title: Joined Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99: Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Sociedade Agrícola dos Arinhos, Lda and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
15.5.1999             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 136/15
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicants claims that the Court should:
                      of 15 January 1999                                 — annul the decision made on 4 November 1998, rejecting
                                                                             the complaint submitted by the applicant to the appointing
                                                                             authority on 4 June 1998 by which he contested the
in case T-199/97: Patricia Maugain v Commission of the                       decision adopted on 6 March 1998 by the Settlements
                   European Communities (1)                                  Office, Luxembourg, refusing to grant prior authorisation
                                                                             for reimbursement of the cost of a thalassotherapy cure at
(Member of the temporary staff — Contract for a limited                      Quiberon during the course of 1998;
period — Possibility of its being extended — Action for
            annulment — Manifest inadmissibility)                        — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                        (1999/C 136/33)                                  Pleas in law and main arguments
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant contests the refusal by the Settlements Office of
                                                                         the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme to cover the cost of a
                                                                         thalassotherapy cure during the course of 1998.
In case T-199/97: Patricia Maugain, a member of the temporary
staff of the Commission of the European Communities,
residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the              He pleads in that regard infringement of Article 25 of the Staff
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           Regulations, together with a manifest error of assessment, in
office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Cessange, v                   that neither the contested decision nor any preparatory act
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi                brought to his notice explains in detail the medical reasons
Valsesia and Florence Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application for             which prompted the Settlements Office to refuse to cover the
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 26 August 1996                 cost, whereas the expense of such a cure had been borne by
expressly rejecting a request by the applicant for an extension          the Joint Scheme on several occasions in previous years and
of her contract as a member of the temporary staff and, in the           the applicant’s medical situation has not improved in any way
alternative, for annulment of the Commission’s decision of the           in the interim.
20 March 1997 expressly rejecting her complaint — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki,
President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 January 1999, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1. The application is dismissed;
                                                                         Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Sociedade
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                      Agrı́cola dos Arinhos, Lda and Others against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.                                                                (Joined Cases T-38/99 to T-50/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Action brought on 4 February 1999 by Philippe Pipeaux                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
               against the European Parliament                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 February 1999 by Sociedade
                         (Case T-34/99)                                  Agrı́cola dos Arinhos, Lda, Sociedade Agrı́cola do Monte da
                                                                         Aldeia, Lda, António José da Veiga Teixeira, Sociedade Agrı́cola
                                                                         Monte da Senhora do Carmo SA, Sociedade Agrı́cola de
                        (1999/C 136/34)                                  Perescume, SA, Sociedade Agrı́cola Couto do Fornilhos, SA,
                                                                         casa Agrı́cola da Raposeira, Lda, José de Barahona Núncio,
                                                                         Prestase — Prestação de Serviços e Contabilidade, Lda, Socieda-
                   (Language of the case: French)                        de Agro-Pecuária da Herdade do Zambujal Lda, Francisco Luı́s
                                                                         Pinheiro Caldeira, Sociedade Agrı́cola Cabral de Ascenção, Lda,
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             and Joaquin Inácio Passanha Braancamp Sobral, residing and
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               established in Portugal, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz
4 February 1999 by Philippe Pipeaux, residing at Mensdorf                and Júlia Rôla Roque, of the Lisbon Bar, with an adress for
(Luxembourg), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer, of                     service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31
187 Chaussée de la Hulpe, Brussels.                                      Grand-rue.
 ---pagebreak--- C 136/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.5.1999
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              Action brought on 12 February 1999 by Sophia Fantechi
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul Article 2(a) of Commission Decision 98/653/EC of
     18 November 1998 to the extent to which it prohibits the                                      (Case T-51/99)
     despatch from Portugal to the Kingdom of Spain and the
     French republic of fighting bulls (‘toiros de raça brava de                                  (1999/C 136/36)
     lide’) intended for cultural and sporting events within the
     meaning of Council regulation No 820/97 which are held
     in those member States;                                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— Order the Commission to pay the cost in their entirety.                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 February 1999 by Sophia
                                                                         Fantechi, residing at Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Eric
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim.
The applicant seek the annulment of Commission Decision
98/653/EC of 18 November 1998 concerning emergency                       The applicants claim that the Court should:
measures made necessary by the occurrence of bovine spongi-
form encephalopathy (BSE ) in Portugal (1). Articles 2 and 4 of          — annul the defendant’s decision of 7 July 1998, in the form
that decision prohibit Portugal from exporting from its                       of a note drawn up by J. Schuijt and signed by him
territory bovine animals and products made from them. These                   on behalf of the head of the unit responsible for the
proceedings are directed specifically against the prohibition of              administration of individual rights, bearing reference num-
exporting live bovine animals to the extent to which that                     ber 982902, by which the applicant was refused the 16 %
prohibition applies to fighting bulls for export to Spain and                 expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex
France.                                                                       VII to the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         — annul the implicit decision rejecting her complaint, the
According to the decision, those measures are required                        said rejection being deemed, in the absence of any express
because, as a result of deficiencies existing until very recently in          reply thereto within the period of 4 months prescribed by
the implementation of Community legislation on identification                 the Staff Regulations, to have occurred on 23 November
and registration of animals, and of measures on transmissible                 1998;
spongiform encephalopathy surveillance and BSE eradication,
no adequate guarantees can be provided regarding the BSE                 — order the defendant to pay the expatriation allowance to
history of the herds of origin and herds through which bovine                 the applicant with effect from 1 May 1998, subject to
animals pass and regarding the dams of bovine animals.                        deduction therefrom, in respect of the past, of such sums
                                                                              as have been paid to her by way of foreign residence
                                                                              allowance as at the date on which judgement is delivered
The following pleas in law are forward:                                       herein, together with default interest at the rate of 8 % per
                                                                              annum calculated from the date on which each of the
                                                                              sums due became respectively payable until the date of
— Error concerning circumstances alleged and breach of the                    actual payment;
    duty to state reasons, in that the measures adopted by the
    Commission are based on the alleged detection of an                  — order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.
    increasing number of cases of BSE, associated with
    deficiencies affecting surveillance, with consequent risks of
    propagation of the disease. According to the applicants,             Pleas in law and main arguments
    those circumstances do not affect fighting bulls.
                                                                         The applicant states that the administration decided not to
                                                                         grant her the expatriation allowance, taking the view that the
— Infringement of Articles 30, 34 and 36 of the EC Treaty in             period during which she had worked for the Joint European
    so far as the measures at issue place unjustified obstacles          Torus and the Joint research Centre, Ispra, should not be taken
    in the way of intra-Community trade.                                 into consideration for the purposes of calculating the reference
                                                                         period provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff
— Breach of the principle of proportionality since fighting              Regulations, with the consequence that, as at the date resulting
    bulls are a breed from BSE and that breed is subject                 from the ‘corrected’ reference period, the applicant was
    to particularly rigorous controls both in Spain and in               residing in Belgium. The applicant claims that, in adopting
    Portugal.                                                            that decision, the defendant misapplied and misinterpreted
                                                                         Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, inasmuch
                                                                         as it based its decision on incorrect reasoning, both as to the
                                                                         facts and as to the law. She also considers that she has been
(1) OJ L 311, 20.11.1998, p. 23.                                         discriminated against by comparison with other officials in the
                                                                         same situation who have nevertheless received the expatriation
                                                                         allowance.


title: Case C-389/10 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2010 by KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-25/05: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/15

         Appeal brought on 3 August 2010 by KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 May 2010 in Case T-25/05: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-389/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 274/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, A. Winckler, avocat, G. Rizza, avvocato, T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt, M. Piergiovanni, avvocato, R. Elderkin, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment,

               —

               to the extent that it is possible, based on the facts before the Court, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of KME's fine, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court (GC);

         or, in the alternative, where the state of the proceedings does not so permit,

               —

               set aside the judgment, including with respect to the GC's order to KME to pay the costs, and refer the case back to the GC.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By their first plea, the Appellants contest the GC's conclusion that the Commission did not need to demonstrate that the Arrangements had an impact on the market. Irrespective of whether it may be exempted from positively establishing the existence of market impact for the purposes of classifying the infringement as ‘very serious’, the Commission is certainly under a duty positively to establish and quantify that impact where, as it did in the Decision, it intends to rely on the cartel's actual impact in its determination of the starting amount of a company's fine on account of gravity. The GC erred in holding that the Commission demonstrated to the requisite legal standard that the Arrangements had a market impact, and in stating that the Commission was entitled to establish the existence of market impact by reference to mere indicators. This error was all the more serious since in the present case KME provided evidence, including of economic nature, showing that the infringement as a whole did not have any market impact. In so reasoning and deciding to reject the first plea of KME's Application, the GC distorted the facts and evidence put before it, infringed EU law and provided an illogical and inadequate statement of reasons.
   By their second plea, the Appellants criticize the GC for approving the Commission's reference — in order to determine the size of the market affected by the infringement, for the purpose of establishing the gravity element of KME's Fine — to a market value that included the revenues of the market for the semi-finished products (copper plumbing tubes). Only the value of the ‘cartelized’ market, i.e., the market for conversion services (which only represented 30-40 % of the price of the tubes) should have been taken into account. In rejecting the second plea of KME's Application, the GC violated the EU general principles of proportionality and equal treatment, and provided an inadequate statement of reasons.
   By the third plea, the Appellants criticize the GC for rejecting the fourth plea of the Application, according to which the Commission misapplied the 1998 Fining Guidelines and infringed the principles of proportionality and equal treatment by imposing the maximum percentage increase in the starting amount of KME's Fine on account of duration, despite its finding that for three years the cartel was dormant and did not have any harmful effect. In the Appellants' view, the GC infringed EU law and provided an obscure, illogical and inadequate statement of reasons for its upholding of the relevant part of the Decision.
   By their fourth plea, the Appellants criticize the GC for rejecting the fifth plea of the Application and upholding the relevant parts of the Decision, in which the Commission — in violation of the Fining Guidelines and the principles of fairness and equal treatment — denied KME the benefit of a fine reduction on account of the application of several mitigating factors. The Appellants submit, in particular, that the GC: (1) applied the wrong legal standard when assessing whether KME qualified for a fine reduction on account of its limited implementation of the Arrangements, (2) erred in dismissing KME's claim that KME's Fine should have been reduced because of the crisis in the copper plumbing tube industry; and (3) failed to remedy the Commission's unlawful denial of a fine reduction on account of KME's cooperation outside the Leniency Notice in relation to the broader European arrangements, on the ground that Outokumpu was the first undertaking to provide the Commission with information on the total duration of these arrangements.
   By their fifth plea, the Appellants criticize the GC for rejecting the seventh plea of the Application and upholding the Commission's refusal to grant KME a fine reduction on account of its inability to pay. The Applicants submit that the GC erred in law in interpreting the test laid down in Section S(b) of the Fining Guidelines for a fine reduction on account of inability to pay to be granted, as well as in its failure to remedy the unlawful discrimination committed by the Commission against KME compared to SGL Carbon in the Specialty Graphite and Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite cases. The GC also provided an illogical and inadequate statement of reasons for its dismissal of KME's claims.
   By their sixth plea, the Appellants claim that the GC violated EU law and the Appellants' fundamental right to full and effective judicial review by failing to assess thoroughly and closely KME's arguments and showing a biased deference to the Commission's discretion.


title: Case T-41/00: Action brought on 25 February 2000 by British American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.5.2000
Action brought on 24 February 2000 by the Consorzio                      In the present case, the fact that the Italian State has no
Industric Fiammiferi (CIF) against the Commission of the                 interest in denying the CIF knowledge of the Commission’s
                   European Communities                                  investigation of the consortium’s arrangements is evident from
                                                                         the fact that the Amministrazione dei Monopoli (cf. the
                                                                         Monopolies Commission) has granted the CIF access to
                         (Case T-40/00)                                  all documents (national and Community) relating to that
                                                                         procedure. Furthermore, the documentation requested con-
                                                                         cerns investigations which have been closed for years.
                        (2000/C 135/34)
                                                                         Lastly, the CIF maintains that its rights of defence have been
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                        infringed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               (1) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.
European Communities on 24 February 2000 by the Consor-
zio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF), with Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, with an address for service
in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand Sablon.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the contested measure;
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.              Action brought on 25 February 2000 by British American
                                                                         Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V. against the Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case T-41/00)
The CIF seeks annulment of the Commission’s measure of
29 March 1999 requesting that the Communication sent by                                          (2000/C 135/35)
the Commission to the Italian anti-trust authorities in the
context of a preliminary investigation be classified as secret.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Those authorities have brought ‘anti-trust’ proceedings against
the CIF and members of the consortium, seeking a declaration
that they have infringed Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
In the statement of complaints, the following infringements of           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Article 81 were alleged: an agreement between the members                European Communities on 25 February 2000 by British
of the consortium with a view to partition of production                 American Tobacco International (Holdings) B.V., having its
through consortium bodies, an agreement between the CIF                  registered office in the Netherlands, represented by Scott
and Swedisch Match SA with a view to partition of the Italian            Crosby, Solicitor, of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond
match market, and an agreement between the CIF and                       Point Schuman, Brussels.
the Consorzio Nazionale Attività Economica Distributiva
Integrata.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
According to the CIF, the Commission based its refusal on the
provisions of the Code of Conduct on public access to                    — annul the decision of the Commission of 20 January
Commission documents, approved by Commission Decision                        2000 refusing access to the minutes of the Excise Duty
No 90/40/ECSC, EC, Euratom (1). The CIF maintains that, in so                Committee in relation to discussions on Articles 7, 8, 9,
doing, the Commission acted incorrectly, since that Decision                 10, 23, 27 and 28 of Directive 92/12/EEC since 1 January
in no way permits documents such as those at issue to be                     1993 in the Committee’s non-comitology capacity;
classified as secret. Specifically, such documentation is not
covered by the exception relating to protection of the public
interest. That derogation can be justified only where the                — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant
Member States concerned have a right to expect that the                      to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Commission respect confidentiality.                                          Instance.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — total non-access is not compatible with the principles of
                                                                             accountability, legal certainty and proportionality.
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
                                                                            arrangements for private subject to excise duty and on the
                                                                            holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992
The applicant states that its business has been affected by the             L 76, p. 1)
abolition, with effect from 1 July 1999, of tax- and duty-free          (2) Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February
sales to travellers on intra-EU journeys. It has a vital interest in        1994, on public access to Commission documents (OJ 1994 L 46,
understanding the legal rules governing the tax- and duty-free              p. 58).
sales in place since 1 July 1999 and the position of tax- and
duty-free supplies to the bodies and in the circumstances
mentioned in Article 23 of Directive 92/12/EEC (1). It therefore
requested access to certain minutes of the Committee on
Excise Duties relating to discussions on some of the provisions
of that directive. By letter of 20 January 2000, the Secretary
General refused to forward, even in non-confidential form, the
minutes of the Committee relating to its non-comitology                 Action brought on 28 February 2000 by City-Broker
capacity.                                                               Deutschland GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                              in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (Case T-42/00)
The Commission denies access to the documents on the                                             (2000/C 135/36)
grounds of confidentiality, requested by the person that
supplied the information, and of protecting the institution’s
interest in the confidentiality of its proceedings, i.e. the                               (Language of the case: German)
discussions with the Committee. For the Commission, the
Committee has comitology and non-comitology functions; in
its comitology function, its work aims at preparing formal              An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
legal acts to be adopted and published by the Commission,               Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
whereas in its non-comitology function it offers a forum                Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
enabling the Member States to exchange opinions and ideas,              28 February 2000 by City-Broker Deutschland GmbH, of
and the role of the Commission consists in stimulating the              Munich (Germany), represented by Gert Würtenberger,
discussion in order to reach more uniform application, but              Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Wuesthoff & Wuesthoff, Schweiger-
also, as guardian of the Treaty, in ensuring that Member States         strasse 2, Munich.
do not exceed the boundaries fixed in Community legislation.
The Commission considers that the Committee in its non-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
comitology function has no legislative role or any similar role
and therefore attributes to the exception of confidentiality the        — annul the decision adopted on 16 December 1999 by the
widest scope possible.                                                       Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market in the appeal proceedings registered
                                                                             under number R 319/1999-3;
                                                                        — declare that the mark ‘CityBroker’, the subject of the
                                                                             application, is capable of registration;
The applicant contends that the Commission has misapplied
the rules relating to public access to Commission documents (2)         — order the Office to register the mark in the Community
(the Access Rules) on the following grounds:                                 Trade Mark Register.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
— the distinction between the comitology and non-comito-
    logy functions has no validity in the case of the Access            The trade mark con-             ‘CityBroker’     —    application
    Rules;                                                              cerned:                         No 303 099
                                                                        Goods or service con-           Services in Class 35
                                                                        cerned:
— the Commission has failed in the Decision to meet the                 Decision contested be-          Refusal of registration by the
    criteria for either confidentiality exception in light of the       fore the Board of Ap-           examiner
    principles of accountability arid legal certainty;                  peal:


title: Case C-1/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Mr Livio Guida

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte di Appello di Torino (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2017 — Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA v Mr Livio Guida
   (Case C-1/17)
   (2017/C 112/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte di Appello di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Petronas Lubricants Italy SpA

      Respondent: Mr Livio Guida

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001, may an employer domiciled in the territory of an EU Member State, against which an action is brought by its former employee before the courts of a Member State in which that employer is domiciled (within the meaning of Article 19 of the regulation), bring a counter-claim against the employee before the same court hearing the original action?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 20(2) of Regulation No 44/2001 include the jurisdiction of the court hearing the original action even when the employer’s counter-claim is not based on a claim originating with the employer but on a claim originating with another party (which is, at the same time, an employer of the same employee under a parallel employment contract), and the counter-claim is based on an assignment-of-claim agreement, concluded by the employer and the party from which the claim originally derives, after the date on which the original action was brought by the employee?


title: Case C-278/00: Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 259/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        9.9.2000
      or                                                                2.   Article 19 of Law 2198/94 is compatible with the
                                                                             common market as it relates to the consolidation of
                                                                             interest on debts regulated by Article 32(2) of Law
—     is that compatible ink-jet cartridge a part or accessory of            2008/92 — the provision governing AGNO’s debt.
      a printer that is assigned to CN heading No 8471 as an
      essential unit of an automatic dataprocessing machine,
      and therefore covered by CN heading No 8473?
                                                                        B.   Order 1620/89 of the Governor of the Bank of Greece
                                                                        The order is compatible with the common market. Its pro-
                                                                        visions do not relate to State aid within the meaning of
                                                                        Article 87 EC.
                                                                        C.   Article 5 of Law 2237/94
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   1.   Compatibility of the provision with the common market.
                                                                             Full observance of the ‘private investor’ principle.
                         (Case C-278/00)
                                                                             (a)   The provisions of Law 2237/94 do not amount to
                                                                                aid under Article 87 EC and did not affect intra-
                         (2000/C 259/18)                                           Community trade or distort competition by accord-
                                                                                ing favourable treatment to certain undertakings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             (b) Even if the provisions of Law 2237/94 were to be
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                regarded as State aid, they may be regarded as
Communities on 13 July 2000 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                                compatible with the common market under
represented by Ioannis G. Khalkias, Member of the State Legal
                                                                                Article 87(2)(b) or Article 87(3)(a) and (c):
Service, and Khrisoula Tsiavou, Legal Agent of the State Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Greek Embassy, 125 Val Sainte-Croix.                                               (i)   aid compatible with the common market under
                                                                                Article 87(2)(b);
The Hellenic Republic claims that the Court should:                                (ii) aid compatible with the common market under
                                                                                Article 87(3)(c).
—     allow its application;
                                                                        2.   The provisions of Law 2237/94 and of Order 1620/89
—     annul in its entirety Commission Decision E(2000) 686                  of the Governor of the Bank of Greece are inextricably
      final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid schemes                      linked with the ‘private investor’ principle.
      implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
      agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994
      including aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperat-
                                                                        D.   Law No 2538/97
      ive AGNO, or in the alternative annul Article 2 of that
      decision which requires the recovery with interest of the
      aid found to be unlawful.                                         1.   Council decision as to the Law’s compatibility with the
                                                                             common market.
                                                                        2.   Council Decision 14015/15.12.1998 incorporated and
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                                     legitimated all previous aid.
I.    General grounds for annulment of the                              II.  Specific grounds for annulment of the
      contested decision                                                     contested decision
A.1. Law 2008/92 is concerned with State aid which is fully             E.1. The contested decision should be annulled as infringing
      compatible with the common market because it is                        Article 88(3) EC, the principle of the protection of
      connected with a programme to make good damage                         legitimate expectations, the principle of legal certainty
      that resulted from natural disasters and exceptional                   and the principle of good administration, by reason of
      occurrences.                                                           the excessive delay with which the Commission acted.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 259/11
2.    The contested decision should be annulled because the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
      facts were assessed incorrectly. The assessments contained
      in the contested decision are manifestly misconceived:
                                                                        (a)   declare that, by requiring undertakings engaged in the
                                                                              provision of temporary labour which are established in
      (i)   with regard to Article 32(2) of Law 2008/92; and                  other Member States to:
      (ii) with regard to Article 5 of law 2237/94.
                                                                              —     maintain their registered office or a branch office on
                                                                                Italian territory; and
3.    The contested decision infringed Article 87(1) since, even              —     to deposit a guarantee amounting to ITL 700 million
      if the provisions in question were to be regarded as State                    with a credit institution having its registered office
      aid, they did not distort competition or affect trade.                        or a branch on Italian territory,
4.    The statement of grounds in the contested decision is                         the Italian Republic has failed to comply with its
      general and vague since it does not explain why the                           obligations under Articles 59 and 73b of the EC
      relevant provisions of Law 2237/94, Law 2198/94 and                           Treaty (now Articles 49 and 56 EC);
      Order 1620/89 of the Governor of the Bank of Greece
      would be unacceptable for a private investor.
                                                                        (b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
5.    The statement of grounds in the contested decision is
      inadequate because the refund of aid granted unlawfully
      is not a mandatory requirement under Article 88(2) and
      the Commission does not prove that the refund is                  Pleas in law and main arguments
      necessary in order to restore market conditions.
6.    The contested decision which seeks the refund of all the          A national rule requiring an undertaking engaged in the
      ‘aid’ with interest infringes the principle of pro-               provision of labour to maintain its registered office or a branch
      portionality and the principle of legal certainty.                in Italy, thereby making it totally impossible for undertakings
                                                                        established in other Member States to render such services, is
7.    Under the case-law, it is not possible for aid granted in         manifestly contrary to the principle of freedom to provide
      compliance with the procedure under Article 88 EC to be           services within the Community, as enshrined in Article 59 of
      recovered, in particular after seven years have elapsed.          the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC).
8.    The decision is absolutely incapable of being duly
                                                                        In the Commission’s view, the obligation to deposit a sum by
      implemented.
                                                                        way of guarantee with a bank established in Italy, even where
                                                                        that financial guarantee or an equivalent guarantee is required
                                                                        under the legislation of the Member State in which the
                                                                        undertaking wishing to avail itself of its freedom to provide
                                                                        services is established, constitutes a restriction falling within
                                                                        the scope of the prohibition laid down in Article 59 of the
                                                                        Treaty. That rule also infringes the principle of the free
                                                                        movement of capital (Article 56 EC, formerly Article 73b of
                                                                        the EC Treaty), as expressed in the judgment in Svensson (1), in
Action brought on 13 July 2000 by the Commission of                     which the Court of Justice assessed the compatibility with
 the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  Community law of a Luxembourg regulation rendering the
                                                                        grant of an interest-rate subsidy on loans for the construction,
                                                                        acquisition or improvement of housing subject to the con-
                         (Case C-279/00)                                dition that such loans were to be taken out from banks
                                                                        established in Luxembourg.
                        (2000/C 259/19)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the           (1) Judgment of 14.11.1995 in Case C-484/93 Svensson and Gustavs-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July                     son [1995] ECR I-3955.
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Maria
Patakia, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-157/09 P: Appeal brought on 20 April 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2009 in Case F-42/08, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/55

         Appeal brought on 20 April 2009 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2009 in Case F-42/08, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-157/09 P)
   2009/C 141/112
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety, without any exception whatsoever, the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 February 2009 in Case F-42/08 Marcuccio v Commission;

               —

               declare that the action brought before the Civil Service Tribunal in respect of which the order under appeal was made was perfectly admissible, and:

                           —

                           grant in their entirety, without any exception whatsoever, the forms of order sought by the appellant before the Civil Service Tribunal which, for all legal intents and purposes, are to be deemed to be reproduced in the present application;

                           —

                           order the Commission to repay the appellant all costs, fees and other expenses incurred by the latter in connection with the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal, together with the costs incurred by the appellant in the present appeal proceedings;

                     or, in the lesser alternative:

                           —

                           refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a decision on the merits, to be taken by that Tribunal sitting in a different formation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal has been brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 February 2009 dismissing as manifestly inadmissible the action brought by the appellant for compensation for the damage which he purportedly suffered as a result of the fact that the Commission sent a note intended for him to a fax number which was not at his disposal.
   In support of his claims, the appellant alleges a total failure to state reasons in relation to the following:

               —

               the inadmissibility of the action for compensation for damage;

               —

               the inadmissibility of the forms of order seeking, inter alia, confirmation by the Civil Service Tribunal that the event which had given rise to the damage was unlawful;

               —

               the date on which the defence was lodged: on this point, it is also alleged that the Civil Service Tribunal committed a procedural error by failing to comply with the obligation to discount the content of the defence where that document is submitted out of time, such that the interests of the applicant would be seriously compromised.

         The appellant also alleges breach of the rules governing the right to a fair hearing; infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.


title: Case T-47/03: Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.4.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 101/41
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Primarily:
                                                                          —     partially annul, on the basis of Article 230, EC Treaty,
                                                                                Council Decision 2002/947/EC of 12 December 2002
1.    annul Article 1 of the decision in so far as it states that               implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/
      the applicant was involved in a single, comprehensive                     2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
      and ongoing cartel in the Italian market for solid and                    certain persons and entities with a view to combating
      hollow round reinforcing rods, the purpose of effect of                   terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ L 337,
      which was to fix prices by, inter alia, restricting or                    p. 85) and more specifically annul Article 1, point 1.25
      controlling production or sales;                                          of said decision and annul partially Article 1, point 2.14
                                                                                of said decision insofar as it mentions the name of the
2.    annul Article 2 of the Commission’s decision in so far as                 applicant;
      it imposes a fine of EUR 26,9 million on the applicant;
                                                                          —     declare illegal, on the basis of Article 241, EC Treaty,
In the alternative:                                                             Council Regulation EC 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001
                                                                                on specific restrictive measures directed against certain
—     reduce the fine of EUR 26,9 million imposed on the                        persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
      applicant by Article 2 of the decision, and                               (OJ L 344, p. 7);
In any event:
                                                                          —     require the Community to compensate the applicant on
                                                                                the basis of article 235 and 288 in an amount to be fixed
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    ex aequo et bono of not less than EUR 100 000;
                                                                          —     require the respondent parties to bear the costs of suit.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The present action is brought against the same decision as that
challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission.                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
in that case.                                                             The applicant lives in the Netherlands and, in 1992, was
                                                                          recognized as a refugee in accordance with the Geneva Refugee
                                                                          Convention because of valid reasons of fear of persecution in
                                                                          the Philippines. The applicant was active in the Communist
                                                                          Party of the Philippines and is a consultant for the negotiating
                                                                          panel of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines in
                                                                          the peace negotiations with the government.
Action brought on 6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
against the Council of the European Union and the                         On 28 October 2002, the Council adopted decision 2002/
          Commission of the European Communities                          848/EC (1) and included the applicant on the list made pursuant
                                                                          to article 2 (3) of Regulation 2580/2001 on specific restrictive
                                                                          measures directed against certain persons and entities with a
                         (Case T-47/03)                                   view to combatting terrorism (2). The applicant was also
                                                                          included in the list adopted by decision 2002/974/EC (3) of
                                                                          12 December 2002. This last act is being contested in the
                        (2003/C 101/75)                                   present application.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          In support of its application, the applicant invokes a violation
                                                                          of the obligation to state reasons, a patent error of judgment
                                                                          and a violation of the principle of sound administration. The
An action against the Council of the European Union and the               applicant indicates that he has not, as an alias, Armando
Commission of the European Communitie was brought before                  Liwanag and is not in charge of the New People’s Army (NPA).
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                The applicant furthermore claims that the contested decision
6 February 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht, the Netherlands,            violates the principle of proportionality and the freedom of
represented by Mr Jan Fermon, Lawyer.                                     circulation of capital.
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/42                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         26.4.2003
The applicant also invokes the violation of several general                         Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Case COMP/M.2283
principles of Community Law, such as the principles enshrined                       Schneider/Legrand);
in Articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the European Convention on
Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol thereto.
                                                                              —     annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of
                                                                                13 December 2002 whereby the Commission closed Case
The applicant finally invokes the illegality of Regulation 2580/                    COMP/M.2283 Schneider/Legrand;
2001. According to the applicant, the Council had no
competence to adopt this regulation. The applicant claims that
Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty are not sufficient                  —     order production of the market studies carried out in
nor do they explicitly authorise the Council to issue such a                        November 2002 in the context of Case COMP/M.2283;
regulation. In this respect, the applicant also invokes a violation
of the principle of proportionality, the principle of legal
                                                                              —     order the Commission to produce, on the assumption
certainty and a misuse of power by the Council.
                                                                                that they exist, the minutes of the meeting of the
                                                                                Commission at which the decision to close the case was
                                                                                adopted and the decision delegating a power of signature
( 1) 2002/848/EC: Council Decision of 28 October 2002                               to the Director-General for Competition and authorising
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
                                                                                him to sign the decision closing the case;
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/460/EC (OJ L 295, p. 12).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001                 —     order the Commission to reimburse the costs incurred in
     on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons              connection with the present actions.
     and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344, p. 7).
( 3) 2002/974/EC: Council Decision of 12 December 2002
     implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on
     specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and
     entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision
     2002/848/EC (OJ L 337, p. 85).
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              On 10 October 2001, the Commission adopted a decision
                                                                              declaring Schneider’s public exchange offer in respect of all the
                                                                              shares in Legrand held by the public to be incompatible with
                                                                              the common market (1). As Schneider had closed its public
                                                                              offer before that decision was taken, the Commission adopted
Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Schneider                               a further decision of 30 January 2002 ordering Schneider to
Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Com-                         divest itself of Legrand. The applicant challenged both these
                                munities                                      decisions in Cases T-301/01 and T-77/02. The Court of First
                                                                              Instance annulled the decisions by judgment of 22 October
                             (Case T-48/03)                                   2002.
                            (2003/C 101/76)
                                                                              On 4 December 2002, the Commission adopted a decision to
                                                                              initiate proceedings, after declaring that the concentration
                       (Language of the case: French)                         raised serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common
                                                                              market and opened the second phase investigation. The
                                                                              applicant subsequently informed the Commission that as it
                                                                              had divested itself of Legrand, on 10 December, the proceed-
                                                                              ings had become devoid of purpose. On 13 December 2002,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                              the Commission closed the file (2).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Schneider
Electric S.A., whose registered office is at Rueil-Malmaison
(France), represented by Antoine Winckler and Marc Pittie,
lawyers.                                                                      In the present case, the applicant challenges the Commission
                                                                              decisions of 4 and 13 December 2002. The applicant states
                                                                              that the true effect of the decisions is to prohibit irremediably
                                                                              the union between Schneider and Legrand. In light of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   obligation to implement the divestiture decision in good faith
                                                                              and the fact that it was impossible to secure provision by
—      annul all the provisions of the Commission decision of                 financial investors of the amounts necessary for an additional
       4 December 2002 based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council                    period in excess of four months, the deadline for disposing of


title: Case T-687/16: Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Nadal Esteban (STYLO & KOTON)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/31

         Action brought on 23 September 2016 — Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Nadal Esteban (STYLO & KOTON)
   (Case T-687/16)
   (2016/C 410/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Koton Mağazacilik Tekstil Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: J. Güell Serra and E. Stoyanov Edissonov, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joaquín Nadal Esteban (Alcobendas, 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: figurative mark containing the word elements ‘STYLO & KOTON’ — EU trade mark No 9 917 436

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 June 2016 in Case R 1779/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order that the trade mark at issue be declared invalid by EUIPO;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-307/03: Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
1.11.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 264/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘map&guide’ —               Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this casey
sought:                       application No 2089829                    munity trade mark:
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 9,          Community trade mark          The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
                              41 and 42 (computer software,             sought:                       goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
                              conducting training events for                                          and veterinary preparations, diag-
                              computer software and computer                                          nostic preparations for medicinal
                              programming)                                                            purposes)      —       Application
                                                                                No 1534213
Decision         contested    Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of           the mark in respect of ‘computer          Proprietor of mark or         Sanofi-Synthelabo           (Société
Appeal:                       software’ and ‘computer program-          sign cited in the oppo-       Anonyme)
                              ming’                                     sition proceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                   Mark or sign cited in         The national word mark ‘BESA-
Appeal:                                                                 opposition:                   VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharm-
                                                                                aceutical preparations)
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                        Appeal:                       Opposition Division and refusal
                                                                                of the application
                                                                        Pleas in law:                 There is no similarity between
                                                                                the marks which could lead to
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG                                                        confusion
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-304/03)
                         (2003/C 264/65)
                                                                        Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)       sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
                        submitted: German)                                                      Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-307/03)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                       (2003/C 264/66)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),                     (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before                                     submitted: German)
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal         4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
      Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;             mbH, represented by U. Schuster, lawyer. Kaufring AG,
                                                                        Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          before the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/38              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        1.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Valérie Wiame
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the                                    (Case T-308/03)
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      Marks and Designs) in Case R 52/2002-4 of 12 May
      2003 in so far as paragraph 2 of the decision dismisses                                    (2003/C 264/67)
      the appeal for the goods ‘jewellery’ and ‘bags for sports
      equipment, suitable for carrying objects’;                                            (Language of the case: French)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 8 September 2003 by Valérie
                                                                         Wiame, residing in Enghien (Belgium), represented by S. Orlan-
                                                                         di, A. Coolen, J. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         —     Annul the Commission’s decision of 22 July 2002 laying
Applicant for Com-           Kaufring AG                                       down the detailed rules for the engagement of the
munity trade mark:                                                             applicant as a member of the temporary staff on the
                                                                               ground that the contract was unlawfully based on
                                                                               Article 2(b) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Community trade mark         Figurative mark ‘UNICA’ inter alia                Servants of the European Communities for a fixed period
sought:                      for goods in Classes 14, 22, 23, 24               from 1 July 2002 to 31 March 2003 inclusive;
                             and 28 — Application No 41244
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Proprietor of mark or        The applicant
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Mark or sign cited in        German word mark ‘UNI CAT’                  The applicant worked for the Commission as a member of its
opposition:                  (No 2070 215 for goods in                   temporary staff until 31 March 2002. The applicant states
                             Class 25 (clothing, head cover-             that, in the light of specific assurances from her superiors as
                             ings)                                       to the renewal of her contract, she continued to perform the
                                                                         permanent duties assigned to her in the European public
                                                                         service from 1 April 2002 to 30 June 2002. On 22 July 2002,
Decision of the Oppo-        Partial rejection of the opposition         the Commission drew up a new contract as a member of the
sition Division:                                                         temporary staff for the period from 1 July 2002 to 31 March
                                                                         2003 inclusive. That contract was based on Article 2(b) of the
                                                                         Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the Decision in                Communities (‘the Conditions’).
Appeal:                      relation to ‘artificial textile fibres’
                             (Class 22) and ‘yarns and threads,
                             for textile use’ (Class 23). For the        As a result of the applicant’s complaint, the Commission paid
                             rest, dismissal of the applicant’s          her a sum equal to three months’ basic salary by way of
                             appeal                                      compensation, but refused to give her a contract for an
                                                                         indefinite period pursuant to Article 2(a) of the Conditions.
Pleas in law:                Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
                             Regulation (EC) No 40/94                    In support of her application the applicant alleges breach of
                                                                         Articles 2 and 8 of the Conditions, breach of the principle of
                                                                         legitimate expectations and breach of the duty to have regard
                                                                         for the welfare of officials.


title: Case F-55/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 May 2010 — Maxwell v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Secondment in the interests of the service — Leave on personal grounds — Accommodation and education expenses — Action for damages — Liability for a wrongful act — Unjust enrichment)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/57

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 11 May 2010 — Maxwell v Commission
   (Case F-55/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Secondment in the interests of the service - Leave on personal grounds - Accommodation and education expenses - Action for damages - Liability for a wrongful act - Unjust enrichment)
   2010/C 234/105
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Allan Maxwell (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero Cruz, agents)

      Re:

   Application for compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant during his leave on personal grounds taken to perform the duties of ‘EU Senior Adviser’ at the Korean Peninsular Energy Development Organization, loss resulting from the failure to reimburse accommodation and education expenses.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Maxwell’s application.

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 180, 1.8.2009, p. 64.


title: Case T-439/13: Order of the General Court of 27 February 2014  — Fard and Sarkandi v Council

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/55

         Order of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Fard and Sarkandi v Council
   (Case T-439/13) (1)

   2014/C 142/72
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2005 in Case T-385/03 Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Biker Miles’ — Earlier Community word mark MILES — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/38

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 July 2005
   in Case T-385/03 Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Biker Miles’ - Earlier Community word mark MILES - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 217/84)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-385/03: Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH, established in Norderstedt (Germany), represented by F. Dettmann and A. Deutsch, lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: T. Eichenberg and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Biker Miles Motorrad Handels- und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by G. Malchartzeck, lawyer — action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Biker Miles Motorrad Handels- und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH and Miles Handelsgesellschaft International mbH — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 July 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2003 (Case R 174/2002-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

               3.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004


title: Case T-249/11: Action brought on 10 May 2011 — Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (Representation of a chicken)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/27

         Action brought on 10 May 2011 — Sanco v OHIM — Marsalman (Representation of a chicken)
   (Case T-249/11)
   2011/C 204/49
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sanco SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: A. Segura Roda, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Marsalman SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Hold that the action brought against the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 17 February 2011 in Case R 1073/2010-2 is brought in time and in the prescribed manner, and in due course annul that decision, refuse registration of the Community mark No 6.675.383 for all its Classes and order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Marsalman SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark without text containing the graphic representation of a chicken framed in a semicircle (application for registration No 6.675.383) for goods in Class 29 and services in Classes 35 and 39.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish mark without text containing the graphic representation of a chicken framed in an oval (No 2.727.182) for goods in Classes 29 and 31.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partial upholding of the opposition.

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

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


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 September 2002 in Case T-287/01: Bioelettrica SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Article 238 EC — Arbitration clause — Thermie programme — Unilateral termination of the contract by the Commission — Request that the case not proceed to judgment)

text:
21.12.2002             EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 323/35
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. de                       1.    Dismissed the action as manifestly inadmissible;
Avelar Santos and F-Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for
annulment of the Commission’s decision of 31 March 2000                     2.    Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
refusing to allow the applicant travelling time in connection
with special leave for the purpose of voting — the Court of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. D. Cooke,
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 3 of 5.1.02.
President, and R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 September 2002, in
which it:
1.    Dismissed the action as manifestly unfounded;
2.    Ordered the applicant to bear the whole of the costs.                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 September 2002
( 1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.01.
                                                                            in Case T-287/01: Bioelettrica SpA v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                                                                            (Article 238 EC — Arbitration clause — Thermie pro-
                                                                            gramme — Unilateral termination of the contract by the
                                                                            Commission — Request that the case not proceed to judg-
                                                                                ment)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                           (2002/C 323/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      of 27 September 2002
in Case T-254/01: Giuseppe Di Pietro v Court of Auditors                    In Case T-287/01: Bioelettrica SpA, established in Pisa (Italy),
               of the European Communities ( 1)                             represented by O. Fabe Dal Negro, lawyer, against Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbaek, R. Amo-
                                                                            rosi and M. Moretto) — application seeking, first, a declaration
(Officials — Appointment — Preliminary administrative                       that the termination notified by the Commission on 6 Septem-
  procedure — Procedural error — Manifest inadmissibility)                  ber 2001 of contract BM 1007/94 IT/DE/UK/PO, of 12 Decem-
                                                                            ber 1994 on the implementation of the project entitled ‘Energy
                                                                            Farm: an IGCC plant for the production of electricity and heat
                                                                            through gasification of SRF biomass (Phase 1)’ is null and
                         (2002/C 323/57)                                    unlawful and, secondly, an order requiring the Commission to
                                                                            make good the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                            result of the Commission’s conduct — the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
                                                                            K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
                                                                            order on 10 September 2002, the operative part of which is
                                                                            as follows:
In Case T-254/01: Giuseppe Di Pietro, residing in Messina,                  1.    The request that the case not proceed to judgment is rejected.
Italy, represented by G. Monforte, lawyer, against Court of
Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier,                2.    Costs are reserved.
P. Giusta and B. Schäfer) — application for annulment of the
Court of Auditors’ decision of 22 February 2001 appointing
the Secretary-General of that institution — the Court of First              (1 ) OJ 2002 C 31.
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President,
and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 27 September 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-415/15 P: Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/9

         Appeal brought on 29 July 2015 by Stichting Woonpunt and Others against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) made on 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV Stichting Woonpunt and Others v European Commission

   (Case C-415/15 P)
   (2015/C 337/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Stichting Woonpunt, Stichting Havensteder, formerly Stichting Com.wonen, Woonstichting Haag Wonen, Stichting Woonbedrijf SWS.Hhvl (represented by: P. Glazener, advocaat, and L. Hancher, professor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, in whole or in part, the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 May 2015 in Case T-203/10 RENV, in accordance with the grounds raised in the present appeal;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for a new ruling consistent with the legal findings of the Court of Justice;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs both of the present proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   According to the first ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that the then applicants’ objections were in fact directed against the Article 17 letter and that the General Court’s review could not be extended to those objections. By its assessment, the General Court disregards the fact that, as is apparent from Article 108(1) TFEU, the justification for the legal consequences of the decision must stem from the fact that the previous situation had been incompatible with the Treaty. The General Court misinterprets the TF1 judgment by inferring from it that its review of the contested decision had to be limited to the question of whether the Commission had correctly assessed the compatibility of the existing system of aid as modified by the commitments undertaken by the Netherlands authorities.
   According to the second ground, the General Court infringed EU law, incorrectly assessed the relevant facts and provided an inadequate statement of reasons for the order in finding that it could not assess the appropriate measures proposed by the Commission given that they were mere proposals and that it was the adoption by the Netherlands authorities which gave the appropriate measures binding force.


title: Case C-384/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  11 May 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners of Customs & Excise, Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and Others (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 21(3) and 22(8) — National measures to combat fraud — Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT — Provision of security for VAT payable by another trader)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 May 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners of Customs & Excise, Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and Others
   (Case C-384/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 21(3) and 22(8) - National measures to combat fraud - Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT - Provision of security for VAT payable by another trader)
   (2006/C 165/12)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Commissioners of Customs & Excise, Attorney General

      Respondents: Federation of Technological Industries and Others
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Scope of Article 21(3) whereby Member States may provide that a person other than the taxpayer is jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax — ‘Carousel’ type frauds
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 21(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directives 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000 and 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, is to be interpreted as allowing a Member State to enact legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a taxable person, to whom a supply of goods or services has been made and who knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that some or all of the value added tax payable in respect of that supply, or of any previous or subsequent supply, would go unpaid, may be made jointly and severally liable, with the person who is liable, for payment of that tax. Such legislation must, however, comply with the general principles of law which form part of the Community legal order and which include, in particular, the principles of legal certainty and proportionality.

               2.

               Article 22(8) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended by Directives 2000/65 and 2001/115, is to be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to enact either legislation, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which provides that a taxable person, to whom a supply of goods or services has been made and who knew, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that some or all of the value added tax payable in respect of that supply, or of any previous or subsequent supply, would go unpaid, may be made jointly and severally liable, with the person who is liable, for payment of that tax, or legislation which provides that a taxable person may be required to provide security for the payment of that tax which is or could become payable by the taxable person to whom he supplies those goods or services or by whom they are supplied to him.
               By contrast, that provision does not preclude a national measure which imposes on any person who is, pursuant to a national measure adopted on the basis of Article 21(3) of Sixth Directive 77/388, jointly and severally liable for payment of value added tax, a requirement to provide security for the payment of that tax which is due.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 16.11.2004.


title: Case C-200/08: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/27

      Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
      (Case C-200/08) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/46)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Case C-408/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2007 — Brigitte Ruf and Gertrud Elsässer v European Central Bank (ECB), Coop Himmelblau Prix, Dreibholz & Partner ZT GmbH, Intervener in support of the first defendant: City of Frankfurt am Main

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 5 September 2007 — Brigitte Ruf and Gertrud Elsässer v European Central Bank (ECB), Coop Himmelblau Prix, Dreibholz & Partner ZT GmbH, Intervener in support of the first defendant: City of Frankfurt am Main
   (Case C-408/07)
   (2007/C 283/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landgericht Frankfurt am Main
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Brigitte Ruf, née Elsässer, and Gertrud Elsässer, née Sommer

      Defendants: European Central Bank (ECB), Coop Himmelblau Prix, Dreibholz & Partner ZT GmbH

      Intervener in support of the first defendant: City of Frankfurt am Main
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the second paragraph of Article 288 EC to be interpreted as meaning that it is an action ‘in the performance of its duties’ where a Community institution plans a specific building measure for the construction of its new business premises?

               2.

               Is the second paragraph of Article 288 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the forms of compensation for damage which the Community judicature is authorised to order also include an order to desist from a potential but not yet actual infringement of a right (breach of moral rights)?

               3.

               Is the second paragraph of Article 288 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction also in cases where the applicant bases the compensation obligation of the Community institution on an infringement of national law?