title: Case T-115/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Jiménez Martínez v Commission (Officials — Invalidity — Invalidity Committee — Preparatory measure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Irregularity in the pre-litigation procedure — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 November 2006 — Jiménez Martínez v Commission
   (Case T-115/05) (1)

   (Officials - Invalidity - Invalidity Committee - Preparatory measure - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Irregularity in the pre-litigation procedure - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 331/92)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José Juan Jiménez Martínez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Hermann, Agents)
   Re:
   Application, first, for annulment of the Invalidity Committee's decisions of 21 April and 22 July 2004 and, secondly, for damages as compensation for loss allegedly suffered as a result of those decisions
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case T-700/14: Action brought on 24 September 2014  — TV1 v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/60

         Action brought on 24 September 2014 — TV1 v Commission
   (Case T-700/14)
   2014/C 409/81
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TV1 GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: C. Scherer-Leydecker, J. Mey and A. Rausch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the award decision of the European Commission relating to Stage IV of tender procedure PO/2014-03/A4 and annul the decision of the defendant not to award the contract to the applicant, communicated on 25 July 2014, as well as the decision of the defendant to award the contract for Stage IV to another undertaking, communicated on 1 August 2014;

               —

               Annul the service contract concluded as a result of or subsequent to the award;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs, including the costs of the proceedings, experts’ costs and the expenses incurred by the applicant for the purpose of the proceedings, in particular travel and accommodation costs and lawyers’ remuneration;

               —

               Order the defendant, by way of measure of enquiry in accordance with Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, to produce the award document and other relevant documents and to ensure that the applicant has full access to the file.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract
               The applicant claims that the Commission failed to carry out a thorough investigation of the, according to the applicant, abnormally low offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract, and failed to exclude that offer or the tenderer from the tender procedure. The Commission thereby failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 110(2) of Regulation No 966/2012 (1) in conjunction with Article 151 of Regulation No 1268/2012 (2) and infringed its obligation under Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to ensure good administration.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging incorrect tendering documents
               The applicant claims in addition that the Commission infringed procurement law principles, in particular the principles of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination and fair competition, as well as Article 102 of the EU Financial Regulation.
               The applicant claims in this respect that the Commission failed to satisfy the conditions of Article 105 of the Financial Regulation concerning clear and precise tendering documents.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of the offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract
               In this regard, the applicant claims that the assessment of the offer submitted by the undertaking which was awarded the contract failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons and was based on errors of fact and law and misuse of power.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a wrongful assessment of the offer submitted by the applicant
               The applicant claims moreover that the information provided by the Commission concerning the offer submitted by the applicant failed to comply with the obligation to state reasons and the Commission clearly erred in its assessment of the offer submitted by the applicant.

      (1)  Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1).


title: Case C-94/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Dr Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Dr Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.
   (Case C-94/07)
   (2007/C 117/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Arbeitsgericht Bonn
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dr Andrea Raccanelli

      Defendant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V.
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should the applicant be regarded as a worker within the meaning of the European concept of ‘worker ’if he is not called upon to provide any more work-related services than are doctoral students with an employment contract concluded pursuant to the Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag (federal collective agreement for public sector workers, ‘BAT/2’)?

               2.

               In the event that the answer to Question 1 is in the negative: must Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (1) be interpreted as meaning that there is no discrimination only if the applicant was at least granted the right to choose between an employment contract and a grant before his period of doctoral study with the defendant began?

               3.

               In the event that the answer to Question 2 is that the applicant should have been granted the opportunity to conclude an employment contract, the question must be asked:
               What are the consequences in law in the event of discrimination against foreign nationals?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.


title: Case C-376/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Malta (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Article 4(4)(v) and Article 16 — Requirement to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons for non critical uses on board ships — Exceptions — Critical uses of halons 1301 and 2402)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-376/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Article 4(4)(v) and Article 16 - Requirement to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons for non critical uses on board ships - Exceptions - Critical uses of halons 1301 and 2402)
   2011/C 204/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Malta (represented by: S. Camilleri and A. Buhagiar, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(4)(v) and Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Limitation on the placing on the market and use of controlled substances — Halons — Requirement to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons — Fire protection systems and extinguishers on ships

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case F-59/10: Action brought on 20 July 2010 — Barthel and Others v Court of Justice

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/28

         Action brought on 20 July 2010 — Barthel and Others v Court of Justice
   (Case F-59/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Yvette Barthel (Arlon, Belgium) and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice rejecting the claim by the applicants for payment of the allowance for continuous work or shiftwork provided for in the first indent of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976, determining the categories of officials entitled to allowances for shiftwork, and the rates and conditions thereof (OJ 1976 L 38, p. 1)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice of the European Union rejecting the applicants’ claim of 8 June 2009 for payment, as from 20 December 2006, of the allowance for continuous work or shiftwork provided for in the first indent of Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (ECSC, EEC, Euratom) No 300/76 of 9 February 1976;

               —

               order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.


title: Case C-223/09: Action brought on 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/3

         Action brought on 18 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-223/09)
   2009/C 233/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: O. Beynet and M. Kaduczak, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure the implementation of Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment, (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commission that it had adopted such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2005/89/EC had to be transposed expired on 24 February 2008. At the time when the present action was brought, the defendant had not adopted the measures necessary to transpose that directive, or in any event had not informed the Commission of such measures.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22.


title: Case C-68/09 P: Order of the Court of 29 January 2010 — Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), European Commission, successor in law to the EAR (Appeals — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Civil service — Temporary staff contract for an indefinite period — Termination)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/13

         Order of the Court of 29 January 2010 — Georgios Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), European Commission, successor in law to the EAR
   (Case C-68/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Civil service - Temporary staff contract for an indefinite period - Termination)
   2010/C 134/20
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Georgios Karatzoglou (represented by: S.A. Pappas, dikigoros)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR), European Commission, successor in law to the EAR (represented by: D. Martin and J. Currall, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 2 December 2008 in Case T-471/04 Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) — Referral back to the Court of First Instance after setting aside — Dismissal of an application for annulment of the decision of the EAR terminating the applicant’s contract as a member of the temporary staff — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — Principle of sound administration.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Karatzoglou shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case T-501/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2008 — RS Arbeitsschutz v OHIM — RS Components (RS)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/49

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2008 — RS Arbeitsschutz v OHIM — RS Components (RS)
   (Case T-501/07) (1)

   (2008/C 171/96)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case T-258/99: Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel C.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 34/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
Action brought on 24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l.                 — Improper examination of the case and misuse of powers.
    against Commission of the European Communities                            According to the applicant, the facts have clearly been
                                                                              distorted, essentially as a result of defective and incorrect
                                                                              examination of the case.
                        (Case T-254/99)
                                                                         — Breach of the principle of legal certainty and infringement
                         (2000/C 34/46)                                       of Articles 38 and 44 of Regulation No 4028/86.
                                                                         — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons and of
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                             essential procedural requirements. The opinion given by
                                                                              the Fisheries Management Committee was never disclosed
                                                                              to the applicant.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
24 October 1999 by Società Maja s.r.l., represented by Paolo
Piva, of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s               laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
chambers, 7 Val Ste Croix.                                                   different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                             operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                             existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, P. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 of 18 December 1986 on
                                                                             Community measures to improve and adapt structures in the
— Annul the decision of 5 August 1999 cancelling the                         fisheries and aquaculture sector (OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7).
    contribution granted to Ca’Pasta S.r.l. by Commission                (3) OJ 1997 C 387, p. 23.
    decision C(91)654/97 of 29 April 1991;
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
These proceedings relate to the grant of aid to the applicant            Action brought on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelfbe-
company to encourage structural improvements in the fishing              dieningsgroothandel C.V. against the Commission of the
sector and aquaculture. With a view to modernising an                                          European Communities
aquaculture unit at Contarina (Veneto), the applicant applied
for and obtained a Community contribution of
ITL 942 300 004, representing 40 % of the permitted expendi-                                        (Case T-258/99)
ture. Following an administrative check, involving Commission
representatives, it was discovered that the undertaking had                                          (2000/C 34/47)
been transferred without prior authorisation, the latter being
deemed necessary under Article 24 of Regulation
No 4253/88 (1). After completion of the procedure under
Article 44 of Regulation No 4028/86 (2) the Head of Unit of                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
Directorate General XIV adopted the contested measure,
confirming ‘continuation of the internal procedure with a view           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
to cancellation of the contribution and recovery of the amount           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
disbursed’. An action was brought against that decision,                 European Communities on 25 October 1999 by Makro Zelf-
namely Case T-274/97 Ca’Pasta v Commission (3). An order                 bedieningsgroothandel C.V., established in Amsterdam
was made dismissing the action as inadmissible.                          (Netherlands), represented by I.G.F. Cath and K.J. Tattersall, of
                                                                         the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
This action is directed against the final decision whereby the           at the Chambers of L. Dupong, 4-6 Rue de la Boucherie.
defendant brought the administrative procedure to a close.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are the same as those put forward in the abovementioned Case             (a) annul, wholly or in part, the Commission’s decision of
T-274/97.                                                                     20 July 1999 (C(1999) 2539 final) (1) concerning State aid
                                                                              granted by the Netherlands to 633 service stations in the
                                                                              region bordering Germany, at least in so far as it concerns
The following claims are made, in particular:                                 the applicant, and, in so far as may be necessary, order
                                                                              such detailed arrangements and measures to be adopted as
— Breach of the principle of collegiality.                                    the Court shall think fit;
 ---pagebreak--- 5.2.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 34/25
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              nomic and legal information necessary to assist the national
                                                                        court in the application of the Community competition rules.
                                                                        The applicant considers that the Commission’s reply to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the Court’s request was inadequate because the information
                                                                        provided by it is totally devoid of any factual and legal
                                                                        assessment of the rules applicable to specialist medical prac-
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             titioners trained and established in the United Kingdom and
T-237/99.                                                               whether or not the legal conditions are satisfied for the
                                                                        application by the national court of the prohibitions contained
                                                                        in Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        82 EC) to the anti-competitive practices of the GMC.
                                                                        The applicant claims therefore that the Commission is guilty
                                                                        of misuse of powers in so far as it has concealed from the
                                                                        national court and from the parties to the proceedings before
                                                                        the national court the nature and extent of the factual and
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by Anthony Gold-                      legal information it may be able to supply to national court
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-                   under the principle of active and sincere cooperation pursuant
                               ties                                     to Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and failed to
                                                                        take all steps necessary within its power, in breach of the
                                                                        principle of good faith, to ensure all relevant documents are
                        (Case T-262/99)                                 produced to the national court and to the parties and its
                                                                        officials are authorised to give evidence in the national
                         (2000/C 34/48)                                 proceedings. He further claims that the Commission is guilty
                                                                        of breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
                                                                        tations and breach of the principle of legal certainty.
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               The applicant submits that as a direct consequence of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              conduct alleged the national court was not in a position to
European Communities on 28 October 1999 by Anthony                      determine whether the conditions for the application of the
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,            prohibitions contained in Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
of Merriman White Solicitors, 61 Fleet Street, London EC4Y              Treaty were satisfied. This meant that the national court was
1JU, United Kingdom.                                                    effectively prohibited from adopting all necessary measures
                                                                        forthwith to terminate the anti-competitive conduct of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             GMC.
— order the defendant to supply the factual and legal
    information requested by the national court under Article 5
    of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC);                               Finally, the applicant asserts that the Commission’s action
                                                                        caused him to sustain damage which consists of non-material
                                                                        damage for harm to his professional reputation as a specialist
— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of
                                                                        medical practitioner recognised at Community level as a result
    EUR 100 000 to the applicant;
                                                                        of the publication to all registered medical practitioners in the
                                                                        United Kingdom of a fact sheet by the GMC containing
— order the amount of damages to bear default interest at the           information misrepresenting the legal status of specialist
    annual rate of 4,5 per cent from the date of the judgment           medical practitioners whose names appear on the Specialist
    until actual payment;                                               List, including the applicant, contrary to Directive 84/450 in
                                                                        so far as it implies that those practitioners are not specialist
— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those            medical practitioners and furthermore that they are engaged
    of the applicant.                                                   in the illegal pursuit of a regulated profession.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) OJ 1993 C 39, p. 6.
The applicant explains that in the context of his action against
the General Medical Council (GMC), the High Court made an
order pursuant to the Notice on Co-operation between national
courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty (1), requiring the Directorate-General for
Competition of the European Commission to provide eco-


title: Case T-101/09: Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Maftah v Commission (Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Out of time — No force majeure — No excusable error — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/19

         Order of the General Court of 1 September 2011 — Maftah v Commission
   (Case T-101/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Out of time - No force majeure - No excusable error - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Elmabruk Maftah (South Harrow, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Grieves, Barrister, and A. McMurdie, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Paasivirta and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Intervening party on behalf of the defendant: Council of the European Union, represented by R. Szostak, G. Étienne, M.-M. Josephides and E. Finnegan, Agents

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1330/2008 of 22 December 2008 amending for the 103rd time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban (OJ 2008 L 345, p. 60), in so far as it concerns the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible;

               2.

               Mr Elmabruk Maftah shall bear his own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission;

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Case F-88/15: Action brought on 15 June 2015 — ZZ/Commission

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/61

         Action brought on 15 June 2015 — ZZ/Commission
   (Case F-88/15)
   (2015/C 279/79)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to the next higher grade (AD 12) as part of the European Commission’s promotion procedure for the year 2014 and claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 including to the list published on 14 November 2014 and the response of the appointing authority to the complaint dated 5 March 2015;

               —

               Grant the sum of EUR 10  000 on the basis of the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings.


title: Case T-92/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Philips v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture — Equal treatment — Method of calculating the fine — Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products — Taking into account the average value of sales recorded during the infringement — Taking into account the overall turnover of the group — Proportionality — Duration of the administrative procedure)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2015 — Philips v Commission
   (Case T-92/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Global market for cathode ray tubes for television sets and computer monitors - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Agreements and concerted practices on pricing, market sharing, capacity and production - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability to a parent company of an infringement committed by a joint venture - Equal treatment - Method of calculating the fine - Taking into account the value of sales of cathode ray tubes through transformed products - Taking into account the average value of sales recorded during the infringement - Taking into account the overall turnover of the group - Proportionality - Duration of the administrative procedure))
   (2015/C 346/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands) (represented by: J. de Pree and S. Molin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by C. Hödlmayr, M. Kellerbauer and P. Van Nuffel, subsequently by M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and A. Biolan, and lastly by M. Kellerbauer, P. Van Nuffel and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes) and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fines imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


18.12.1999            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 366/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-211/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-121/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/50)                                                   (1999/C 366/53)
By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of        By order of 6 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-211/99: Commission of the              from the register of Case C-121/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                         (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-100/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-227/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/51)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/54)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 8 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-100/98: Kingdom of Sweden v            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Council of the European Union.                                     from the register of Case C-227/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ No C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-44/99 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-200/99 (1)
                        (1999/C 366/52)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/55)
By order of 4 October 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 13 October 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-44/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.                            from the register of Case C-200/99: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                         and Northern Ireland.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 31 March 2004 in Case C-51/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Löbau): Nicoleta Maria Georgescu (Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 — Countries for which the application of the abolition of the visa requirement is suspended until a further decision of the Council — Extent of the suspension — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/28

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 31 March 2004
   in Case C-51/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Löbau): Nicoleta Maria Georgescu (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 - Countries for which the application of the abolition of the visa requirement is suspended until a further decision of the Council - Extent of the suspension - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   (2004/C 118/51)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-51/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Amtsgericht Löbau (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu - on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt from that requirement (OJ 2001 L 81, p. 1) - the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Amtsgericht Löbau (Germany) by order of 21 October 2002.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Case T-421/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission (Competition — Abuse of dominant position — Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market — Decision establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC — Article 86(3) EC — Obligation to state reasons — Proportionality — Freedom of contract)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — DEI v Commission
   (Case T-421/09 RENV) (1)

   ((Competition - Abuse of dominant position - Greek market for the supply of lignite and Greek wholesale electricity market - Decision establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of an infringement of Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 82 EC - Article 86(3) EC - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality - Freedom of contract))
   (2017/C 038/29)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Christoforou, Agent, and A. Oikonomou, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 6244 final of 4 August 2009 establishing specific measures to correct the anti-competitive effects of the infringement identified in the Commission Decision of 5 March 2008 on the granting or maintaining in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights in favour of DEI for the extraction of lignite.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou AE (DEI), in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Declares that the Hellenic Republic is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case T-463/15: Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/32

         Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
   (Case T-463/15)
   (2015/C 337/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


21.10.2000            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 302/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-231/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/52)                                                       (2000/C 302/56)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-231/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v Republic of Austria.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/00 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-495/99 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/53)                                                       (2000/C 302/57)
By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 6 July 2000 the President of the Court of Justice of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-34/00: Commission of the European            register of Case C-495/99: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-432/97 (1)
                       (2000/C 302/54)                                                       (2000/C 302/58)
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      By order of 7 July 2000, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the register of Case C-342/99 (reference for a preliminary          the removal from the register of Case C-432/97: Commission
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): New Yorker S.H.K.            of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Jeans GmbH v SIMPLEX-1000ST.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-271/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case   C-504/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/59)
                       (2000/C 302/55)
                                                                    By order of 11 July 2000, the President of the Sixth Chamber
By order of 28 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice      of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-271/99:
the register of Case C-504/99 Commission of the European            Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                   Belgium.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Action brought on 27 November 1995 by Telecom Italia SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-215/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 46/ 15
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                     of 17 November 1995                                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-330/94 Salt Union Ltd . v. Commission of the                                   of 12 December 1995
                   European Communities ( 1 )                       in Case T-203/95 R, Bernard Connolly v. Commission of
             (Intervention — Rules on Languages)                                      the European Communities
                          ( 96/C 46/28 )                                                       ( 96/C 46/29 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-203/95 R: Bernard Connolly, an official of the
                                                                    Commission of the European Communities, resident at
In Case T-330/94 Salt Union Ltd, established in Cheshire            Everberg ( Belgium ), represented by Jacques Sambon and
( United Kingdom ), represented by Jonathan Scott and Craig         Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten, both of the Brussels Bar, with an
Pouncey, Solicitors, with an address for service in                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 8                      Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Reinsheim, against the Commission
Boulevard Royal , v. Commission of the European                     of the European Communities (Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia
Communities ( Agents : Nicholas Khan and Jean-Paul                  and Julian Currall ) — application for interim measures
Keppenne ) — application, first, for the annulment of the           prohibiting the Commission from communicating to the
decision contained in a letter of 5 August 1994 in which the        press information concerning the disciplinary proceedings
Commission informed the applicant that it had found no              brought against the applicant whilst those proceedings are
ground for proposing any appropriate measures within the            in progress as well as information concerning his career,
meaning of Article 93 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty with regard to the     personality, opinions or health, and ordering the
Netherlands regional aid scheme 'Subsidieregeling regionale         Commission to take all necessary measures to ensure that no
investeringsprojecten 1991 ' and, secondly, for an order that       such information is made public, and, secondly, ordering the
the Community should indemnify the applicant for the                Commission to pay the applicant a periodic penalty of Bfr
damage it considers it has suffered as a result of that              100 000 for every breach committed as from the date of the
decision, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber,               interim order — the President of the Court of First Instance
extended composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,         has made an order on 12 December 1995 , the operative part
B. Vesterdorf, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and A. Potocki, Judges,        of which is as follows ::
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 17 November
 1995 in which it :
                                                                     1 . The Commission is reminded to take all necessary
                                                                         measures to ensure that no information concerning Mr
                                                                         Connolly 's career, personality, opinions or health, likely
 1 . grants Frima BV leave to intervene in support of the                to harm, directly or indirectly, his personal and
     form of order sought by the Commission;                             professional reputation, is disclosed by its staff in
                                                                         contacts with the press or in any other manner.
2 . grants Verein Deutsche Salzindustrie eV leave to
     intervene in support of the form of order sought by Salt       2 . The remainder of the application for interim measures is
                                                                         dismissed.
      Union, in so far as it is based on Article 1 73 of the
      Treaty;
                                                                    3.   Costs are reserved.
 3 . orders a period to be prescribed within which the
      interveners must state in writing the pleas relied on in
     support of the forms of order which they seek;
4 . grants the requests submitted by Frima BV and Verein
      Deutsche Salzindustrie eV to be authorized to use Dutch
                                                                    Action brought on 27 November 1995 by Telecom Italia
      and German, respectively, in the oral procedure;
                                                                     SpA against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
 5 . reserves the costs .                                                                   ( Case T-2 15/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/30 )
 (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- No C 46/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      17 . 2 . 96
Instance of the European Communities on 27 November                  Instance of the European Communities on 7 December
1995 by Telecom Italia SpA, whose registered office is in            1995 by Luigi Ronchi, residing in Luxembourg, represented
Turin, represented by Mario Sanino, Mario Siragusa, and              by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel ,
Antonio Lirosi, of the Rome Bar, and Giulio Cesare Rizza of          of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
the Siracusa Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue
at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen .                        Glesener.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul Commission Decision 95/489/EC of 4 October
     1995 concerning the conditions imposed on the second            — annul the decision of the Commission rejecting the
    operator of GSM radiotelephony services in Italy,                     applicant's request for assistance of 30 January 1995 ,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                             — order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token
                                                                          sum of ECU 1 by way of compensation for the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           non-material damage suffered as a result of the
                                                                          dereliction of duty committed by it in relation to
In the view of the applicant, the contested decision should be            him,
annulled inasmuch as it infringes the right to a fair hearing of
the applicant, it applies erroneously or wrongly Articles 86
and 90 of the Treaty, it infringes Article 190 of the Treaty         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
and the statement of reasons is manifestly defective with
regard to the operative part of the provision . Moreover, the        Pleas in law and main arguments
corrective measures imposed are unlawful and manifestly
illogical.
                                                                     The applicant states that on 30 January 1 995 he submitted a
In particular, as regards Article 86 of the Treaty, the              request, pursuant to Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of
applicant criticizes the erroneous application of the concept        officials, for the assistance of the Commission in restoring
of 'single economic entity', the illogical definition of the         his reputation and good name in consequence of the
relevant market and the erroneous reference by the                   publication of a book containing certain statements about
 Commission to the alleged indications revealing the                 him which he regards as libellous and defamatory . By note
dominant position of Telecom/Telecom Italia Mobile ( TIM )           of 27 February 1995 the appointing authority informed the
in the context of the analysis of the alleged abusive                applicant that, before deciding on the measures to be
conduct.                                                              adopted, if any, it proposed to carry out an investigation
                                                                     aimed at verifying whether or not the allegations contained
 As regards Articles 86, 90 and 190 of the Treaty, the                in the book were well-founded . On 17 July 1995 , having
 applicant criticizes the erroneous conclusion that there            received no response to his request, the applicant lodged a
 existed both special rights in respect of Telecom/TIM and a          complaint against the implied decision rejecting his request.
 national measure for determining the hypothetical                    That complaint was likewise rejected by an implied
 distortion of competition and the relevant harmful effect on         decision .
 trade between the Member States . If such a national
 measure does exist, the applicant argues that it is not              In contesting that decision, the applicant pleads, first of all ,
 contrary to Article 86 of the Treaty. Finally, Telecom               the complete absence of any statement of reasons . He
 maintains that the abuse alleged by the Commission is of no          maintains, moreover, that the decision was taken in breach
 significance either logically or economically and is in any          of the duty to provide assistance as laid down in Article 24 of
 event unsubstantiated .                                              the Staff Regulations, inasmuch as, first, the institution
                                                                      provided no information enabling the applicant to verify
 Finally, the applicant claims that Article 190 of the Treaty         whether the investigation had actually been carried out and,
 has been infringed inasmuch as the grounds for the decision          second, it took no steps to defend? in public and by name its
 are inconsistent with the corrective measures imposed on             official .
 the Italian Government .
                                                                      As regards the claim for damages, the applicant asserts that
                                                                      the defendant failed to fulfil its duty to provide assistance by
                                                                       omitting to adopt, on its own initiative, such measures as
                                                                      would restore his honour and dignity; that dereliction of
 Action brought on 7 December 1995 by Luigi Ronchi                     duty was aggravated by the rejection of his formal request
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  for the adoption of such measures . He considers, moreover,
                        ( Case T-223/95 )                              that, while his professional reputation has already been
                                                                       compromised by the publication of the book in question, the
                           ( 96/C 46/31 )                              Commission's failure to take the appropriate measures has
                                                                       aggravated the non-material damage which he has
                (Language of the case: French)                         suffered .
  An action against the Commission of the European
  Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-37/10 P: Appeal brought on 28 January 2010 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-55/08, De Nicola v EIB

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/42

         Appeal brought on 28 January 2010 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 30 November 2009 in Case F-55/08, De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-37/10 P)
   2010/C 80/67
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Isola, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               order the European Investment Bank (EIB) to pay the costs of the proceedings, together with interest, currency revaluation to be taken into account in fixing the amount awarded.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 30 November 2009. That judgment dismissed the action brought by Mr De Nicola for (i) annulment of the decision by which the EIB rejected his appeal seeking a review of his assessment for 2006 and annulment of the EIB’s decision on the promotions for 2006, in so far as Mr De Nicola was not promoted; (ii) annulment of Mr De Nicola’s staff report for 2006; (iii) a declaration that Mr De Nicola had been the victim of psychological harassment; (iv) an order that the EIB pay compensation for the damage purportedly sustained as a result of that harassment; and (v) annulment of the decision refusing to meet the cost of certain medical expenses for laser therapy treatment.
   Mr De Nicola relies on the following pleas in law in support of his appeal:

               —

               The CST declined, unlawfully, to give a ruling and, when it did not completely forget the subject-matter of the action (for example, the second and third arguments in the application for annulment; the refusal of the Appeals Committee to rule on the merits; and so on), deliberately decided to examine only some of the pleas;

               —

               The CST did not rule on Mr De Nicola’s request that it examine whether the conduct of his superiors was lawful in the light of the evaluation criteria adopted by the EIB. Moreover, it incorrectly attributed to other employees the harassment of which Mr De Nicola complained, whereas he attributes this directly and solely to the EIB;

               —

               By way of ground of appeal, Mr De Nicola also refers to the refusal of the requests for production of evidence and the reversal of the burden of proof, as well as the failure to state reasons. On that last point, it is argued that the CST failed to state the reasons relating to many decisive issues, or gave contradictory and/or illogical reasons. In that connection, Mr De Nicola refers, in particular, to the refusal to apply Article 41 of the Staff Regulations, and the rejection of the request for annulment of the staff report for 2006;

               —

               Lastly, Mr De Nicola submits that, as the contract of employment is a private-law contract, the necessary pre-conditions are not met for the application by analogy to his case of the rules and procedural conditions for Union officials under public-law contracts.


title: Case C-144/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany)) — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch (Jurisdiction in civil matters — Articles 22(2) and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat to adjudicate upon disputes relating to the validity of decisions of the company’s organs — Scope — Action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that a contract is void on account of alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the contract — Lis pendens — Obligation on any court other than the court first seised to stay proceedings — Scope)

text:
               2.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany)) — Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch
   (Case C-144/10) (1)

   (Jurisdiction in civil matters - Articles 22(2) and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat to adjudicate upon disputes relating to the validity of decisions of the company’s organs - Scope - Action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that a contract is void on account of alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the contract - Lis pendens - Obligation on any court other than the court first seised to stay proceedings - Scope)
   2011/C 194/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Kammergericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

      Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Kammergericht Berlin — Interpretation of Articles 22(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat over disputes concerning the validity of the decisions of its organs — Applicability of that exclusive jurisdiction rule to an action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that an agreement is void on account of the alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the agreement

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings in which a company pleads that a contract cannot be relied upon against it because a decision of its organs which led to the conclusion of the contract is supposedly invalid on account of infringement of its statutes.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-151/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2008 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission (Dumping — Reimbursement of anti-dumping duties — Annulment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — No need to adjudicate — Rules governing costs)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2008 — Aluminium Silicon Mill Products v Commission
   (Case T-151/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Reimbursement of anti-dumping duties - Annulment of the regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty - No need to adjudicate - Rules governing costs)
   (2008/C 92/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aluminium Silicon Mill Products GmbH (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Stancanelli and T. Scharf, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1183 final of 3 April 2006 rejecting in part the applications for reimbursement of anti-dumping duties levied on imports of silicon originating in Russia
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case T-115/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Dennekamp v Parliament (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme — Refusal to grant access — Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual — Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 — Transfer of personal data — Conditions concerning the necessity of having the data transferred and the risk that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/45

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Dennekamp v Parliament
   (Case T-115/13) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme - Refusal to grant access - Exception relating to the protection of privacy and the integrity of the individual - Article 8(b) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 - Transfer of personal data - Conditions concerning the necessity of having the data transferred and the risk that the data subject’s legitimate interests might be prejudiced))
   (2015/C 302/57)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gert-Jan Dennekamp (Giethoorn, Netherlands) (represented by: O. Brouwer, T. Oeyen and E. Raedts, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by H. Leppo, acting as Agent); Kingdom of Sweden (represented initially by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, S. Johannesson and U. Persson, and subsequently by: A. Falk, C. Meyer-Seitz, U. Persson, E. Karlsson, L. Swedenborg, C. Hagerman and F. Sjövall, acting as Agents); and European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: A. Buchta and U. Kallenberger, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Decision A(2012) 13180 of the European Parliament of 11 December 2012 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for annulment of Decision A(2012) 13180 of the European Parliament of 11 December 2012 refusing to grant Mr Gert-Jan Dennekamp access to certain documents relating to the affiliation of certain Members of the European Parliament to the additional pension scheme in so far as access is thereby refused to the names of the 65 Members of the European Parliament who were applicants in the cases giving rise to the order of 15 December 2010 in Albertini and Others and Donnelly v Parliament (T-219/09 and T-326/09, ECR, EU:T:2010:519) and to the judgment of 18 October 2011 in Purvis v Parliament (T-439/09, ECR, EU:T:2011:600);

               2.

               Annuls Decision A(2012) 13180 in so far as access is thereby refused to the names of Members participating in the additional pension scheme of the European Parliament who, as members of the Parliament’s plenary, actually took part in the votes on that additional pension scheme held on 24 April 2007, 22 April 2008 and 10 May 2012;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by Mr Dennekamp;

               5.

               Orders Mr Dennekamp to bear one quarter of his own costs;

               6.

               Orders the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS), the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 114, 20.4.2013.


title: Case C-150/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — C v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-150/13)
   2013/C 171/34
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Question referred

   What limits do Article 4 of Council Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 3 and 7 thereof, impose on the method of assessing the credibility of a declared sexual orientation, and are those limits different from the limits which apply to assessment of the credibility of the other grounds of persecution and, if so, in what respect?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: Case C-562/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris (France) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Paris (France) lodged on 4 November 2015 — Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v ITM Alimentaire International SASU
   (Case C-562/15)
   (2016/C 027/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d'appel de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS

      Respondent: ITM Alimentaire International SASU

      Questions referred

               1.

               Whether Article 4(a) and (c) of Directive 2006/114/EC of 12 December 2006 (1) …, which provides that ‘[c]omparative advertising shall … be permitted when … it is not misleading [and] it objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services’, must be interpreted as meaning that a comparison of the price of goods sold by retail outlets is permitted only if the goods are sold in shops having the same format or of the same size;

               2.

               Whether the fact that the shops whose prices are compared are of different sizes and formats constitutes material information within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (2) that must necessarily be brought to the knowledge of the consumer;

               3.

               If so, to what degree and/or via what medium must that information be disseminated to the consumer?

      (1)  Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21).

      (2)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case C-584/08: Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium)) — Real Madrid Football Club, Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham, Raul Gonzalez Blanco, Ronaldo Luiz Nazario de Lima, Luis Filipe Madeira Caeiro, Futebol Club Do Porto S.A.D., Victor Baia, Ricardo Costa, Diego Ribas da Cunha, P.S.V. N.V., Imari BV, Juventus Football Club SPA v Sporting Exchange Ltd, William Hill Credit Limited, Victor Chandler (International) Ltd, BWIN International Ltd (Betandwin), Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd, Ladbroke Belgium S.A., Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd, Global Entertainment Ltd

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium)) — Real Madrid Football Club, Zinedine Zidane, David Beckham, Raul Gonzalez Blanco, Ronaldo Luiz Nazario de Lima, Luis Filipe Madeira Caeiro, Futebol Club Do Porto S.A.D., Victor Baia, Ricardo Costa, Diego Ribas da Cunha, P.S.V. N.V., Imari BV, Juventus Football Club SPA v Sporting Exchange Ltd, William Hill Credit Limited, Victor Chandler (International) Ltd, BWIN International Ltd (Betandwin), Ladbrokes Betting and Gaming Ltd, Ladbroke Belgium S.A., Internet Opportunity Entertainment Ltd, Global Entertainment Ltd
   (Case C-584/08) (1)

   2009/C 141/73

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 September 2004 in Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Remuneration — Travelling expenses — Amendment of the method of calculation — Second action relating to different years — Res judicata — Absence of material capable of calling in question the judgment delivered — Application manifestly unfounded)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/20

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 22 September 2004
   in Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Remuneration - Travelling expenses - Amendment of the method of calculation - Second action relating to different years - Res judicata - Absence of material capable of calling in question the judgment delivered - Application manifestly unfounded)
   (2004/C 314/50)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), and the 49 other officials named in an annex to the order, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and V. Joris, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the Commission's decision amending, for the years 1993, 1994 and 1995, the method used in calculating the annual expenses of travelling to Greece as regards the itinerary via Brindisi and also annulment of the applicants' reimbursement statements implementing that decision, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Action brought on 31 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-265/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 269/21
     with Community law, even though neither company A,               measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
     company B or company C is itself seeking to exercise any         them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
     rights under Community law, and even if an                       prescribed for doing so . That period expired on 30 June
     interpretation of national legislation which would               1994 without the Kingdom of Belgium having brought into
     comply with Community law would have the effect of               force the necessary measures .
     giving relief where the business of company C consisted
     mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries                  (') OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 33 .
     established outside the EC/EEA ? Or does Article 5 have
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 10 .
     the consequence only that the national legislation,              (>) OJ No L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 25
     despite its interpretation, takes effect subject to the
     requirements of Community law in a case where these
     requirements are in point ?
                                                                      Action brought on 5 August 1996 by the French Republic
                                                                                against the European Parliament
Action brought on 31 July 1996 by the Commission of the                                        ( Case C-267/96 )
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/44 )
                          Case C-265 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 269/43 )
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   5 August 1 996 by the French Republic, represented by Marc
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            Perrin de Brichambaut, Director of Legal Affairs at the
31 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs , and Denys Wibaux, Secretary
Communities, represented by A. X. Lewis, acting as Agent,              for Foreign Affairs at the same ministry, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French
Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 Embassy, 9 boulevard du Prince Henri .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,             — declare null and void the decision of the European
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 Parliament of 17 July 1 996 ,
      comply with :
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      ( a ) Commission Directive 93/64/EEC ( 1 ) of 5 July 1 993
            setting out the implementing measures concerning
            the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
            establishments pursuant to Council Directive
            92/34/EEC ( 2 ) on the marketing of fruit plant            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
            propagating material and fruit plants intended for          Case C-345/95 of 6 November 1995 ( M.
            fruit production and/or by not notifying the
            Commission thereof;                                         (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 7 .
      ( b ) Commission         Directive    93/79/EEC ( 3 )      of
            21 September 1993 setting out additional
            implementing provisions for lists of varieties of fruit
            plant propagating material and fruit plants, as kept
            by suppliers under Council Directive 92/34/EEC,
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-327/95 (')
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 6 of Directive 93/64/EEC and                                       ( 96/C 269/45 )
      Article 3 of Directive 93/79/EEC and under the EC
      Treaty;                                                           By order of 3 May 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                    register of Case C-327/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v. Italian Republic .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
 paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the


title: Case T-125/10: Order of the General Court of 27 June 2011 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/17

         Order of the General Court of 27 June 2011 — Amecke Fruchtsaft v OHIM — Uhse (69 Sex up)
   (Case T-125/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2011/C 238/29
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG (Menden, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and subsequently S. Schäffner and B. Schmidt, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH (Flensburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 January 2010 (Case R 612/2009-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Beate Uhse Einzelhandels GmbH and Amecke Fruchtsaft GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate.

               2.

               The applicant shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


4.3.2000                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 63/21
Ireland has not informed the Commission of any measures                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/98 (1)
taken in order to comply with the abovementioned provisions,
and the Commission is in possession of no other information                                      (2000/C 63/40)
enabling it to conclude that Ireland has taken the necessary
steps. Therefore, the Commission is compelled to assume that             By order of 30 November 1999 the President of the Court of
Ireland has not yet taken such measures and that it has thus             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of Protocol 28 to       from the register of Case-235/98 (reference for a preliminary
the EEA Agreement, taken in conjunction with Article 300(7)              ruling from l’Areios Pagos): Panagis Neofytos Pythagoras Pafitis
EC.                                                                      and Others v Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados and Others.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-122/97 (1)
                           (2000/C 63/39)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-93/99 (1)
By order of 18 October 1999 the President of the Court of                                        (2000/C 63/41)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-122/97: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      By order of 6 December 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case-93/99: Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.                                               Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.