title: Case T-525/10: Action brought on 5 November 2010 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/34

         Action brought on 5 November 2010 — Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio v OHIM — Weinkellerei Lenz Moser (SERVO SUO)
   (Case T-525/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio (Refrontolo, Italy) (represented by: G. Massa and P. Massa, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Weinkellerei Lenz Moser AG (Linz, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Azienda Agricola Colsaliz di Faganello Antonio.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SERVO SUO’ (application No 5 798 244) for goods in Class 33.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Weinkellerei Lenz Moser Aktiengesellschaft.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘SERVUS’ (No 579 193), international figurative marks containing the word element ‘SERVUS’ (Nos 580 447 A and 844 793) and the international word mark ‘SERVUS’ (No 727 131), for goods in Class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

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


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-22/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU — Directive 2012/26/EU)

text:
               19.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 18/28

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 1 February 2016
   in Case E-22/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2011/62/EU — Directive 2012/26/EU)
   (2017/C 18/12)
   In Case E-22/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts referred to at point 15q of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products and Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Acts referred to at point 15q, ninth and tenth indent, of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2011/62/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as regards the prevention of the entry into the legal supply chain of falsified medicinal products and Directive 2012/26/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 amending Directive 2001/83/EC as regards pharmacovigilance), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of each Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-639/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by FV against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15, FV v Council

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/49

         Appeal brought on 7 September 2016 by FV against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15, FV v Council
   (Case T-639/16 P)
   (2016/C 419/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: FV (Rhode-St-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 28 June 2016 in Case F-40/15;

               —

               Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellant at first instance and, accordingly:

                           —

                           annul the staff report drawn up on the appellant for 2013;

                           —

                           order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings to pay all the costs of both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three grounds of appeal.

               1.

               First ground of appeal, alleging that the judgment under appeal was delivered by a formation of the Tribunal composed in infringement of Article 27(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the CST.
               The appellant is of the view that that infringement is characterised by the fact that Council Decision 2016/454 appointing three Judges to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal is itself vitiated by a lack of jurisdiction, an infringement of Articles 257 TFEU and 281 TFEU, an infringement of Annex I to Protocol No 3 to the Statute of the Court of Justice, an infringement of Article 13(2) TEU and an infringement of Council Decision 2005/150/EC of 18 January 2005 concerning the conditions and arrangements governing the submission and processing of applications for appointment as a judge of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal.

               2.

               Second ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the review, by the first judge, of the manifest error of assessment, infringement of the obligation to state reasons placed on the defendant, infringement of the obligation to state reasons on the first judge, distortion of the file and infringement of the Guide to Staff Reports.

               3.

               Third ground of appeal, alleging infringement of the duty of care and a distortion of the file.


title: Case C-499/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij NV v FOD Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Persons liable to pay tax — Third party jointly and severally liable — Warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing — Joint and several liability of the warehouse-keeper of the goods and the taxable person who owns the goods — Good faith or lack of fault or negligence of the warehouse-keeper)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij NV v FOD Financiën
   (Case C-499/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Persons liable to pay tax - Third party jointly and severally liable - Warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing - Joint and several liability of the warehouse-keeper of the goods and the taxable person who owns the goods - Good faith or lack of fault or negligence of the warehouse-keeper)
   2012/C 49/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij NV

      Defendant: FOD Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge (Belgium) — Interpretation of 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Persons liable to pay tax — Third party jointly and severally liable — National legislation holding the warehouse-keeper of the goods jointly and severally liable for payment of tax due by the taxable person who owns the goods, in warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him.

      Operative part of the judgment

   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 Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001, must be interpreted as not authorising the Member States to provide that a warehouse-keeper other than a customs warehouse-keeper is jointly and severally liable for the value added tax which is owing on a supply of goods made for valuable consideration, and released from the warehouse, by the owner of the goods who is liable for the tax on those goods, even where the warehouse-keeper acts in good faith or where no fault or negligence can be imputed to him.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case T-359/12: Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Nanu-Nana (device of a checked pattern)

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/13

         Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Vuitton Malletier v OHIM — Nanu-Nana (device of a checked pattern)
   (Case T-359/12)
   2012/C 311/18
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co.KG (Berlin, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 May 2012 in case R 1855/2011-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings; and

               —

               Order Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co.KG to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the OHIM Cancellation Division and Boards of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark representing a device of a checked pattern for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 370445

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal filed its request for declaration of invalidity against the CTM on the basis of absolute grounds, namely Article 52(1)(a) in connection with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d), (e)(iii) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on absolute grounds under Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the request for invalidity in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-176/10: Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Seven v OHIM — Seven For All Mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/50

      Action brought on 15 April 2010 — Seven v OHIM — Seven For All Mankind (SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND)
      (Case T-176/10)
      (2010/C 161/80)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy) (represented by: L. Trevisan, lawyer)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven For All Mankind LLC

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 28 January 2010.

                  —

                  Order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Seven SpA in the present proceedings and in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Seven For All Mankind LLC

         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SEVEN FOR ALL MANKIND’ (Application No 4 443 222), for goods in Classes 14 and 18.

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Seven SpA.

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Two Community figurative marks (No 591 206 and No 3 489 234 for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25) and an international trade mark (No 731 954, for goods in Classes 3, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28) which contain the word element ‘SEVEN’.

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

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


title: Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank (Appeals — Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus — Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) — Duties of the European Commission and the European Central Bank — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU — Conditions — Obligation to ensure that the Memorandum of Understanding is consistent with EU law)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 September 2016 — Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) v European Commission, European Central Bank
   (Joined Cases C-8/15 P to C-10/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Stability support programme for the Republic of Cyprus - Memorandum of Understanding of 26 April 2013 on Specific Economic Policy Conditionality concluded between the Republic of Cyprus and the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) - Duties of the European Commission and the European Central Bank - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU - Conditions - Obligation to ensure that the Memorandum of Understanding is consistent with EU law))
   (2016/C 419/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Ledra Advertising Ltd (C-8/15 P), Andreas Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Eleni Eleftheriou (C-9/15 P), Lilia Papachristofi (C-9/15 P), Christos Theophilou (C-10/15 P), Eleni Theophilou (C-10/15 P) (represented by: A. Paschalides, dikigoros, A. Paschalidou, Barrister, and A. Riza QC, instructed by C. Paschalides, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents), European Central Bank (represented by: K. Laurinavičius and O. Heinz, acting as Agents, and H.-G. Kamann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 10 November 2014, Ledra Advertising v Commission and ECB (T-289/13, EU:T:2014:981), of 10 November 2014, Eleftheriou and Papachristofi v Commission and ECB (T-291/13, not published, EU:T:2014:978), and of 10 November 2014, Theophilou v Commission and ECB (T-293/13, not published, EU:T:2014:979);

               2.

               Dismisses the actions brought before the General Court in Cases T-289/13, T-291/13 and T-293/13;

               3.

               Orders Ledra Advertising Ltd, Andreas Eleftheriou, Eleni Eleftheriou, Lilia Papachristofi, Christos Theophilou, Eleni Theophilou, the European Commission and the European Central Bank (ECB) each to bear their own costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 26.5.2015.


title: Case T-325/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pepito Pesca v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/37

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pepito Pesca v Commission
   (Case T-325/08)
   (2008/C 272/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Pepito Pesca Srl (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.


title: Case T-84/02: Action brought on 25 March 2002 by Armand De Buck against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 131/22               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.6.2002
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Margot Wagemann-                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reuter against the Court of Auditors of the European
                           Communities
                                                                          The applicant pleads infringement of Article 40(4)(d) of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations of Officials, asserting that the defendant did
                                                                          not reinstate her in the post which fell vacant following the
                          (Case T-81/02)                                  upgrading to grade LA 4 of LA 5 posts within the German
                                                                          section of the Language Service of the Court of Auditors, and
                                                                          did not even examine the possibility of reinstating her in that
                                                                          post.
                         (2002/C 131/41)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 25 March 2002 by Armand De Buck
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-84/02)
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Margot                                            (2002/C 131/42)
Wagemann-Reuter, residing in Luxembourg, represented by
Marc-Albert Lucas, lawyer.                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 25 March 2002 by Armand De
                                                                          Buck, residing at Koersel (Belgium), represented by Lucas
—    annul the implicit decision of the Court of Auditors                 Vogel, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
     rejecting, on 22 May 2001, her request of 18 January
     2001 for reinstatement following her leave on personal
     grounds;                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision adopted by the appointing authority
—    annul the Court of Auditors’ decision of 12 December                       on 14 December 2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by
     2001 rejecting her administrative complaint of 14 August                   the applicant on 19 May 2001, by which he contested
     2001 against the first contested decision and the defend-                  the decision of 20 February 2001 making definitive the
     ant’s refusal to reinstate her in the LA 4 post of head of                 provisional decision of 1 July 1999 refusing to recognise
     translation unit which was vacant at the end of 2000 or                    as an occupational disease the disease of the blood
     the beginning of 2001 within the German section of the                     suffered by the applicant;
     Language Service, or at least to consider her suitability
     for the post in question;                                            —     annul the said decisions of 20 February 2001 and 1 July
                                                                                1999;
—    order the defendant to pay her, by way of compensation               —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
     for the damage to her career prospects resulting from the
     illegality of the contested decisions, a sum corresponding
     to the total remuneration which she would have received              Pleas in law and main arguments
     had she been reinstated in that post, together with interest
     at the annual rate of 8 % from the date on which those
     sums would have become due until payment thereof in                  In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
     full;                                                                Article 73(1) of the Staff Regulations and of Article 3 of the
                                                                          Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties against the risk of accident and of occupational disease.
—    order the defendant to pay her, by way of compensation               According to the applicant, the Commission committed a
     for the non-material damage suffered by her as a result of           manifest error of assessment, inasmuch as it based its decision
     the illegality of the contested decisions, the sum of                on medical documents the reasoning contained in which is
     2 500 euros, evaluated on a fair and reasonable basis;               vitiated by contradictions and incorrect assessments, arising
                                                                          from an erroneous analysis of the facts duly established.
—    order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) in The Queen, Alliance for Natural Health and Others v Secretary of State for Health, and The Queen, National Association of Health Stores and Others v Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales (Approximation of laws — Food supplements — Directive 2002/46/EC — Prohibition on trade in products not complying with the directive — Validity — Legal basis — Article 95 EC — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 — Principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and equal treatment — Right to property — Freedom to pursue an economic activity — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 July 2005
   in Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) in The Queen, Alliance for Natural Health and Others v Secretary of State for Health, and The Queen, National Association of Health Stores and Others v Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Food supplements - Directive 2002/46/EC - Prohibition on trade in products not complying with the directive - Validity - Legal basis - Article 95 EC - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 - Principles of subsidiarity, proportionality and equal treatment - Right to property - Freedom to pursue an economic activity - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2005/C 217/36)
   Language of the case: English
   In Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made by decisions of 17 March 2004, received at the Court on 26 March 2004, in the proceedings between The Queen, on the application of: Alliance for Natural Health (C-154/04), Nutri-Link Ltd and Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales and The Queen, on the application of: National Association of Health Stores (C-155/04), Health Food Manufacturers Ltd v Secretary of State for Health, National Assembly for Wales — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   Examination of the question referred to the Court has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 3, 4(1) and 15(b) of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case T-610/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (BIO ORGANIC)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/24

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (BIO ORGANIC)
   (Case T-610/14)
   2014/C 361/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 301/2014-4;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘BIO ORGANIC’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 2 0 06  409

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations.


title: Case C-660/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S (Appeal — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Article 106(2) TFEU — Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark — Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 March 2017 — Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd v European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, TV2/Danmark A/S
   (Case C-660/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Article 106(2) TFEU - Measures taken by the Danish authorities in favour of the Danish public service broadcaster TV2/Danmark - Compensation for the costs involved in the performance of public service obligations - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market))
   (2017/C 144/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (represented by: M. Honoré and S.E. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg, advokater)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Grønfeldt and by L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Thorning, Agent, assisted by R. Holdgaard, advokat), TV2/Danmark A/S (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, advokat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and TV2/Danmark A/S;

               3.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case F-59/12: Action brought on 7 June 2012 — ZZ v Court of Auditors

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/38

         Action brought on 7 June 2012 — ZZ v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-59/12)
   2012/C 227/64
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Court of Auditors

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67 for the post of Director of the Directorate for Human Resources.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67;

               —

               annul all of the decisions taken in the course of the recruitment procedure opened following the vacancy notice ECA/2011/67;

               —

               pay compensation for the material damage suffered consisting in the loss of financial rights connected to the appointment (including career and pension rights) and, therefore, the payment of those rights with effect from 1 January 2001;

               —

               taking account of the context of those decisions, award EUR 15 000 as compensation for the non-material damage;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs.


title: Case F-37/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2011 — Stratakis v Commission

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 May 2011 — Stratakis v Commission
   (Case F-37/10) (1)

   2012/C 138/96
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010, p. 41.


title: Case C-400/04: Action brought on 21 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/22

         Action brought on 21 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-400/04)
   (2004/C 273/41)
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Wouter Wils.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by not adopting the legislative and administrative measures necessary in order to implement Directive 2001/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 December 2001 establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers, or at any rate by not informing the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments:
   The period allowed for transposition of Directive 2001/96/EC expired on 5 August 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 13, p. 9.


title: Case C-346/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/80/EC — Pollution and nuisance — Combustion plants — Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air — Directive not applied to the Lynemouth power plant (United Kingdom))

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/7

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 April 2010 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Case C-346/08) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - Pollution and nuisance - Combustion plants - Limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air - Directive not applied to the Lynemouth power plant (United Kingdom))
      (2010/C 161/09)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, and D. Wyatt QC)

         Re:

      Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement, so far as concerns the power plant in Lynemouth, Northumberland, of Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1) — Failure to have achieved significant reductions in emissions from that plant within the period prescribed in Article 4(3) of the directive

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Declares that, by failing to apply Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants to the power plant operated by Rio Tinto Alcan Smelting and Power (UK) Ltd in Lynemouth, in north-east England, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

                  2.

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case T-95/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014  — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/40

         Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction v Council
   (Case T-95/14)
   2014/C 102/61
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction (Tehran, Iran) (represented by J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/6661/CFSP in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove its name from the annex thereto;

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 in so far as it concerns the applicant and remove its name from the annex thereto, and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1154/2013 of 15 November 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 3), and Article 1 of Council Decision 2013/661/CFSP of 15 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2013 L 306, p. 18), in so far as they envisage the inclusion of the applicant in the list of persons and entities subject to those restrictive measures.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based, since they lack any genuine factual or evidential basis.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, since, as regards the applicant, the contested provisions are not only unfounded, but are imprecise, unspecific and generic, preventing the applicant from formulating its defence properly.

               3.

               Third plea in law, based on the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection in relation to the statement of reasons for the provisions, the lack of evidence for the reasons stated and the rights of the defence and property, since the requirement to state reasons and the need to produce genuine evidence were not observed, which affects the other rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of power, since there is objective, specific and corroborating evidence that, in adopting the restrictive measures, the Council, fraudulently misusing its position, pursued objectives different from those it claimed to pursue.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an erroneous interpretation of the legal rules applied, since the Council interpreted and applied those provisions broadly and incorrectly, which is impermissible in relation to provisions regarding penalties.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging the infringement of the right to property, in that it was restricted without any valid justification.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment, for the relative position of the applicant was prejudiced for no reason.


title: Case T-326/02: Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Kotug International BV, Sleepdienst Adriaan Kooren BV and K&K International BV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 323/39
That, like the storage of data giving information about                     Pleas and main arguments
membership of the union, infringes the provisions of Regu-
lation (EC) No 45/2001 ( 1).
                                                                            The applicants benefit from fiscal arrangements and the
( 1) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of           tonnage charge introduced by the Netherlands in favour of,
     the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
                                                                            inter alia, vessels intended for towing and assistance at sea. In
     with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
     institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
                                                                            the contested decision the Commission considers that these
     (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).                                                   matters constitute new State aid for tugboat activities princi-
                                                                            pally carried on in and around the harbours of the Community
                                                                            and on inland waterways within the Community and not
                                                                            principally at sea. The Commission is at the same time seeking
                                                                            recovery by the Netherlands authority of that aid.
                                                                            The applicants submit that the Commission is in breach of the
                                                                            EC Treaty and Regulation No 659/1999 ( 1) by classifying the
                                                                            matters concerned as new State aid. According to the appli-
Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Kotug Inter-                           cants the provision made in regard to those matters constitutes
national BV, Sleepdienst Adriaan Kooren BV and K&K                          existing State aid authorised by the Commission.
International BV against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                           (Case T-326/02)                                  Thus, there is no question of a change in the existing aid.
                                                                            According to the Commission, the interpretation of the
                                                                            Netherlands law has changed over the years. Under it tugboats
                          (2002/C 323/64)                                   were eligible for aid on the basis of technical criteria relating
                                                                            to the vessels rather than on the basis of the place where the
                                                                            activities are carried on. According to the applicants, that was
                                                                            however clear from the legislation notified by the Netherlands
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            authorities under which a technical and qualitative criterion is
                                                                            applied rather than a geographical one. That interpretation of
                                                                            the provision made in regard to the grant of the aid have
                                                                            accordingly not changed.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 24 October 2002 by Kotug International BV,
Sleepdienst Adriaan Kooren BV and K&K International BV,                     The applicants further allege that the Commission did not
established in Rotterdam, represented by T.R. Ottervanger,                  follow the correct procedure. According to the applicants, the
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                  Commission, upon receipt of supplementary information, did
                                                                            not issue a recommendation for the adoption of appropriate
                                                                            measures. Nor did the Commission review the aid under
                                                                            Article 9 of Regulation No 659/1999. Nor, the applicants
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:               submit, are the requirements of that article satisfied since there
                                                                            is no question of incorrect information. Moreover, according
                                                                            to the applicants, the Commission failed to demonstrate that
1.     Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
                                                                            the provision made for the matters concerned is not covered
       19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
                                                                            by the aid measures approved by it previously.
       favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
       harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;
2.     In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
       mission’s contested decision in which the Commission                 Accordingly, the applicants submit that the contested decision
       requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-             infringes Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty. According to the
       ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients             applicants the Commission is acting incorrectly in declaring
       — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September                 the matters concerned incompatible with the common market.
       1990;                                                                The applicants allege that towing services provided by sea
                                                                            tugboats to sea-going vessels, irrespective of where those
                                                                            activities are carried on, come within the scope of the
3.     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Community guidelines on State aid for maritime transport ( 2).
 ---pagebreak--- C 323/40                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  21.12.2002
According to the applicants, the contested decision further               2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations                mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
and Article 14 of Regulation No 659/1999. According to the                      requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
applicants, they were entitled to rely on the legality of the aid               ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
since it had been approved by the Commission. Recovery of                       — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
aid received would run counter to the applicants’ legitimate                    1990;
expectations.
                                                                          3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
By altering its approach to fiscal measures for maritime
transport, the Commission, in adopting the contested decision,
also infringed the principle of legal certainty. In the applicants’
view, a change in the approach to aid measures cannot result              Pleas and main arguments
in already approved aid being classified as new rather than
existing aid.
                                                                          The pleas relied on are the same as in Case T-326/02.
The applicants are also claiming infringements of the principles
of equal treatment and proportionality and of the requirement
to provide a statement of reasons.
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 20 March 1999 laying
     down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
     Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
( 2) Community guidelines on State aid for maritime transport (OJ
     1997 C 205, p. 5).
                                                                          Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour
                                                                          Towage Rotterdam BV against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-328/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/66)
Action brought on 24 October 2002 by Muller Marine
Holding BV, Muller Maritime Holding BV and Handel-
en Scheepvaartmaatschappij Multraschip BV against the                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
          Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-327/02)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                         (2002/C 323/65)
                                                                          Communities on 24 October 2002 by Smit Harbour Towage
                                                                          Rotterdam BV, established in Rotterdam, represented by
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                         T.R. Ottervanger, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European              1.    Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
Communities on 24 October 2002 by Muller Marine Holding                         19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
BV, Muller Maritime Holding BV and Handel- en Scheepvaart-                      favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
maatschappij Multraschip BV established in Rotterdam, rep-                      harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;
resented by T.R. Ottervanger, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                          2.    In the alternative, annul Articles 2 and 3 of the Com-
                                                                                mission’s contested decision in which the Commission
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:                   requires the Netherlands Government to adopt all necess-
                                                                                ary measures in order to recover aid from the recipients
                                                                                — with the exception of aid paid before 12 September
1.     Primarily, annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2158 of
                                                                                1990;
       19 June 2002 concerning State aid by the Netherlands in
       favour of the activities of Netherlands tugboats in sea
       harbours and on inland waterways of the Community;                 3.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-41/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  — Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/17

         Action brought on 6 February 2006 — Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-41/06)
   (2006/C 96/33)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: Paweł Szałamacha, Government Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare invalid the decision of 18 October 2005 in Case COMP/M.3894 establishing that the merger of Unicredito Italiano SpA and Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG is compatible with the common market;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks a declaration that the decision of the European Commission of 18 October 2005 in case COMP/M.3894 recognising the merger of the banks Unicredito Italiano SpA (UCI) and Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG (HVB) as being compatible with the common market is invalid. Each of those banks has holdings in banking institutions in Poland and, according to the assertions made by the applicant, the effect of the proposed concentration will be the assumption of control by UCI over HBV's holding within the Polish banking market.
   In support of its action, the applicant raises the following heads of complaint:

               —

               breach of Article 2(1) of the Regulation on concentrations (1) by reason of what the applicant considers to be the inappropriate appraisal of the proposed concentration, in that the Commission failed to take account of the history of the banking sector in Poland, the large amount of foreign investment and the reasons why the Polish Government introduced limitations on investments in the event of the privatisation of State banks. The applicant further submits that the Commission breached Article 2(1) of the Regulation inasmuch as, when concluding its appraisal of the compatibility of the proposed concentration with the common market, it failed to take account of the existence and effects of Article 3(9) of the privatisation agreement, (2) which, in the view of the applicant, amounts to a legal barrier to market entry within the terms of Article 2(1)(b) of the Regulation on concentrations. The applicant also contends that the Commission adopted an inappropriate evaluation of concentrations on the Polish banking market and also erred in its appraisal of the effect which the proposed concentration would have on competition within the market for investment funds and a number of specific markets within the Polish banking sector;

               —

               breach of Article 6(1) of the Regulation on concentrations, inasmuch as the proposed concentration ought, according to the applicant, to have given rise to serious doubts on the Commission's part as to its compatibility with the common market and should have led to the initiation of proceedings or the second phase of the investigation as to whether the proposed operation comes within the scope of the Regulation on concentrations;

               —

               breach of Article 11 of the Regulation on concentrations, breach of Article 5 of the implementing regulation (3) and infringement of the principle of fair and proper administration; the applicant takes the view that the notification of the concentration, as indicated by the parties, was incomplete inasmuch as it did not contain any information on the matter of the conditions of the privatisation agreement, in particular Article 3 thereof, and as such should not at all have been taken into consideration by the Commission;

               —

               breach of the duty to cooperate resulting from Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community by reason of the failure, before the decision was adopted, to take into consideration the legitimate interests of the Republic of Poland, the protection of which is provided for in Article 21(4) of the Regulation on concentrations; in the view of the applicant, the Commission was under an obligation, prior to the adoption of the decision recognising the concentration as being compatible with the common market, to take action for the purpose of obtaining full information on any legitimate interests of the Member States, a fortiori as it was possible for the Commission, when monitoring the Polish banking market over the period prior to the Republic of Poland's accession to the European Union, to familiarise itself with the structure of that market, and the Commission must have been aware of the existence of a legitimate public interest on the part of the Polish Government in guaranteeing the application and implementation of the strategies of de-monopolisation and privatisation;

               —

               breach of Article 253 EC and of the obligation to provide specific reasons for a decision, a failure which, in the view of the applicant, renders more difficult the reconstruction and monitoring of the correctness of the process by which the law is applied by the Commission.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 1).

      (2)  Agreement on the sale of shares in Bank Polska Kasa Opieki Spółka Akcyjna – Grupa Pekao S.A. entered into on 23 June 1999 between the State Treasury of the Republic of Poland and Unicredito Italiano SpA and Allianz AG.

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 802/2004 of 7 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 133, p. 1).


title: Case T-331/07: Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Chupa Chups SA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/40

         Action brought on 7 September 2007 — Chupa Chups SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-331/07)
   (2007/C 247/66)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Chupa Chups, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: Ramón Falcón Tella, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(2) of the decision adopted by the Commission declaring incompatible with the common market regional aid to the amount of EUR 800 000, granted in 2003 under the ‘Minería 2’ programme, and declaring consequently that that aid may not be implemented;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the last sentence of Article 1(2) of the decision, according to which ‘this part of the aid may accordingly not be implemented’;

               —

               In either case, order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision regards as incompatible with the common market regional aid to the amount of EUR 800 000, granted in 2003 under the ‘Minería 2’ programme, previously authorised by the Commission. The contested decision considers that the applicant was not eligible for aid within that programme since firms in difficulty are excluded from it.
   In support of its claims, the applicant accuses the Commission of a manifest error of assessment and of infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
   As regards the factual inaccuracies and the error of assessment by the Commission, the applicant claims that 2002 was the first year in which losses were recorded, and that in announcing the aid, the national authorities could not have been aware of those losses, given that the accounts had not been approved.
   Further, the applicant submits that the firm cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of paragraph 5(a) of the Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, which provides that a firm is regarded as being in difficulty if it has lost half of its registered capital and a quarter of that capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months. The Commission makes a manifest error of assessment in that, in order to calculate the percentage represented by the losses and to determine if those affect the capital, it has not taken into account the legal and voluntary reserves which the company had, which were of an amount more than sufficient to cover all the losses.
   It was the firm itself, with its own resources and those contributed by creditors and private banks, which overcame the loss-making situation, and accordingly the firm cannot be regarded as a firm in difficulty, under paragraph 4 of the Community Guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, which defines firms in difficulty as those which are unable to overcome such a situation without outside assistance.
   Nor did there occur the signs referred to in paragraph 6 of the guidelines, since the losses did not increase, but decreased. The stock inventories are not growing but diminishing. The debt did not mount, but declined. And the interest charges did not rise, but significantly fell between 2002 and 2003.
   The applicant also claims that the prohibition at issue from making payment of the aid of EUR 800 000, granted in 2003 within a programme of regional aid approved by the Commission, infringes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
   On that point, it is asserted that the prohibition of actual payment of the aid has the same negative effect on the firm's balance sheet of profits and losses as a decision ordering repayment, with the sole difference that in the present case no interest payments are incurred.
   The aid was approved by the Commission and Chupa Chups had no reason to believe that it was not eligible for that aid. If the regional aid had not existed, decisions on investment might have been different.


title: Case C-193/15 P: Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Tarif Akhras against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11: Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/24

         Appeal brought on 27 April 2015 by Tarif Akhras against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11: Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-193/15 P)
   (2015/C 205/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Tarif Akhras (represented by: S. Millar, S. Ashley, Solicitors, D. Wyatt QC, R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 in Case T-579/11 Tarif Akhras v Council of the European Union;

               —

               Annul the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later insofar as they apply to the Appellant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the Appellant invokes two grounds.
   First, the General Court erred in law in holding that the Council was entitled to apply a presumption that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, and the General Court failed to apply the correct test, viz., whether the established facts amounted to a set of indicia sufficiently specific, precise and consistent to establish that the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime.
   Second, the General Court erred in law in that it distorted the evidence relevant to the question whether the Appellant benefitted from and/or supported the regime, which, had it not been so distorted, demonstrated that the Appellant did not support or benefit from the regime.
   Had the General Court not applied the presumption, and/or had it applied the correct test, and/or had it not distorted the evidence referred to above, it would have annulled the measures contested in Case T-579/11 dated 23 March 2012 and later.


title: Case C-133/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Q

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Q
   (Case C-133/13)
   2013/C 171/25
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Applicants:

               Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken,

               Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Defendant: Q

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the importance of the conservation of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, as addressed in the Natuurschoonwet 1928 (Law on nature protection 1928), constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which justifies a scheme whereby the application of an exemption from gift tax (recovery facility) is limited to estates situated in the Netherlands?

               2.

                           (a)

                           May the authorities of a Member State, in the context of an investigation into whether an immovable property situated in another Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of the Natuurschoonwet 1928, rely on Council Directive 2010/24/EU (1) of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, for assistance from the authorities of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated, when the designation as an estate pursuant to that law will result in an exemption being granted from the recovery of the gift tax which will be payable upon donation of that immovable property?

                           (b)

                           If question 2(a) must be answered in the affirmative, must the concept of ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU (2) of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that it also covers an on-site investigation?

                           (c)

                           If question 2(b) must be answered in the affirmative, may clarification of the term ‘administrative enquiries’ in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, be sought in the definition of the term ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC?

               3.

               If question 2(a), question 2(b) or question 2(c) must be answered in the negative, should the principle of sincere cooperation, as laid down in Article 4(3) of the TEU, considered in conjunction with Article 167(2) of the TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State requests another Member State to provide assistance with the investigation of whether an immovable property situated in that other Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of a law which has as its aim the conservation and protection of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, the requested Member State is obliged to provide that assistance?

               4.

               Can a restriction on the free movement of capital be justified by invoking the need to guarantee effective fiscal controls, if it appears that the only risk to effectiveness of those controls is the need for national authorities to travel to another Member State for the period of 25 years referred to in Article 7(1) of the Natuurschoonwet 1928 in order to carry out the necessary controls there?

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 84, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1.


title: Case T-229/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/37

         Appeal brought on 14 April 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 21 February 2013 in Case F-113/11, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-229/13 P)
   2013/C 171/70
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the order under appeal in its entirety and without exception;

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.


title: Case C-618/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 29 November 2016 — Rafal Prefeta v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (United Kingdom) made on 29 November 2016 — Rafal Prefeta v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-618/16)
   (2017/C 038/18)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rafal Prefeta

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Questions referred

               1.

               Did Annex XII of the Treaty of Accession permit Member States to exclude Polish nationals from the benefits of Article 7(2) of the Workers Regulation (1) and Article 7(3) of the Citizenship Directive (2) where the worker, though he had belatedly complied with the national requirement that his employment be registered, had not yet worked for an uninterrupted registered twelve month period?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is ‘no,’ may a Polish national worker in the circumstances in question 1 rely on Article 7(3) of the Citizenship Directive which concerns retention of worker status?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (Text with EEA relevance)

      OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1

      (2)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)

      OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77


title: Case C-170/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) by order of that court of 30 March 2004 in case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren

text:
               12.6.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Domstolen (Sweden) by order of that court of 30 March 2004 in case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren
   (Case C-170/04)
   (2004/C 156/08)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Court of Appeal for Western Sweden) of 30 March 2004 received at the Court Registry on 6 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Klas Rosengren, Bengt Morelli, Hans Särman, Mats Åkerström, Åke Kempe, Anders Kempe, Mats Kempe, Björn Rosengren, Martin Lindberg, Jon Pieree and Tony Staf against Riksåklagaren the following questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 28, 30 and 31 of the EC Treaty:

               1.

               Can it be held that the above mentioned ban on imports constitutes part of the retail monopoly's manner of operation and that on that basis it is not precluded by Article 28 and is to be examined only in the light of Article 31?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is yes, is the ban on imports in such a case compatible with the conditions laid down for State monopolies in Article 31?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is no, is Article 28 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it in principle precludes the current ban on imports despite the obligation of the Systembolaget to obtain, upon request, alcoholic beverages which it does not hold in stock?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is yes, can such a ban on imports be considered justified and proportional in order to protect health and life of humans?on the following question:


title: Case C-229/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/17

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel
   (Case C-229/06) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate)
   (2007/C 96/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1) — Subheadings 1209 91 90 and 1212 99 80 — Shelled pumpkin seeds which have lost the ability to germinate and are intended for the baking industry
   Operative part of the judgment
   Subheading 1212 99 80 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that shelled pumpkin seeds which have lost their ability to germinate and which are intended for use in the baking industry come under that subheading.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 September 2003 in Case C-338/00 P: Volkswagen AG (Appeal — Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Partitioning of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 — Whether the infringement can be attributed to the undertaking concerned — Right to a fair hearing — Duty to state reasons — Legal consequences of disclosure to the press — Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation of the fine — Cross-appeal)

text:
1.11.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 264/3
4.    Article 12 EC and the second subparagraph of Article 34(2)                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      EC do not preclude the adoption of measures such as those at
      issue in the main proceedings against a dairy cooperative which
      enjoys market power and exploits that position in a manner                                      (Sixth Chamber)
      contrary to the public interest, even though large vertically-
      integrated dairy cooperatives are permitted to operate in other
      Member States.
                                                                                of 18 September 2003
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                in Case C-338/00 P: Volkswagen AG (1)
                                                                             (Appeal — Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles
                                                                             — Partitioning of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty
                                                                             (now Article 81 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 123/85
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      — Whether the infringement can be attributed to the
                                                                             undertaking concerned — Right to a fair hearing — Duty to
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   state reasons — Legal consequences of disclosure to the press
                                                                             — Effect of propriety of the notification on the calculation
                       of 18 September 2003                                                     of the fine — Cross-appeal)
in Case C-331/00: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                                          (2003/C 264/04)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years 1996,
1997 and 1998 — Arable crops — Beef — Aid for early                                             (Language of the case: German)
                              retirement)
                          (2003/C 264/03)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-338/00 P, Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg
                                                                             (Germany) (represented by R. Bechtold): Appeal against the
                                                                             judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
In Case C-331/00, Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos                  Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 2000 in Case T-62/
and I. K. Chalkias, as well as by C. Tsiavou) v Commission of                98 Volkswagen v Commission [2000] ECR II-2707, seeking
the European Communities (Agent: M. Condou-Durande):                         to have that judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision                     proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community                          (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Sixth
financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States                  Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                     Chamber, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris (Rapporteur), F. Macken
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,                          and N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
p. 49), in so far as its concerns the Hellenic Republic, the Court           General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                    trar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it:
acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola,
P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-               1.    Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal;
trar, has given a judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the application;                                             2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.


title: Case F-47/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2010 — Freis Guggenheim v Cedefop (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff — Non-renewal of the contract — Article 11a of the Staff Regulations — Sixth subparagraph of Article1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations — Function of staff representation — Duty of impartiality and of independence)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 4 May 2010 — Freis Guggenheim v Cedefop
   (Case F-47/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Member of the temporary staff - Non-renewal of the contract - Article 11a of the Staff Regulations - Sixth subparagraph of Article1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations - Function of staff representation - Duty of impartiality and of independence)
   2010/C 274/50
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Éric Mathias Fries Guggenheim (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (represented by: M. Fuchs, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of CEDEFOP’s decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff and, should the applicant not be reinstated, an order that the defendant pay him damages to compensate for the non-material harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Mr Freis Guggenheim to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009, p. 52.


title: Case T-310/15: Action brought on 5 June 2015 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/74

         Action brought on 5 June 2015 — European Union Copper Task Force v Commission
   (Case T-310/15)
   (2015/C 294/89)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Union Copper Task Force (Essex, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Fernández Vicién and I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution, to the extent that it applies to copper compounds;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs generated by this procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/408, of 11 March 2015, on implementing Article 80(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and establishing a list of candidates for substitution has been adopted on an illegal basis, as Regulation No 1107/2009, in particular its Articles 24 and Annex II, point 4, infringe EU law.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that scientific evidence indicates that Persistence, Bioaccumulation and Toxicity (‘PBT’) criteria, in particular persistence, are not appropriate for copper.

                           —

                           Moreover, according to the applicant, the application of PBT criteria to inorganic substances is not consistent with other pieces of legislation that have been implemented in the field of regulated chemical substances.

                           —

                           Finally, so the applicant claims, as far as candidates for substitution are concerned, the application of PBT criteria to copper compounds goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1107/2009 and Regulation No 1107/2009 misinterprets the precautionary principle.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging, subsidiarity, that by including copper compounds within the scope of Implementing Regulation 2015/408, the Commission has infringed the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-422/04: Action brought on 12 October 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/23

         Action brought on 12 October 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-422/04)
   (2005/C 45/53)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 October 2004 by Luciano Lavagnoli, residing in Berchem (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the list of officials promoted in the 2003 promotions procedure in so far as that list does not include the name of the applicant and annul the preparatory measures for that decision;

               2.

               in the alternative annul the award of promotion points in the 2003 promotions procedure as regards the applicant;

               3.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of his application the applicant relies on pleas alleging a breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, a breach of the general implementing provisions for Article 45, a breach of the administrative guide to appraisal and promotion of officials and a breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The applicant also relies on the prohibition on arbitrary procedures and alleges a breach of the duty to state reasons and misuse of powers. He also alleges a breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ rule and, finally, a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.


title: Case F-9/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 September 2015 — Verhelst v EMA

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 September 2015 — Verhelst v EMA
   (Case F-9/15) (1)

   (2015/C 346/43)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 13.4.2015, p. 46.


title: Case C-592/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Cosmetic products — Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 — Article 18(1)(b) — Cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing ‘in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation’ — Prohibition of marketing within the European Union — Scope)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General
   (Case C-592/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Cosmetic products - Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 - Article 18(1)(b) - Cosmetic products containing ingredients, or a combination of ingredients, which have been the subject of animal testing ‘in order to meet the requirements of this Regulation’ - Prohibition of marketing within the European Union - Scope))
   (2016/C 419/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients

      Defendants: Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Attorney General

      Intervening parties: Cruelty Free International, formerly British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, European Coalition to End Animal Experiments

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products must be interpreted as meaning that it may prohibit the placing on the European Union market of cosmetic products containing some ingredients that have been tested on animals outside the European Union, in order to market cosmetic products in third countries, if the resulting data is used to prove the safety of those products for the purposes of placing them on the EU market.

      (1)  OJ C 81, 9.3.2015.


title: Case F-9/07: Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/31

         Action brought on 5 February 2007 — Angé Serrano v Parliament
   (Case F-9/07)
   (2007/C 69/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 20 March 2006 to reclassify the applicant in Grade B*6, step 8, with effect from 1 May 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay, by way of compensation for material and non-material damage and harm to the applicant's career, the sum of EUR 25 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the European Parliament and successful candidate in a competition for change of category (from Category C to Category B) before the reformed Staff Regulations entered into force on 1 May 2004, has already brought an action before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities against the decision to reclassify her in Grade B*5 (1).
   In the present case, the applicant challenges the Parliament's decision of 20 March 2006 to reclassify her in Grade B*6, step 8. In support of her claim, the applicant relies on pleas in law which are very similar to those put forward in Case T-47/05. Moreover, she submits that, despite her new classification, the system arising from the reform of the Staff Regulations calls into question the effectiveness of her change of category from C to B, since the new classification does not confer any benefit on the applicant when her situation is compared with that of her colleagues who have not been successful in a competition for change of category.

      (1)  Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament,
      OJ C 93, 14.4.2005, p. 36.