title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 September 1997 in Case T-172/96: Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue v. Council of the European Union (Officials - Annual leave - Travelling time - Place of origin outside Europe - Equality of treatment)

text:
C 331 / 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 11 . 97
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                     of 16 September 1997                              Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Case T-220/95 : Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of                  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
            the Regions of the European Union (')                      Cessange, v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Officials — Economic and Social Committee —                           Diego Canga Fano and Aidan Patrick Feeney) —
Committee of the Regions — Common organizational                       application for annulment of the Council's decision of
structure — Internal competition — Decision by the                     29 January 1996 refusing to increase the applicant's
selection board not to admit a candidate to an internal                annual leave by the addition of extra travelling time —
             competition — Action for annulment)                       the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                       A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
                           ( 97/C 331 /37                              Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                       has given a judgment on 23 September 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-220/95 : Christophe Gimenez, a member of the
temporary staff of the Economic and Social Committee,                  2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             (') OJ C 9, 11 . 1 . 1997.
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
v. Committee of the Regions of the European Union
(Agent: Dominique Lagasse ) — application for annulment
of the decision adopted on 27 November 1995 by the
selection board in internal competition CdR-A/03/95 not
to admit the applicant to that competition — the Court of
First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W.                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Bellamy, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.                                    of 25 September 1997
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
1997, in which it:                                                     in Case T- 150/95 : UK Steel Association v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( ! )
1 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal             (Action for annulment — State aid — ECSC Treaty —
    competition CdR-A/03/95 refusing to admit the                      Fifth Steel Aid Code — New plant — Community
    applicant to that competition;                                           guidelines on aid for environmental protection)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /39 )
2 . orders the Committee of the Regions to bear its own
    costs and to pay the costs of the applicant, including                              (Language of the case: English)
    those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.
                                                                       In Case T-150/95 : UK Steel Association, formerly British
H OJ C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 .
                                                                       Iron and Steel Producers Association (BISPA), whose head
                                                                       office is in London, represented by John Boyce and Philip
                                                                       Raven,     Solicitors,     with   an    address for service    in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wagener & Rukavina,
                                                                       10a Boulevard de la Foire, v. Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Paul Nemitz ),
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              supported by Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
                     of 23 September 1997                              Georges Schmit, Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke and
                                                                       Koen Platteau, and Arbed SA, established in Luxembourg,
in Case T-l 72/96: Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue v. Council               represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels
                  of the European Union (')                            Bar, with an address for service at the office of Paul
                                                                       Ehmann, Legal Department, Arbed, 19 Avenue de la
(Officials — Annual leave — Travelling time — Place of
                                                                       Liberté — application for annulment of the decision
       origin outside Europe — Equality of treatment)                  reproduced in Commission notice 94/C 400/02 pursuant
                           ( 97/C 331 /38 )                            to Article 6 (4 ) of Decision No 3855/91/ECSC to other
                                                                       Member States and interested parties concerning aid
                                                                       which Luxembourg plans to grant to ProfilARBED SA
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Arbed) ( State Aid C 25/94 ( ex N 11/94 ) (2 ), finding that
                                                                       the aid which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg planned
In Case T-172/96 : Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue, . an official           to grant to ProfilARBED SA conformed to Article 3 of
of the Council of the European Union, residing in                      Decision No 3855/91 and was thus compatible with the


title: Case F-9/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Angé Serrano v Parliament (Civil Service — Officials — Change of category under the old Staff Regulations — Transitional rules for grading as at 1 May 2004 — Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 — Reclassification on the basis of the salary of officials receiving a compensatory payment — Applicable multiplier — Loss of promotion points — Claim for compensation)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Angé Serrano v Parliament
   (Case F-9/07) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Change of category under the old Staff Regulations - Transitional rules for grading as at 1 May 2004 - Decision of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 13 February 2006 - Reclassification on the basis of the salary of officials receiving a compensatory payment - Applicable multiplier - Loss of promotion points - Claim for compensation)
   2011/C 340/70
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Pilar Angé Serrano (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented: initially by C. Burgos and K. Zejdová, Agents, and subsequently by L.G. Knudsen and K. Zejdová, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented: initially by M. Simm and I. Šulce, and subsequently by K. Zieleśkiewicz, M. Bauer and J. Monteiro, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the European Parliament’s decision regrading the applicant at grade B*6, step 8; she had been included on the reserve list following an internal competition for change of category, before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, under the latter’s less favourable provisions — Claim for compensation.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 24.03.07, p. 31.


title: Case T-198/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  8 December 2005  — Merladet v Commission (Officials — Career development report — 2001/2002 appraisal exercise — Proper conduct of the reporting procedure — Action for annulment)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Merladet v Commission
   (Case T-198/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - 2001/2002 appraisal exercise - Proper conduct of the reporting procedure - Action for annulment)
   (2006/C 48/56)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José Félix Merladet (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. de Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision adopting the applicant's career development report for the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision adopting the applicant's career development report for the 2001/2002 appraisal exercise;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Joined Cases C-10/14, C-14/14 and C-17/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.B.G.T. Miljoen (C-10/14), X (C-14/14), Société Générale SA (C-17/14) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Direct taxation — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Taxation of dividends from portfolios of shares — Withholding tax — Restriction — Final tax burden — Factors for comparing the tax burdens of resident and non-resident taxpayers — Comparability — Taking into account income tax or corporation tax — Conventions for the avoidance of double taxation — Neutralisation of the restriction by means of a convention)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 September 2015 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.B.G.T. Miljoen (C-10/14), X (C-14/14), Société Générale SA (C-17/14) v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Joined Cases C-10/14, C-14/14 and C-17/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Direct taxation - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends from portfolios of shares - Withholding tax - Restriction - Final tax burden - Factors for comparing the tax burdens of resident and non-resident taxpayers - Comparability - Taking into account income tax or corporation tax - Conventions for the avoidance of double taxation - Neutralisation of the restriction by means of a convention))
   (2015/C 371/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: J.B.G.T. Miljoen (C-10/14), X (C-14/14), Société Générale SA (C-17/14)

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which imposes a withholding tax on dividends distributed by a resident company both to resident taxpayers and non-resident taxpayers and provides a mechanism for deducting or reimbursing the tax withheld only for resident taxpayers, while for non-resident taxpayers, both natural persons and companies, the tax withheld is a final tax, in so far as the final tax burden relating to those dividends, borne in that Member State by non-resident taxpayers, is greater than that borne by resident taxpayers, which it is for the referring court to determine in the main proceedings. For the purposes of determining those tax burdens, the referring court must take account, in Cases C-10/14 and C-14/14, of the taxation of residents in relation to all shares held in Netherlands companies in the calendar year, of capital which is exempt from tax under national legislation, and in Case C-17/14, of expenses which are directly linked to the actual payment of the dividends.
   If the existence of a restriction on the movement of capital is established, it may be justified by the effects of a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the Member State of residence and the Member State in which the dividends are paid, provided that the difference in treatment, relating to the taxation of dividends, between taxpayers residing in the latter Member State and those residing in other Member States ceases to exist. In circumstances such as those at issue in Cases C-14/14 and C-17/14, and without prejudice to the determinations to be made by the referring court, the restriction on the free movement of capital, if established, cannot be regarded as justified.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case T-129/15 and T-130/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word marks WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Intesa Sanpaolo v EUIPO (WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY)
   (Case T-129/15 and T-130/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word marks WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 419/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Intesa Sanpaolo SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: P. Pozzi and F. Cecchi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially P. Bullock and L. Rampini, then L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against two decisions of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 January 2015 (Cases, respectively, R 1857/2014-5 and R 1864/2014-5), concerning two applications for registration of the word signs, respectively, WAVE 2 PAY and WAVE TO PAY as EU trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Intesa Sanpaolo SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 2.7.2015.


title: Case T-583/17: Action brought on 25 August 2017 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS finance)

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/21

         Action brought on 25 August 2017 — EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst v EUIPO — IOS Finance EFC (IOS finance)
   (Case T-583/17)
   (2017/C 338/24)
   Language in which the application was brought: German

      Parties

      Applicant: EOS Deutscher Inkasso-Dienst GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: B. Sorg, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IOS Finance EFC, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

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

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘IOS FINANCE’ — EU trade mark No 12 544 061

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition Proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 June 2017 in Case R 2262/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-182/99 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 1999 by Salzgitter AG, a company established under German law, formerly trading as Preussag Stahl AG, against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-148/94 Preussag AG v Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 299/3
Appeal brought on 18 May 1999 by Salzgitter AG, a                      Pleas in law and main arguments
company established under German law, formerly trading
as Preussag Stahl AG, against the judgment delivered on
11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the                    — Defective composition of the Chamber when the judgment
European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                             was delivered (infringement of Article 46, in conjunction
Composition) in Case T-148/94 Preussag AG v Com-                           with Article 31, of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice,
           mission of the European Communities                             and infringement of Articles 32(1) and (3), 33(3) and (5)
                                                                           and 82(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
                                                                           Instance): a judge is not prevented from attending in the
                      (Case C-182/99 P) (*)                                case where, without compelling reasons, the deliberations
                                                                           are so concluded after final discussion that one or more
                                                                           judges art prevented because their term of office has
                        (1999/C 299/03)                                    expired. Influencing the composition of the Chamber by
                                                                           drawing out the deliberations, once they have begun,
                                                                           would also infringe the guarantee that decisions should be
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the              delivered by a properly constituted Court. In the present
European Communities on 18 May 1999 by Salzgitter AG, a                    case, a period of five months and twenty days elapsed
company established under German law, formerly trading as                  between the conclusion of the oral procedure and the end
Preussag Stahl AG, represented by Horst Satzky, of Hengeler                of the period of office of the President of the Chamber and
Mueller Weitzel Wirtz, Bockenheimer Landstraße 51, D-60325                 of another judge. There is no obvious reason why such a
Frankfurt am Main, and Constantin Frick, Marktstraße 3 -                   period would not have sufficed to conduct and conclude
Börsenhof C, D-28195 Bremen, with an address for service at                the deliberations. If there had been, between the conclusion
the Chambers of Patrick Weinacht, of Faltz & Kremer, 6 Rue                 of the oral procedure and the end of the period of office of
Heinrich Heine, L-1720 Luxembourg, against the judgment                    one of the departing judges, any reason in respect of a
delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance                  judge belonging to the Chamber which prevented the
of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended                      deliberations from being conducted, Article 32(1) ought to
Composition) in Case T-148/94 Preussag AG v Commission                     have been applied. Postponement of judgment to a period
of the European Communities.                                               following the end of the period of office of the President
                                                                           of the Chamber and of another judge therefore resulted in
                                                                           a composition of the Chamber which differed from that in
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                which the Chamber ought to have given a decision in the
                                                                           dispute by 17 September 1998. Since it is not clear
                                                                           from the contested judgment whether it was adopted
1. Set aside the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the                unanimously, it must be assumed that the judgment might
    Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                 have been different had the Chamber been differently
    Case T-148/94 Preussag Stahl AG v Commission of the                    composed.
    European Communities in so far as that judgment dismis-
    sed the action brought by Preussag Stahl AG against
    Commission Decision C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994             — Impermissible failure to examine evidence (infringement
    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC            of Article 24 of the ECSC Statute of the Court of Justice in
    Treaty;                                                                conjunction with Article 65 of the Rules of Procedure of
                                                                           the Court of First Instance): the principle that the facts
                                                                           should be fully clarified required examination of the
2. Set aside or annul Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission                    evidence submitted by the applicants in order to ascertain,
    Decision C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994 relating to a              on the basis of the complete minutes to be produced in
    proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in                the original, whether it provided the proof that the decision
    so far as those articles were confirmed by the contested               under challenge had been validly adopted.
    judgment;
3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings            — Legally defective determination by the Court as to the
    before the Court of First Instance and those of the present            proper drafting and content of the decision: on the basis
    appeal;                                                                of unchecked submissions made by the defendant’s agents,
                                                                           the Court concluded that the content of the decision was
                                                                           evident from a document kept in physical proximity to the
    in the alternative,                                                    minutes. However, in the absence of proper minutes, the
                                                                           content of the Community deliberations is uncertain. Nor
                                                                           is it clear from the photocopies of the minutes submitted
    reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Preussag Stahl                whether the requisite quorum was achieved when the
    AG in Article 4 of Commission Decision C(94)321, which                 College of Members of the Commission adopted the
    the Court of First Instance fixed at EUR 8 600 000                     decision.
    in paragraph 2 of the operative part of the contested
    judgment;
                                                                       — Infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in regard to
    in the further alternative,                                            the concept of normal competition: from the fact that, as
                                                                           even Directorate-General III accepted, some exchange of
                                                                           information between undertakings in the steel industry
    refer the case back to the Court of First Instance of the              was necessary to enable the Commission to fulfil its duties
    European Communities.                                                  under the ECSC Treaty, the Court ought to have concluded
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/4                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.10.1999
     that the ‘normal competition’ protected by Article 65(1) of        2. Annul Articles 1, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision
     the ECSC Treaty cannot be the same competition as that                 C(94)321 final of 16 February 1994 relating to a proceed-
     protected by Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty. It was for that           ing pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning
     reason wrong in law simply to classify every exchange of               agreements and concerted practices engaged in by Euro-
     information as a restriction of competition prohibited                 pean producers of beams, in so far as those articles have
     under Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty.                                not already been annulled by the judgment of the Court of
                                                                            First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-141/94;
— Infringement of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty in regard to
     the assessment of the information exchange: the assess-            3. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings
     ment of the information exchange as a separate constituent             at first instance and those of the present appeal.
     feature of conduct in restraint of competition for the
     purposes of Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty constituted a
     misconstruction of that article. Under Article 65 of the
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
     ECSC Treaty, the exchange of information must have
     tended to restrict competition. The Court erred in law in
     holding that it was sufficient if the information might            — Infringement of procedural rights, in particular the prin-
     influence the conduct of undertakings. The possibility that            ciple of ex proprio motu investigation, the rights of defence
     conduct might be influenced cannot per se, however, be                 and the right to procedural fairness: the Court of First
     equated with the tendency to restrict competition.                     Instance misconstrued the scope of the appellant’s pro-
                                                                            cedural rights, its rights of defence and right to procedural
                                                                            fairness, as well as the obligation arising under the principle
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
                                                                            of ex proprio motu investigation to establish facts also
                                                                            favourable to the undertakings. Further, the Court erred in
                                                                            law in concluding that the procedural defects in the
                                                                            administrative procedure had been rectified during the
                                                                            judicial proceedings.
                                                                        — Errors in law in regard to the Commission’s failure to
                                                                            comply with essential procedural requirements when it
                                                                            adopted the decision: in view of the fundamental import-
                                                                            ance that the principle of collegiate responsibility should
Appeal brought on 25 May 1999 by Thyssen Stahl AG                           be complied with, the interpretation of inherently contra-
against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the                      dictory minutes to mean that it could be assumed that the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                         requisite number of Commission Members had been
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                              present constituted an error in law. In so doing, the Court
T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission of the Euro-                         wrongly rejected the complaint made in that connection
                        pean Communities                                    and infringed Articles 5 and 6 of the Commission’s 1993
                                                                            Rules of Procedure. The rejection of the complaint alleging
                                                                            that the version of the decision sent to the appellant was
                       (Case C-194/99 P) (*)                                not authenticated under Article 16 of the Commission’s
                                                                            Rules of Procedure also amounts to an error in law. In this,
                         (1999/C 299/04)                                    the Court of First Instance misconstrued the purpose served
                                                                            by the presumption of validity enjoyed by Community
                                                                            measures; that presumption cannot prevent a decision
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the               from being set aside in the case where that decision had
European Communities on 25 May 1999 by Thyssen Stahl                        been adopted in breach of formal requirements.
AG, represented by Frank Montag, of Freshfields Deringer,
Bastion Tower, 5 Place du Champs de Mars, B-1050 Brussels,              — Infringement of Article 65(1) and Article 33 of the ECSC
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                Treaty. In the first place, the Court of First Instance, in a
Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue, against the judgment delivered on                 clear departure from the Commission decision, assumed
11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European                that the exchange of information constituted a separate
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in                       infringement of competition (infringement of Article 33
Case T-141/94 Thysser Stahl AG v Commission of the                          of the ECSC Treaty). Second, the Court infringed Article
European Communities.                                                       65(1) of the ECSC Treaty in so far as it treated the
                                                                            monitoring of orders and deliveries as constituting a
                                                                            separate infringement, without being able to adduce proper
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 legal reasons as to why the mere exchange of information
                                                                            should be anti-competitive. Finally, the Court failed to
1. Set aside the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the                 appreciate that the exchange of information in question
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities                    was necessary within the context of the monitoring system
     (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case                         implemented by the Commission from 1 July 1988 to 20
     T-141/94 in so far as that judgment fixes the fine imposed             June 1990 pursuant to Decision No 2448/88 and the
     on the appellant at EUR 4 400 000 [paragraph (2)] of the               forward programmes to be set up for that purpose and
     operative part), dismisses the appellant’s action (paragraph           was therefore part of the scheme objectively promoted by
     (3) of the operative part), and orders the appellant to bear           DG III, which the Court ought not to have overlooked
     its own costs and to pay half of the Commission’s costs                when it formed the view that the conduct in question was
     (paragraph (4) of the operative part);                                 anti-competitive.


title: Case T-299/03: Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di. s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 264/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di. s.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-299/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/62)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                           European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di.
                                                                            s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —       annul the contested refusal.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione Cuoio                       —       order the Commission to pay the costs.
e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l. against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                          (Case T-298/03)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2003/C 264/61)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                            advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione
Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                                Limited against the Council of the European Union
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-300/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/63)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                                                                            Communities on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                            Limited, New Delhi (India), represented by P. Bently, QC,
                                                                            K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, R. MacLean and J. Branto, Solici-
                                                                            tors, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-135/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/54)
Various provisions adopted by several German Länder (con-
forming to the Federal Model Form of a Furnace Regulation of
24 February 1995) are, in the Commission’s view, incompat-                By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ible with Directive 90/396/EEC on gas-fuelled appliances.                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Those provisions relate to:                                               from the register of Case C-135/02: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
—      gas boilers with a thermal output of more than 50 kw,
       which may be installed only in separate rooms;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—      certain gas boilers which must be equipped with a
       safety device which prevents the concentration of carbon
       monoxide in the air from exceeding 30 ppm; and
—      gas boilers which must be equipped with a device which,
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-142/02 (1)
       in certain circumstances, closes off the gas supply.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/55)
This gives rise to an impediment to the placing on the
market in the Länder concerned of appliances satisfying the
requirements of the Directive because, in those Länder, matters           By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Court of
already governed by the Directive, such as the installation of            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
appliances only in rooms which do not constitute living space,            from the register of Case C-142/02: Commission of the
protection from the release of unburned gas, risk of explosion,           European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
etc., are subject to additional regulation by national provisions.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
The Federal Republic of Germany takes the view that, having
regard to the public safety of persons and the protection of life
and health of persons against general risks posed by fuel-
burning installations, the Member States are competent to
increase as appropriate the safety levels of such fuel-burning                   Removal from the register of Case C-228/02 (1)
installations on the basis of national building regulations. The
Commission rejects that line of argument, pointing out that,                                      (2004/C 21/56)
in accordance with the ‘New Approach’ concept, the Directive
contains a comprehensive set of rules on the matters covered
by it so that the adoption of additional national provisions              By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Second
governing that area no longer comes into question.                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case C-228/02:
(1) OJ 1990 L 196, p. 15.                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P
                        and C-169/01 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-229/02 (1)
                          (2004/C 21/53)                                                          (2004/C 21/57)
By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of Justice            By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P and C-169/01 P: Federal               from the register of Case C-229/02 (Reference for a preliminary
Republic of Germany v RAG Aktiengesellschaft and UK Coal                  ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Tenderer: debis/AC and
v Commission of the European Communities.                                 Others v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversi-
                                                                          cherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001, OJ C 168 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


C 352/38              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  4.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-392/93 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-203/94 (1)
                       (1999/C 352/66)                                                         (1999/C 352/69)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
By order of 27 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
the register of Case T-392/93: Greg Walsh v Council of the              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
European Union and Commission of the European Communi-                  the register of Case T-203/94: Hans-Hermann Blohm and
ties.                                                                   Others v Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 197 of 21.7.1993.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 218 of 68.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-81/94
                         and Others (1)
                       (1999/C 352/67)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-225/94 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 352/70)
                  (Language of the case: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of
Cases T-81/94, T-114/94, T-135/94, T-200/94, T-204/94,                  By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-205/94, T-206/94, T-207/94, T-208/94, T-209/94,                       Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
T-210/94, T-211/94, T-213/94, T-214/94, T-215/94,                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
T-216/94, T-217/94, T-218/94, T-220/94, T-221/94,                       the register of Case T-225/94: Georg Hofstetter v Commission
T-222/94, T-223/94, T-254/94, T-255/94, T-256/94,                       of the European Communities.
T-257/94, T-258/94, T-269/94, T-287/94, T-288/94 and
T-296/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-81/94 and Others:
Anni Rau and Others v Council of the European Union and                 (1) OJ C 233 of 20.8.1994.
Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994, C 132 of 14.5.1994, C 218 of 6.8.1994,
    C 275 of 1.10.1994 and C 370 of 24.12.1994.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-270/94 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-89/94 (1)                                           (1999/C 352/71)
                       (1999/C 352/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                the register of Case T-270/94: Claus-Heinrich Röhe v Council
the register of Case T-89/94: Hubert Remmers v Council                  of the European Union and Commission of the European
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    Communities.
Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 275 of 1.10.1994.
(1) OJ C 103 of 11.4.1994.


title: Case T-50/08 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Michail v Commission (Appeal — Staff case — Officials — Staff Report — Career Development Report — 2004 Assessment period — Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Michail v Commission
   (Case T-50/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff case - Officials - Staff Report - Career Development Report - 2004 Assessment period - Duty of the Civil Service Tribunal to state reasons)
   2010/C 11/49
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents, and E. Bourtzalas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F-34/06 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, seeking the setting aside of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Christos Michail to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities in the context of the present instance.

      (1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.


title: Case T-248/13: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Al-Ghabra v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of the funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body — Inclusion of that person’s name on the list in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 — Action for annulment — Reasonable time — Obligation to verify and justify the merits of the grounds relied on — Judicial review)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2016 — Al-Ghabra v Commission
   (Case T-248/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of the funds and economic resources of a person included on a list drawn up by a United Nations body - Inclusion of that person’s name on the list in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 - Action for annulment - Reasonable time - Obligation to verify and justify the merits of the grounds relied on - Judicial review))
   (2017/C 030/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohammed Al-Ghabra (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and J. Carey, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and F. Erlbacher, and subsequently by M. Konstantinidis and F. Erlbacher, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and V. Kaye, subsequently by V. Kaye, subsequently by S. Brandon, and finally by C. Crane, acting as Agents, and also by T. Eicke QC), and Council of the European Union, (represented by: J.-P. Hix and E. Finnegan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Commission Regulation (EC) No 14/2007 of 10 January 2007 amending for the 74th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ 2007 L 6, p. 6), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and (ii) Commission Decision Ares(2013) 188023 of 6 March 2013 confirming the retention of the applicant’s name on the list of persons and entities to whom the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9) apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 14/2007 of 10 January 2007 amending for the 74th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama Bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001, in so far as it concerns Mr Mohammed Al-Ghabra;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as unfounded as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Mr Al-Ghabra to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 11.1.2014.


title: Case T-122/04: Action brought on 29 March 2004 by Outokumpu OYJ and Outokumpu Copper Products OY against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/48

         Action brought on 29 March 2004 by Outokumpu OYJ and Outokumpu Copper Products OY against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-122/04)
   (2004/C 118/104)
   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 29 March 2004 by Outokumpu OYJ and Outokumpu Copper Products OY, Espoo (Finland), represented by J. Ratliff, Barrister, and F. Distefano and J. Louostarinen, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2 of the Commission's Decision dated 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/E-1/38.240-Industrial tubes), insofar as it imposes a fine of 18.13 million euros on the applicant.

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in the said Decision under the Court's jurisdiction provided for in Article 17 of Council Regulation 17/62 and Article 230 of the EC Treaty.

               —

               require the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of its application, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law when it increased the fine imposed on the applicant for recidivism, based on the decision of the Commission of 18 July 1990 in cold-rolled stainless steel flat products (1). The applicant invokes a violation of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62 (2), the 1998 Fining Guidelines (3), the principles of proportionality and equal treatment and of the obligation to state reasons. It also claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law by increasing the fine for deterrence. According to the applicant, it has only become larger than the other companies involved at the very end or after the infringement and therefore did not have, at that time, the increased resources or greater economic power the Commission claims the applicant had. The applicant also invokes an infringement of fundamental principles limiting the Commission's discretion by considering only the turnover when assessing deterrent effect.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law by taking into account the full price including the price for the metal, namely, not only the producers' conversion margin for processing copper metal into industrial tubes, but also the underlying copper metal turnover which was not part of any unlawful cooperation.

      (1)  90/417/ECSC: Commission Decision of 18 July 1990 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning an agreement and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of cold-rolled stainless steel flat products (OJ L 220, p. 28)

      (2)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1959-1962, p. 87)

      (3)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15 (2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65 (5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, p. 3)


title: Designation of a President of Chamber and assignment of Judges to Chambers

text:
No C 46/ 18             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17 . 2 . 96
the notice of competition and are habitually contained in all          Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
notices of vacancy or competition — was intended to enable             from the register of Cases T-159/93 : Heinrich Kroger v.
a certain candidate, selected in advance by the appointing             Commission of the European Communities, T- 160/93 : Paul
authority, to take part in the competition and to be                   Hay v. Commission of the European Communities,
appointed; the applicant concludes from this that the                  T-162/93 : Hugo Bumann v. Commission of the European
contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers.                  Communities, T-171 /93 : Hermann Weiland v. Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities, T-179/93 : Heidrun
He also observes that he was awarded < > ne mark less than the
                                                                       Bormann v. Commission of the European Communities,
candidate placed first on the list, by reason of the latter's          T-201 /93 : Jürn-Wulf Hoper v. Commission of the European
knowledge of a third language, although knowledge of third             Communities, T-202/93 : Fritz Voß v. Commission of the
and fourth languages was not included in the notice of                 European Communities, T-217/93 : Kurt Fröhlich jun . v.
competition amongst the conditions to be fulfilled by the              Commission of the European Communities and T-225/93 :
candidates . Consequently, by assessing the candidates                 Eberhard Kloth v. Commission of the European
according to their knowledge of third and fourth languages,            Communities .
the selection board infringed the terms of the notice of
competition.                                                           í 1 ) OJ No C 161 , 27 . 6 . 1992 and OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
The applicant states, moreover, that he manifestly possesses
greater qualifications, experience and competence as
regards the post to be filled than the candidate who was
ultimately appointed . He considers , therefore, that, in giving
preference to the latter's application for the post in question,
the appointing authority committed a manifest error of                 Designation of a President of Chamber and assignment of
assessment .
                                                                                Judges to Chambers
                                                                                96/C 46/36
 Lastly, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of
 non-discrimination, contending that one of the members of             At its plenary conference on 11 January 1996 the Court
 the selection board had formerly been his direct hierarchical         of First Instance adopted the following decisions in
 superior and that he had had problems with him in the past;           consequence of the departure from office of Judge
 he considers that, in those circumstances, that member of             Barrington, President of Chamber, and the taking-up of
 the selection board was not able to view him objectively and           office by Judge Cooke .
 impartially, and that that attitude could have influenced the
 judgment of the other members of the selection board.                 Judge Lenaerts is designated President of the Fourth
                                                                        Chamber and of the Fourth Chamber, Extended
                                                                        Composition, and Judge Cooke is assigned to the Third
                                                                        Chamber, Extended Composition, the Fourth Chamber and
                                                                        the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, for the period
       Removal from the register of Case T- 103/93 ( )                  from 11 January 1996 to 30 September 1996 .
                             ( 96/C 46/34 )
                                                                        Consequently, the composition of the Chambers decided on
                (Language of the case: German)                          19 September 1995 ( OJ No C 274 , 19 . 10 . 1995 , p. 11 ) is
                                                                        altered as follows .
 By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First
 Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 Third Chamber, Extended Composition:
 Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        Mr Briët, President of Chamber, Mr Vesterdorf, Ms Lindh,
 from the register of Case T-103/93 : Jan Dietrich Arfmann v.
  Commission of the European Communities .                              Mr Potocki and Mr Cooke, Judges .
                                                                        Fourth Chamber:
  (') OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 .
                                                                        Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh and
                                                                        Mr Cooke, Judges.
                                                                         Fourth Chamber, Extented Composition:
  Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-159/93 and                 Mr Lenaerts, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                                others (M                                Ms Lindh, Mr Azizi and Mr Cooke, Judges.
                               96/C 46/35 )
                                                                         For cases in which the written procedure was completed and
                 (Language of the case: German)                          a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before
                                                                         11 January 1996, the Third Chamber, Extended
  By order of 11 December 1995 the President of the First                Composition, shall continue to sit with the same
  Chamber ( Extended composition ) of the Court of First                 composition as before .


title: Appeal brought on 17 December 1998 by Mediocurso - Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA against the judgment delivered on 15 September 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96 Mediocurso - Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Lda v Commission of the European Communities (Case C-462/98 P)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 71/5
of 26 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
17 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sutterlüty Gesellschaft mbH & Co v the Vorarlberg Lan-
desregierung, with the following parties joined in the              1) Set aside the contested judgment on the ground that it
proceedings: the town of Dornbirn, the municipality of                  is incorrect in law in that the principle requiring a
Bludesch, the market municipality of Rankweil and the                   prior hearing was misapplied, without prejudice to the
municipality of Lochau on the following question:                       part of the judgment which upheld in part
                                                                        Mediocurso's application in Case T-180/96;
In the event that the Court of Justice of the European
Communities answers the questions referred to it in the
order of 18 December 1997, Nos 97/16/0221 and 0021,                 2) Consequently, in view of the Commission's breach of
(Case C-437/97 (1)) at least partially in the affirmative, the          the same principle, annul Commission Decisions (C)
following further question is referred for a preliminary                1185 and (C) 1186, both of 14 August 1996, which
ruling:                                                                 were the subject of the proceedings in Cases T-180/96
                                                                        and T-181/96 respectively;
Is Section 82(2) of the Vorarlberg Abgabenverfahrens-
gesetz (Vorarlberg Law of Tax Procedure), which allows a            3) If it should reject the claims made in the foregoing
taxable person to correct a declaration made under                      paragraphs, set aside the contested judgment to the
Section 82(1) of that Law only if he does so within one                 extent to which it upholds the decisions adopted by
month of submitting the declaration, and also sets a                    the Commission, in both cases, which treat as
deadline of one month from the submission of the                        ineligible, in their entirety, both the expenditure
declaration for the taxable person to apply for the amount              relating to the remuneration paid to the teaching staff
of duty to be determined by notice of assessment altering               (sub-heading 14.3.1.a) and the expenditure relating to
the amount arrived at by the taxable person himself                     the VAT        chargeable on that remuneration
(except in cases where the requirements for reopening                   (sub-heading 14.3.13), this plea in annulment being
proceedings are met), incompatible with the case-law of                 based on:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities
(judgment in Case C-312/93 Peterbroeck, Van
Campenhout & Cie SCS v Belgium [1995] ECR I-4599)                       Ð material inaccuracy of the findings of fact made by
and thus with the application of Community law, in                          the Court of First Instance;
particular the implementation of the procedure under
Article 177 of the Treaty?
                                                                        Ð error of law deriving from inconsistency of the
                                                                            grounds of the judgment and breach of the
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998, p. 6.
                                                                            principle of proportionality;
                                                                    4) Consequently, for the same reasons, annul
                                                                        Commission Decisions (C) 1185 and (C) 1186, both of
                                                                        14 August 1996, to the extent to which they treat as
Appeal brought on 17 December 1998 by Mediocurso Ð                      ineligible, in their entirety, both the expenditure
Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA against the                     relating to the remuneration paid to the teaching staff
judgment delivered on 15 September 1998 by the Third                    (sub-heading 14.3.1.a) and the expenditure relating to
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  the VAT        chargeable on that remuneration
Communities in Joined Cases T-180/96 and T-181/96                       (sub-heading 14.3.13);
Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Lda v
        Commission of the European Communities
                      (Case C-462/98 P)                             5) Annul paragraph 4 of the operative part of the
                                                                        contested judgment to the extent to which it requires
                        (1999/C 71/09)                                  Mediocurso to pay its own costs in Case T-180/96;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September            6) Annul paragraph 5 of the operative part of the
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance                contested judgment to the extent to which it requires
of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-180/96                    Mediocurso to pay its own costs in Case T-181/96.
and T-181/96 Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino
Particular Lda v Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 17 December 1998 by                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Mediocurso Ð Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular SA,
represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    Ð First, the applicant maintains that the Court of First
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                                   Instance erred in law in considering, on the basis of
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/6                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
    the facts found by it, that the applicant must be              (c) Is the Combined Nomenclature (Council Regulation
    deemed to have been given the possibility of effectively             2658/87 (1) (as amended)) to be interpreted as
    expressing its views on the envisaged reductions in                  requiring that those goods set out in the schedule
    assistance, in accordance with the judgment in                       attached hereto be classified as Automatic data
    Lisrestal v Commission'.                                             processing machines and units thereof; magnetic or
                                                                         optical readers, machines for transcribing data onto
                                                                         data media in coded form and machines for processing
                                                                         such data, not elsewhere specified or included . . .'
Ð Second, the applicant maintains, with regard to
                                                                         under tariff heading 8471 either (i) post 1 January
    sub-heading 14.3.1a (remuneration of the teaching
                                                                         1996, or (ii) between 28 April 1993 and 31 December
    staff) and sub-heading 14.3.13 (taxes and charges),
                                                                         1995, or (iii) for both periods of time?
    that it is clear from the documentary evidence in the
    file that the findings of fact made by the Court of First
    Instance in relation to those sub-headings are
    incorrect.                                                      (d) If the answer to any part of question (c) is in the
                                                                         negative in respect of one or more of the goods set out
                                                                         in the schedule attached hereto, is the Combined
Ð Third, the applicant maintains that the incorrectness                  Nomenclature to be interpreted as requiring that such
    of the findings of fact made by the Court of First                   goods to be classified, ante 1 January 1996, as
    Instance       concerning       sub-headings      14.3.1a            Electrical apparatus for line telephony or line
    (remuneration of the teaching staff) and sub-heading                 telegraphy, including such apparatus for carriercurrent
    14.3.13 (taxes and charges) led the Court of First                   line systems . . .' under tariff heading 8517 or, post
    Instance misapply the law to its case, in breach of the              1 January 1996, as Electrical apparatus for line
    principle of proportionality and to give contradictory               telephony or line telegraphy, including line telephone
    grounds for the judgment.                                            sets with cordless handsets and telecommunication
                                                                         apparatus for carriercurrent line systems or for digital
                                                                         line systems; video phones . . .' under tariff heading
                                                                         8517?
                                                                    (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
                                                                        tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
                                                                        Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Appeal
Commissioners, Dublin, by request of that court of
15 December 1998, in the case of Cabletron Systems Ltd
             against the Revenue Commissioners
                       (Case C-463/98)
                        (1999/C 71/10)
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
                                                                    für Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by order of that court of
                                                                    28 October 1998 in the case of Westdeutsche Landesbank
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the              Girozentrale against Friedrich Stefan, intervener: Republic
European Communities by a request of the Appeal                                                of Austria
Commissioners, Dublin, of 15 December 1998, which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 December 1998, for                                     (Case C-464/98)
a preliminary ruling in the case of Cabletron Systems Ltd                                    (1999/C 71/11)
against the Revenue Commissioners, on the following
questions:
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(a) Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1638/94 of 5 July              European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
    1994 (OJ L 172, 7.7.1994, p. 5) concerning the                  Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), of
    classification of certain goods in the Combined                 28 October 1998, received at the Court Registry on
    Nomenclature, valid insofar as it classifies under CN           18 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    Code 8517 82 90 the goods respectively described at             Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale against Friedrich
    items 1, 2 and 3 of the annex to the said Regulation?           Stefan, intervener: Republic of Austria, on the following
                                                                    questions:
(b) Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 1165/95 of 23 May
    1995 (OJ L 117, 24.5.1995, p. 15), concerning the               (a) Does a refusal to allow a mortgage to be created to
    classification of certain goods in the Combined                      cover an existing foreign-currency debt (in this case in
    Nomenclature, valid insofar as it classifies under CN                German marks (DM)) constitute a restriction on the
    Code 8517 82 90 the goods described at item 4 of the                 movement of capital and payments compatible with
    annex to the said Regulation?                                        Article 73b of the EC Treaty?'


title: Case T-50/05: Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of computer services relating to telematic systems to control the movement of products subject to excise duty — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Action for annulment — Consortium of tenderers — Admissibility — Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency — Award criteria — Principles of sound administration and diligence — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-50/05) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of computer services relating to telematic systems to control the movement of products subject to excise duty - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Action for annulment - Consortium of tenderers - Admissibility - Principles of equal treatment of tenderers and transparency - Award criteria - Principles of sound administration and diligence - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Manifest error of assessment)
   2010/C 134/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by L. Parpala and K. Kańska, subsequently by L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve and lastly by L. Parpala, E. Manhaeve and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of the Decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 18 November 2004 rejecting the tender submitted by the consortium formed by the applicant and another undertaking in a tendering procedure relating to the provision of computer services concerning the specification, development, maintenance and support of telematic systems to control the movement of products subject to excise duty within the European Community under the excise-duty suspension arrangements and awarding the contract to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.


title: Case C-506/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Sabine Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Meaning of pregnant worker — Prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave — Woman dismissed where, at the date she was given notice of her dismissal, her ova had been fertilised in vitro , but not yet transferred to her uterus — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women — Woman undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment — Prohibition of dismissal — Scope)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) — Sabine Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG
   (Case C-506/06) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 92/85/EEC - Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding - Meaning of ‘pregnant worker’ - Prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave - Woman dismissed where, at the date she was given notice of her dismissal, her ova had been fertilised in vitro, but not yet transferred to her uterus - Directive 76/207/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women - Woman undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment - Prohibition of dismissal - Scope)
   (2008/C 92/11)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sabine Mayr

      Respondent: Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 2(a) of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Worker dismissed where, on the date she was given notice of her dismissal, her ova have been fertilised ‘in vitro’, but not yet implanted — Categorisation of that worker as a ‘pregnant worker’ or not
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and, in particular, the prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers provided for in Article 10(1) of that directive must be interpreted as not extending to a female worker who is undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment where, on the date she is given notice of her dismissal, her ova have already been fertilised by her partner's sperm cells, so that in vitro fertilised ova exist, but they have not yet been transferred into her uterus;

               2.

               Articles 2(1) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, preclude the dismissal of a female worker who, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, is at an advanced stage of in vitro fertilisation treatment, that is, between the follicular puncture and the immediate transfer of the in vitro fertilised ova into her uterus, inasmuch as it is established that the dismissal is essentially based on the fact that the woman has undergone such treatment.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case T-87/01: Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 186/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      30.6.2001
                              — Registration of the mark in             Pleas in law and principal arguments
                                  question would accord with
                                  the other aspects of the
                                  decision-making practice fol-         The applicant pleads, with reference to the judgment in
                                  lowed by the Boards of                Antillean Rice Mills, that safeguard measures must be of a
                                  Appeal.                               temporary nature. It maintains that no assessment whatever
                                                                        has been carried out, let alone any examination of the need for
                              — Infringement,         alternatively     an extension.
                                  misinterpretation,             of
                                  Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
                                  lation No 40/94.                      For the rest, the pleas in law and main arguments are analogous
                                                                        to those in Cases T-94/00 and T-332/00.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).                          (1) What is meant is Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2001 of
                                                                            27 February 2001 providing for the continued application of
                                                                            safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries and
                                                                            territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation of
                                                                            origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001 (OJ L 58 of
                                                                            28.2.2001, p. 13).
Action brought on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                        Action brought on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A. against
                          (Case T-87/01)                                       the Commission of the European Communities
                         (2001/C 186/21)                                                            (Case T-88/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 186/22)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 April 2001 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, established at Oranjestad (Aruba), represented by             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch.              European Communities on 24 April 2001 by Sniace, S.A.,
                                                                        established in Madrid, represented by José Luis Baró Fuentes,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Miguel Angel Gómez de Liaño y Botella and Fernando
                                                                        Rodrı́guez Carretero, abogados.
—    annul Regulation No 376/2001 (1);
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    rule that the Community is liable for the damage suffered
     by the applicant as a result of the fact that, since 1 March       —     annul Article 1 of the decision of 19 July 2000, inasmuch
     2001, the importation of the products referred to in                     as it establishes that the provision of guarantees amount-
     Regulation No 376/2001 has been prevented or restricted                  ing to EUR 35,80 million does not constitute State aid
     in consequence of that regulation, and order that the                    within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty;
     parties should seek to reach agreement on the extent of
     the damage suffered by the applicant, and that, if no such         —     annul Article 2 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     agreement is reached, the proceedings are to be resumed                  that the aid granted by Austria to LLG through the
     within a time-limit to be specified by the Court, with a                 provision of a guarantee amounting to EUR 14,5 million
     view to determining the quantum of the damage, and                       by WiBAG complies with the guarantee guidelines
     further order the Community to pay the damages pro-                      approved by the Commission under number No 542/95;
     visionally quantified and yet to be quantified, alternatively
     to pay such compensation as the Court may deem fair                —     annul Article 3 of the decision, inasmuch as it establishes
     and equitable, together with interest thereon at the rate                that the individual aid which Austria has granted in the
     of 8 % per annum from the date of the application until                  form of aid amounting to EUR 0,4 million for land
     payment in full;                                                         acquisition and in the form of equity capital amounting
                                                                              to EUR 21,8 million is compatible with the common
—    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   market;