Tornel, of the
the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service at his                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Chambers, 51 Rue Albert l er.                                             Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission,                                   — annul the decision of 1 December 1995 assigning the
                                                                               applicant to non-active status with effect from the
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                      evening of 30 November 1995 and all subsequent
                                                                               decisions relating thereto, in particular the decision no
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            longer to pay him the remuneration and the
                                                                               allowances to which he is entitled,
The applicant, an official of grade LA 6 , challenges the
appointing authority's refusal to grant her three days'                   — annul, in so far as necessary,              the decision of
special leave, corresponding to the period covered by three                    3 September 1996 fixing 1 February 1996 as the date
medical certificates relating to a serious illness of her two                  on which the aforementioned decision took effect,
children which stressed the need for the mother to remain
with them . In the decision refusing her request, the                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21 . 12 . 96          I EN I              Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 388/ 11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Removal from the register of T-31/96 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/21
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision                          (Language of the case: French)
dated 1 December 1995 and notified on 27 December
1995 by which he was assigned non-active status,                     By order of 6 November 1996 the President of the Third
backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted the                        Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff                      Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Regulations. By way of subsequent related decisions, he              removal from the register of Case T-31/96 : Credit
also contests the decision, notified by letter of 21 February        Lyonnais v. Commission of the European ' Communities.
1996 , to withhold Lfrs 71 484 from the allowance granted
pursuant to Article 41 of the Staff Regulations and the              (!) OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
related decision to stop, with effect from 1 December
1995 , the remuneration and allowances to which he is
entitled .
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-70/96 (')
The applicant argues in the first place in support of his                                         96/C 388/22 )
claims that Articles 25 and 41 of the Staff Regulations
have been infringed. He contends that, under the principle                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
of legal certainty of legal situations, the starting point of a      By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
Community measure may not be set at a date prior to its              Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
publication. As far as the matter at issue is concerned, late        European Communities has ordered the removal from the
notification of assignment to non-active status prevents             register of Case T-70/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
the appointing authority from considering the official's             Ensino Particular, Limitada          v.    Commission of the
priority for reinstatement in any post of his grade which            European Communities.
may fall vacant or be created and for which he has the
necessary qualifications .                                           (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
In addition, the statement of reasons of the contested
decision does not enable either the applicant or the Court
of First Instance to check whether the budgetary authority
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-72/96 (*)
extended the possibilities for the application of Article 41
of the Staff Regulations to the 1996 financial year in                                          ( 96/C 388/23
accordance with the rules set out in Article 220 et seq. of                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
the EC Treaty.
                                                                     By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
                                                                     Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
In his application, the applicant also claims that there has         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
been an infringement of the duty to have regard to                   register of Case T-72/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
officials ' interest.                                                Ensino Particular, Limitada v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities.
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case T-24/05: Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/38

         Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-24/05)
   (2005/C 82/69)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commercial Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina (USA), Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina (USA) and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation established in Vaduz (Liechtenstein), represented by M. Odriozola, M.Marañón and A. Emch, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/C.38.238/B.2 - Raw Tobacco Spain, insofar as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal fees and expenses.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested decision the Commission found that the applicants, among other undertakings, infringed Article 81(1) EC by concluding agreements and/or concerted practices, during the period 1996-2001, designed to fix each year the (maximum) average delivery price of each variety of raw tobacco (all qualities) and to share out the quantities of each variety of raw tobacco to be bought. The Commission further found that for the last three years (1999 - 2001) they had also agreed among themselves price brackets per quality grade of each variety of raw tobacco and additional conditions.
   In support of their application the applicants claim first of all that the Commission misapplied Article 81(1) EC and Article 23 (2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in holding the applicants liable for the infringement committed by their subsidiary. According to the applicants the Commission proved neither that the applicants were in a position to exercise decisive influence over their subsidiary during the whole duration of the infringement nor that they actually exercised any influence over the subsidiary's policy. In the alternative, the applicants also claim that the Commission stated insufficient reasons for holding them liable for their subsidiary's infringement.
   Further, the applicants claim that the Commission violated the principle of equal treatment by failing to apply to the applicants the criteria it had applied in excluding liability of other parent companies for subsidiaries participating in the infringement in question. This includes failing to take into account that one of the applicants' interest in its subsidiary was of purely financial nature even though the Commission had excluded liability of another parent undertaking on exactly these grounds.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4/1/2003 p. 1.


title: Case T-463/14: Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Österreichische Post v Commission (Directive 2004/17/EC — Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors — Implementing decision exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17 — Article 30 of Directive2004/17 — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 27 April 2016 — Österreichische Post v Commission
      (Case T-463/14) (1)

      ((Directive 2004/17/EC - Procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors - Implementing decision exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17 - Article 30 of Directive2004/17 - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment))
      (2016/C 211/57)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Österreichische Post AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: H. Schatzmann, J. Bleckmann and M. Oder, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment in part of Implementing Commission Decision 2014/184/EU of 2 April 2014 exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2014 L 101, p. 4), in so far as that directive continues to apply to the award of contracts for certain postal services in Austria.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Implementing Commission Decision 2014/184/EU of 2 April 2014 exempting certain services in the postal sector in Austria from the application of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, in so far as it states that that directive continues to apply to the market for postal services for addressed letters between business customers and between business customers and private customers on an international level in Austria;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders Österreichische Post AG to bear its own costs and to pay eight tenths of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

                  4.

                  The Commission shall bear two tenths of its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-378/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — Application to register a company made by VALE Építési kft (Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Cross-border conversion — Refusal to add to register)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Hungary) — Application to register a company made by VALE Építési kft
   (Case C-378/10) (1)

   (Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Cross-border conversion - Refusal to add to register)
   2012/C 287/04
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Legfelsőbb Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

   VALE Építési kft

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bíróság — Interpretation of Articles 267 EC and 48 EC — Movement of a company governed by the law of a Member State to another Member State, thereby changing the national law applicable — National legislation which refuses to record in the companies register the predecessor in law of a company established in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which enables companies established under national law to convert, but does not allow, in a general manner, companies governed by the law of another Member State to convert to companies governed by national law by incorporating such a company.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU are to be interpreted, in the context of cross border company conversions, as meaning that the host Member State is entitled to determine the national law applicable to such operations and thus to apply the provisions of its national law on the conversion of national companies governing the incorporation and functioning of companies, such as the requirements relating to the drawing up of lists of assets and liabilities and property inventories. However, the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, respectively, preclude the host Member State from

                           —

                           refusing, in relation to cross border conversions, to record the company which has applied to convert as the ‘predecessor in law’, if such a record is made of the predecessor company in the commercial register for domestic conversions, and

                           —

                           refusing to take due account, when examining a company’s application for registration, of documents obtained from the authorities of the Member State of origin.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-2/15 SA: Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order brought on 9 February 2015  — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/14

         Application for authorisation to serve an attachment order brought on 9 February 2015 — ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias v European Commission
   (Case C-2/15 SA)
   (2015/C 118/18)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               authorise ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias to effect the attachment of assets of the Commission in Greece, in order to achieve satisfaction of the claim for the amount of EUR 6  752,74, together with interest on late payment calculated from 12.8.2010 until its full and complete payment, at an interest rate of 1 % per annum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-871/16: Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/48

         Action brought on 8 December 2016 — Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor v INEA
   (Case T-871/16)
   (2017/C 104/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: Y. de Vries, lawyer)

      Defendant: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 17 July 2015 on the rejection of the applicant’s proposal in response to the call for proposals in the context of the Connecting Europe Facility and on the basis of the Multi-annual Work Programme adopted in 2014;

               —

               order the defendant to take a new decision with respect to the applicant’s proposal, taking account of the judgment of the General Court referred to in the application, within three months from the date of the judgment;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment of the applicant’s proposal.

                           —

                           The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant’s evaluation of the applicant’s proposal against the award criteria relevance, impact and quality was deficient.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment

                           —

                           The applicant submits reasons why in its view the defendant drew an inappropriate distinction between its proposal relating to emission abatement technologies and similar proposals by its competitors which have been selected for funding.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 April 2000 in Case T-144/99 R: Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Application for interim relief — Suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — None)

text:
C 211/20               EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                          22.7.2000
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,                          Article 1 of Commission Decision 1999/267/EC of 7 April
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European                         1999 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC
Communities (Agent: V. Kreuschitz), supported by Federal                     Treaty [IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct] (OJ 1999 L 106,
Republic of Germany (Agent: C.-D. Quassowski) and RAG                        p. 14) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented              order on 14 April 2000, the operative part of which is as
by M. Hansen and S.B. Völcker, of the Brussels Bar, with an                  follows:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch
and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — application for a declaration                    1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
that the Commission unlawfully refrained from examining the
alleged State aid granted by the German authorities in the
context of the amalgamation carried out, and authorised by                   2. The costs are reserved.
the Commission, within the German coal industry — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: J. Pirrung, President, and J. Azizi, A. Potocki,
M. Jaeger and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 5 May 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. There is no need to give a ruling in the present case.
2. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    incurred by the applicant, apart from those relating to the grant
    to the two interveners of leave to intervene.
                                                                                of 12 April 2000
3. The interveners are to bear their own costs.
                                                                             in Case T-328/99 Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                             (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/42)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE                                         In Case T-328/99 Anthony Goldstein, residing at Harrow,
                                                                             Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by Raymond St John
                         of 14 April 2000                                    Murphy, Solicitor, of 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple,
                                                                             London, against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: Richard Lyal) — application for compensation for
in Case T-144/99 R: Institute of Professional Representa-                    damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result
tives before the European Patent Office v Commission of                      of the Commission’s refusal to adopt interim measures with
                  the European Communities                                   respect to the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales
                                                                             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of
                                                                             V. Tiili, President of the Chamber, R.M. Moura Ramos and
(Competition — Application for interim relief — Suspension
                                                                             P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
        of operation of a measure — Urgency — None)
                                                                             12 April 2000 in which it:
                         (2000/C 211/41)                                     1. Dismisses the action;
                                                                             2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the
                    (Language of the case: French)                               proceedings for interim relief before the President of the Court of
                                                                                First Instance.
In Case T-144/99 R: Institute of Professional Representatives
before the European Patent Office, established in Munich
(Germany), represented by R. Collin and M.-C. Mitchell, of the               (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Decker and Braun, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Gippini
Fournier) — application for suspension of operation of


title: Case T-470/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2008 — Dow Agrosciences and Others v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/65

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2008 — Dow Agrosciences and Others v Commission
   (Case T-470/07) (1)

   (2008/C 301/127)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case C-630/10: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — University of Queensland, CSL Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases ( ‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’ ))

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/10

         Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — University of Queensland, CSL Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
   (Case C-630/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases (‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’))
   2012/C 73/16
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: University of Queensland, CSL Ltd

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Existence of further or different criteria for a medicinal product comprising more than one active ingredient or for a vaccine against multiple diseases (‘Multi-disease vaccine’ or ‘multivalent vaccine’)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as precluding the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate relating to active ingredients which are not identified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on in support of the application for such a certificate.

               2.

               Article 3(b) of Regulation No 469/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that, provided the other requirements laid down in Article 3 are also met, that provision does not preclude the competent industrial property office of a Member State from granting a supplementary protection certificate for an active ingredient specified in the wording of the claims of the basic patent relied on where the medicinal product for which the marketing authorisation is submitted in support of the supplementary protection certificate application contains not only that active ingredient but also other active ingredients.

               3.

               In the case of a basic patent relating to a process by which a product is obtained, Article 3(a) of Regulation No 469/2009 precludes a supplementary protection certificate being granted for a product other than that identified in the wording of the claims of that patent as the product deriving from the process in question. Whether it is possible to obtain the product directly as a result of that process is irrelevant in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case T-10/03: Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Jean-Pierre Koubi against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 55/40                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              —     infringement of the rules which govern procedure relating
                                                                               to State aid, inasmuch as the decision was adopted after
                                                                               the expiry of the two-month period from the date on
—     pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, declare unlawful                  which the appropriate notification was received.
      Commission Decision No 02/229/EC of 13 November
      2001, published in the Official Journal on 20 March
                                                                         —     failure to assess the aid, when examining its compatibility,
      2002 and, accordingly, annul it in its entirety or in so far
      as necessary;                                                            in the light of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 (1)
                                                                               of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from
                                                                               the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
—     in the alternative, order the Commission to compensate                   (EAGGF) amending and repealing certain Regulations and
      the Sardinian undertakings for the damage suffered                       the Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture
      which is quantified as amounting to EUR 1 300 000                        sector (2000/C28/02) ( 2).
      (corresponding to the regional contribution which was
      not received), together with interest and any readjustment,        —     failure to apply the Guidelines on National Regional
      to be distributed in proportion to the costs incurred;                   Aid (3) and the Community guidelines on State aid for
                                                                               small and medium-sized enterprises ( 4).
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Finally, the applicants allege failure to state reasons and
                                                                         misapplication to the present case of the derogation under
                                                                         Article 87(3) of the Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80.
                                                                         (2 ) OJ 2000 C 28, p. 2.
                                                                         (3 ) OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9.
The applicants, the two largest prestigious associations in the          (4 ) OJ 1992 C 213, p. 2.
agriculture sector, contest the decision of the defendant which
found contrary to the common market the aid scheme laid
down in Article 21 of Region of Sardinia Law No 21/2000
which provides for the reduction of production costs linked to
the use of fuels other than methane. The object of that scheme
is to compensate for the extremely high cost of heating fuel
available in Sardinia (diesel). According to the applicants,
the contested decision has prevented Sardinian greenhouse                Action brought on 13 January 2003 by Jean-Pierre Koubi
growers from being placed on an equal footing with those in              against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
other parts of Italy and in the rest of Europe, which would                             Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
have made it possible to have free competition in the market.
                                                                                (Case T-10/03)
In support of its arguments, the applicants allege:
                                                                                (2003/C 55/96)
—     infringement of Article 158 of the Treaty and of Declar-
      ation No 30 on Island Regions, annexed to the final act                                (Language of the case: French)
      of the Amsterdam Treaty.
—     infringement of Articles 2, 3, 5, 12 and 34 of the Treaty          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      and failure to apply the principles of equality and                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
      proportionality. The applicants point out in that respect          Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      that the contested decision has rejected an aid scheme             13 January 2003 by Jean-Pierre Koubi, resident in Marseille
      intended to eliminate serious discrimination between               (France), represented by Katia Manhaeve, Avocat, with an
      Sardinian greenhouse growers and other Italian and                 address for service in Luxembourg. Additional party before the
      European greenhouse growers rather than to distort                 Office: Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere, S.A. Flabesa.
      competition.
—     infringement of Article 32 in conjunction with Articles 33         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      to 37 of the Treaty. The applicants claim that the
      Commission was not entitled to adopt that decision                 —     set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      inasmuch as it failed to take the precautions which must                 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
      be taken in a sector such as agriculture in which, as a                  16 October 2002 in Case R 542/2001-4;
      rule, the competition rules are applied only to the extent
      determined by the Council.                                         —     order the Office to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 55/41
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for regis-            Jean-Pierre Koubi
tration of a Community                                                      The applicant is a major general trading company in Japan.
trade mark:                                                                 Itochu Hellas, a local subsidiary of Itochu Europe and only
                                                                            indirectly a subsidiary of the applicant, concluded a distri-
Community mark con-             The word mark ‘conforflex’ for              bution agreement with Nintendo. The applicant indicates that
cerned:                         certain products in Class 20 (bed-          the distribution and sale of game consoles was never one of its
                                room furniture) (No 1171172).               core activities and that such activities were at the sole discretion
                                                                            of local subsidiaries, who operate with a large degree of
Marks put forward as            The national marks ‘flex’ and ‘flex’        independence.
grounds for refusal             for certain products in Class 20
under the opposition            (including beds, mattresses and
procedure                       pillows, bedding articles).                 In support of its application, the applicant claims that it cannot
                                                                            be held liable for an alleged infringement of Article 81 (1) of
Owner of the marks put          Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere,              the EC Treaty on behalf of Itochu Hellas and, therefore, that it
forward as grounds for          S.A.
                                                                            is not the correct addressee of the contested decision. Accord-
refusal                                                                     ing to the applicant, the Commission should prove that a
Decision of the Oppo-           Dismissal of the opposition.                mother company exerted decisive influence over its subsidiary
sition Division:                                                            in order to hold the former liable for the acts of the subsidiary.
Decision of the Board of        Annulment of the decision of the
Appeal:                         Opposition Division and rejection           The applicant claims furthermore that the fine should be
                                of the application for registration         annulled or substantially reduced. The applicant invokes a lack
                                of the Community mark.                      of proper reasoning and an infringement of the principle of
                                                                            proportionality and equal treatment. The applicant claims that
Pleas in law:                   Infringement of the concept of              the Commission treated the applicant in the same way as other
                                risk of confusion.                          undertakings without enabling the applicant to assess the
                                                                            figures on which the Commission relied.
                                                                            The applicant submits that the Commission had no grounds
                                                                            to increase the fine to ensure deterrence considering that
                                                                            Itochu Hellas should have been the addressee of the decision.
Action brought on 16 January 2003 by Itochu Corpor-                         The applicant also claims that an increase for deterrence on
ation against the Commission of the European Communi-                       account of the applicant’s size and resources constitutes an
                                 ties                                       infringement of the principles of proportionality and equal
                                                                            treatment.
                           (Case T-12/03)
                          (2003/C 55/97)                                    Moreover, the applicant invokes a manifest error of assessment
                                                                            and a violation of the principle of proportionality insofar as
                    (Language of the case: English)                         the fine was increased to take into account the duration of the
                                                                            alleged infringement. The applicant also submits that the
                                                                            Commission should have applied a smaller increase by percent-
                                                                            age on account of duration as Itochu Hellas’ participation was
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   only passive.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 January 2003 by Itochu Corpor-
ation, Tokyo, Japan, represented by Mr Gerwin Van Gerven                    The applicant also puts forward that the Commission has
and Mr Thomas Franchoo, Lawyers.                                            infringed Article 253 of the EC Treaty and the principle of
                                                                            proportionality because it has refused to consider certain
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 attenuating circumstances, like the very limited and exclusively
                                                                            passive role of Itochu Hellas and the fact that Itochu Hellas did
—     annul Articles 1, 3 and 5 of Commission decision                      not implement the restrictive practices. Furthermore, according
      C(2002) 4072 final of 30 October 2002 in Cases                        to the applicant, the Commission has violated the principle of
      COMP/35.587 PO Video games, COMP/35.706 Nintendo                      equal treatment by accepting attenuating circumstances in
      Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega-Nintendo, inso-                    favour of other addressees and not for the applicant.
      far as it finds an infringement on Article 81 (1) of the EC
      Treaty, imposes a fine upon and addresses the decision to
      the applicant, or alternatively, to substantially reduce that         The applicant finally invokes a violation of Article 15 (2) of
      fine;                                                                 Regulation 17 (1) insofar as the Commission imposed a fine
                                                                            that exceeds 10 % of Itochu Hellas’ turnover in the preceding
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                business year and a violation of its rights of defence insofar


title: Case T-188/10: Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2010 — DTL v OHIM — Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/55

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2010 — DTL v OHIM — Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales (Solaria)
      (Case T-188/10)
      (2010/C 161/86)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: DTL Corporación, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Rueda Pascual, 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: Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales, S.L. (Pamplona, Spain)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 in Case R 767/2009-2;

                  —

                  replace it by another which rejects the opposition brought by GESTIÓN DE RECURSOS Y SOLUCIONES EMPRESARIALES, S.L. against the Community trade mark No 5153325 ‘SOLARIA’ permitting that Community trade mark to be registered not only in Class 41, but also for all the services applied for in Classes 37 and 42; and order the opposing party to pay the costs of the opposition and the appeal before OHIM; and

                  —

                  order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings who oppose this action to pay the costs thereof.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: DTL Corporación, S.L.

         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘SOLARIA’ (Application No 5 153 325) for services in Classes 37, 41 and 42.

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales, S.L.

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark containing the word element ‘SOLARTIA’ (No 2 689 747) for services in Classes 37 and 42.

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

         Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation and application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case T-62/07 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carbalho v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/50

         Appeal brought on 28 February 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carbalho v Commission
   (Case T-62/07 P)
   (2007/C 95/100)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin, Agent, and C. Falmagne, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: José Antonio de Brito Sequeira Carvalho
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05;

               —

               dismiss the action brought by Mr Sequeira;

               —

               order each of the parties to bear its own costs relating to these proceedings and the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its judgment of 13 December 2006 in Case F-17/05 de Brito Sequeira Carvalho v Commission, the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) upheld in part the action brought by the applicant at first instance and annulled the Commission decision of 13 July 2004 prohibiting the applicant's access to its buildings and the decisions automatically extending his sick leave.
   The Commission bases the appeal, first, on the fact that the Tribunal adjudicated ultra petita by annulling the Commission decision of 13 July 2004 prohibiting the applicant's access to its buildings and, second, on the fact that the judgment under appeal infringed Community law. The Commission claims that the Tribunal distorted the facts of the case, that it erred in law in interpreting the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based and that it infringed the fifth subparagraph of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations. The Commission further maintains that by the interpretation in the judgment of Article 59(5) of the Staff Regulations, the Tribunal distorted the arbitration procedure provided for in that provision.


title: Case T-111/15: Action brought on 1 March 2015 — Ryanair et Airport Marketing Services v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/13

         Action brought on 1 March 2015 — Ryanair et Airport Marketing Services v Commission
   (Case T-111/15)
   (2015/C 178/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) and Airport Marketing Services Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, E. Vahida, I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1(2), 2(4), 3, 4 and 5 of the decision of the European Commission of 23 July 2014 concerning the state aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Angoulême, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of the principle of good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and of the applicant’s rights of defence, as the Commission failed to allow the applicants access to the file of the investigation and to put them in a position where they could effectively make known their views.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission erroneously imputed the conclusion of the Airport Service Agreement and the Marketing Services Agreement to the French state.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 107(1) TFUE because the Commission failed to properly apply the ‘market economy investor’ test.
               The applicant puts forward that the Commission erroneously refused to rely on a comparator analysis, which would have led to the finding of absence of aid to the applicants. In the alternative, the Commission used manifestly insufficient, unverified and unreliable data for its calculation of the airport’s profitability, applied an excessively short time horizon, disregarded the network externalities that the airport could expect to gain from its relationship with Ryanair, failed to attribute appropriate value to marketing services, and dismissed the rationale behind the airport’s decision to purchase such services.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFUE in that the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment and an error of law by finding that the aid to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services was equal to the cumulated marginal losses of Angoulême airport instead of the actual benefit to Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services. The Commission should have examined the extent to which the alleged benefit had actually been passed on to Ryanair’s passengers. Further, the Commission failed to quantify any competitive advantage that Ryanair enjoyed through Angoulême airport’s (supposedly) below-cost payment flows. Finally, the Commission failed to explain properly why the recovery of the amount of aid specified in the decision was necessary to ensure the re-establishment of the situation prior to the payment of the aid.


title: Case C-230/05 P: Appeal brought on 26 May 2005 by L against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/33

         Appeal brought on 26 May 2005 by L against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-230/05 P)
   (2005/C 182/58)
   Language of the case: French
   An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02 L v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May 2005 by L, represented by P. Legros and S. Rodrigues, avocats.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 9 March 2005 in Case T-254/02;

               2.

               uphold the claims for annulment and compensation made at first instance;

               3.

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested judgment:

               —

               first, infringed the rights of the defence and the interests of the applicant, in that the Court of First Instance committed several procedural irregularities and made several manifest errors of assessment and vitiated the contested judgment by not stating reasons, and

               —

               second, infringed Community law by not drawing any consequences from the breach by the defendant of its obligations concerning the transmission of correspondence to its staff and the treatment within a reasonable time of its staff's affairs, by virtue of the general principle of sound administration.