title: Case T-117/08: Action brought on 11 March 2008 — Italy v Commission and EESC

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/26

         Action brought on 11 March 2008 — Italy v Commission and EESC
   (Case T-117/08)
   (2008/C 116/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities, European Economic and Social Committee
   Form of order sought

               —

               The Italian Republic challenges before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities the following acts published by the EESC:

                           (1)

                           vacancy notice No 73/07 concerning a post of Secretary-general in the Secretariat of the European Economic and Social Committee, published only in the English, French and German versions of the
                                 Official Journal of the European Union C 316 A of 28 December 2007;

                           (2)

                           corrigendum to the vacancy notice published only in the English, French and German versions of the
                                 Official Journal of the European Union C 25 A of 30 January 2008.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-156/07 Spain v Commission
       (1).
   In addition to infringement of Regulation No 1/58 and Article 290 EC, the applicant submits in particular, on the ground of lack of the requisite competence, infringement of Article 12 EC, Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and a number of provisions of the Staff Regulations of the European Civil Service, as well as a failure to state adequate reasons and misuse of power in the present case.

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007, p. 42.


title: Case T-530/11: Action brought on 7 October 2011 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (CHIVALRY)

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/19

         Action brought on 7 October 2011 — Chivas v OHIM — Glencairn Scotch Whisky (CHIVALRY)
   (Case T-530/11)
   2011/C 362/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Chivas Holdings (IP) Ltd (Renfrewshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Carboni, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Glencairn Scotch Whisky Co. Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom)

      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 14 July 2011 in case R 2334/2010-1, and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and

               —

               Order the defendant and any intervening parties in this appeal to bear their own costs and those of the applicant, incurred for these proceedings and those of the appeal procedure before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHIVALRY’, for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6616593

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1293610 of the figurative mark ‘CHIVALRY’, for goods in class 33; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2468527 of the figurative mark ‘CHIVALRY SPECIAL RESERVE SCOTCH WHISKY’, for goods in class 33; Non-registered United Kingdom trade mark of the word ‘CHIVALRY’, used in the course of trade in respect of ‘Whisky’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 76(1) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly made a finding of fact as to the characteristics of the relevant public and failed to state the reasons for making the said finding; (ii) in the alternative to ground 1, having found that the relevant consumer is ‘particularly brand-conscious and brand-loyal’, incorrectly failed to appreciate that such characteristics would increase the attentiveness of the relevant consumer and accordingly reduce the likelihood of confusion occurring; (iii) failed to take into account of important guidance laid down by the Court of Justice and took the wrong approach when comparing the marks; (iv) wrongly identified the word ‘CHIVALRY’ as the visually dominant element of the earlier mark and incorrectly concluded that the othe5 figurative and word elements play a secondary role; (v) wrongly assumed that the aural comparison of the marks could be approached in the same way as the visual comparison; and (vi) incorrectly assessed likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-167/10: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Requests for quotation — Refusal to grant access — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Admissibility — Exception relating to the protection of the economic policy of the European Union — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of public security — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2012 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-167/10) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Requests for quotation - Refusal to grant access - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Admissibility - Exception relating to the protection of the economic policy of the European Union - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the public interest in the field of public security - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)
   2013/C 26/75
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and C. ten Dam, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 27 January 2010 refusing access to the requests for quotation relating to Lot 3A of tendering procedure DIGIT/PO/2005/113 — ESP-DESIS (OJ 2005/S 252-248566) and (ii) annulment of the Commission’s decision of 11 March 2010 refusing access to requests for quotation relating to all the other lots covered by that tendering procedure, all the lots covered by the tendering procedures DI/0005 ESP (OJ 2001/S 53-036539) and ADMIN/DI/2/PO/2003/192 ESP-DIMA (OJ 2003/S 249-221337) and by Framework Contract BUDG/0101.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Commission of 27 January 2010 refusing access to the requests for quotation relating to Lot 3A of tendering procedure DIGIT/PO/2005/113 — ESP-DESIS;

               2.

               Annuls the Commission’s decision of 11 March 2010 refusing access to requests for quotation relating to all the other lots covered by that tendering procedure, all the lots covered by the tendering procedures DI/0005 ESP and ADMIN/DI/2/PO/2003/192 ESP-DIMA and by Framework Contract BUDG/0101;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


24.10.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 327/29
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                             The applicants further claim breach of the principle of
                                                                     non-discrimination, in that in the regulations adopted to
                                                                     combat the difficulties caused by tropical storms in the
                                                                     Caribbean the Commission stated that the purpose of
                                                                     increasing the tariff quota was not only to ensure an
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  adequate supply for the Community market but also to
                                                                     compensate traders forming associations of or directly
                                                                     representing the producers of damaged bananas. Inasmuch
                                                                     as Somalian bananas have not been given similar
                                                                     consideration, it must be held that the applicants have
The applicants in these proceedings, two firms belonging             suffered blatant discrimination since as a result of
to the DE NADAI group and involved in importing                      comparable exceptional circumstances they have suffered
Somalian bananas, challenge the Commission's refusal to              the loss of a large proportion of the bananas needed for
adapt the tariff quota for the fourth quarter of 1997 and            their own normal imports which they cannot offset by
for each of the first two quarters of 1998, pursuant to              access to the dollar zone through the Commission's refusal
Article 16(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 (2),             to provide for an adequate increase to the tariff quota.
so as to take account of the fact that fewer Somalian
bananas were available as a result of the floods which at
that period affected the areas of Somalia where the
principal banana plantations are situated.                           Lastly, the applicants allege misuse of powers in that the
                                                                     Commission failed to consider the factual grounds.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 142, 12.6.1993, p. 6.
In the contested decision the defendant denies that                  (2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
Article 16(3) is applicable for two reasons. First, while
application of that article requires that there should be a
shortfall in supplies to the Community market, the
competent department of the Commission has not
established any reduction in banana imports. Second,
because of unstable conditions in the infrastructures
relating to the loading, transport and export of the
products, it is not possible to attribute with any certainty
the reduced availability of Somalian bananas to the floods.          Action brought on 3 August 1998 by ALCE s.r.l. against
                                                                            the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-120/98)
In support of their claims, the applicants first of all allege                                (98/C 327/52)
infringement of Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 404/
93. They consider in this respect that the word import' in
this article is meant to refer to the effect of exceptional
circumstances on imports of traditional ACP bananas only                             (Language of the case: Italian)
and not on imports generally. In their view, by means of
the application of Article 16(3), the Commission can both
remedy the supply-side deficit which occurs whenever
Community or traditional ACP production is reduced
because of unforeseen events and also enable operators               An action against the Commission of the European
who habitually trade in the areas or countries affected by           Communities was brought before the Court of First
those events to have temporary access to dollar-zone                 Instance of the European Communities on 3 August 1998
bananas. In any event, even if the Commission intended to            by ALCE s.r.l., represented by Fabio De Ciuceis, of the
refer to Community or ACP bananas, it should be noted                Salerno Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
that in accordance with Article 16(3) it is not necessary to         the Chambers of Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.
establish that imports have actually fallen but rather that
there are exceptional circumstances liable to affect
imports. So far as regards structural shortages of Somalian
exports, the applicants maintain that, contrary to the               The applicant claims that the Court should:
defendant's arguments, it is possible to distinguish how far
the floods were responsible for reducing possible exports
in comparison with the exports which might have been
achieved if those events had not occurred, by taking as a
basis exports from Somalia in 1996 before the floods took            Ð in the main, grant the application and consequently
place. Finally, they also allege infringement of Article 16(3)           declare the product called Lyostart' to be prepared
in that the procedure laid down in Article 27 was not used               culture media for developing micro-organisms' and
in this case.                                                            thus classify it under CN code 3821 00 00;
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/30              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.10.98
Ð in the alternative, accord the product favourable tariff          The applicant claims that the Court should:
    arrangements on the ground of its particular use;
                                                                    Ð annul the contested provisions and, primarily, the
                                                                        decision of 17 October 1997, whereby the
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of these                        Commission transferred him of its own motion to
    proceedings.                                                        another division;
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant ECU
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     10 000 by way of compensation for non-material
                                                                        damage;
The applicant is the importer of a product called                   Ð order the Commission to pay all expenses and costs
Lyostart', which is used exclusively as a culture medium               incurred in the proceedings.
and is thus classified under CN code 3821 00 00. In
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1160/98 of 2 June 1998
concerning the classification of certain goods in the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Combined Nomenclature (1), the defendant classified
certain products, including the product in issue, under CN
code 0404 90 21, on the ground that they could not be               The applicant, who is an official on the scientific and
considered to be culture media for the development of               technical staff of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra
micro-organisms.                                                    contests a number of decisions by means of which he was
                                                                    transferred to another unit, removed from his duties as
                                                                    head of security for Buildings Nos 46, 46d and 32b and
                                                                    from the Centre's Committee for radioactive and fissile
The applicant submits that the contested decision was               material (hereinafter the Committee').
taken without its being heard and, moreover, without
seeking the opinion required by Article 190 of the EC
Treaty. Moreover, classification under CN code                      The applicant puts forward the following pleas in support
0404 90 21 expressly refers to agri-food products such as           of his claims:
milk and its by-products, while heading 3821 00 00 covers
prepared culture media in which micro-organisms required
for scientific purposes or in industry can find nourishment         Ð Failure to state adequate reasons for the contested
and multiply. On that point, it is important to stress that             measures. Despite the fact that the contested decisions
there is no alternative to the use of milk by-products for              had a considerable impact on the applicant's
the industrial development of lactic ferments.                          administrative situation, they consist only of an
                                                                        operative part, baldly stated. In particular, the reasons
                                                                        for removing the applicant from the Committee are
(1) OJ L 160, 4.6.1998, p. 20.
                                                                        obscure and incomprehensible.
                                                                    Ð Misuse of powers. The intention underlying the
                                                                        applicant's removal was to get rid of an official whose
                                                                        legitimate expectation Ð of being appointed head of
                                                                        the unit of which he had once been in charge Ð had
                                                                        been frustrated and who, through no fault of his own,
Action brought on 10 August 1998 by Enrico Sabbioni                     had become a source of embarrassment and a living
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   reproach.
                       (Case T-129/98)
                         (98/C 327/53)                              Ð Breach of the safety regulations. Closure of the
                                                                        laboratories in Buildings Nos 46, 46d and 32b and
                                                                        the applicant's removal from his duties as official
                                                                        responsible for security constitute a specific
                (Language of the case: Italian)                         infringement of the safety regulations governed by
                                                                        agreement and those in force at the Centre. Closure of
                                                                        those buildings took place without any advance
                                                                        notification and with absolutely no regard for the
An action against the Commission of the European                        research in progress; the standing closure systems were
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       replaced and it was thus impossible for security
Instance of the European Communities on 10 August                       officers to ensure that the operation was properly
1998 by Enrico Sabbioni, represented by Giuseppe                        monitored.
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2001 in Joined Cases C-396/99 and C-397/99: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 90/388/EEC and 96/2/EC — Market for telecommunications services — Mobile and personal communications)

text:
8.12.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/3
ley, and subsequently L.A. Farrell) — application for a declar-             (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
ation that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to                before that court between Pensionskasse für die Angestellten
ensure the correct implementation of Articles 2(d), 11 and 12               der Barmer Ersatzkasse VVaG and Hans Menauer — the
of Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on                      interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to
the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative               120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC
provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of                 to 143 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes                 F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,
(OJ 1986 L 358, p. 1) and by failing to provide for an adequate             J.-P. Puissochet and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tiz-
system of penalties for non-compliance with the requirements                zano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
of Directive 86/609/EEC, Ireland has failed to comply with the              judgment on 9 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
Directive, in particular Article 25 thereof, and has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular Article 5         Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty
thereof (now Article 10 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                    have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) must be
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr,                interpreted to the effect that bodies such as German pension
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Tim-                   funds (‘Pensionskassen’) entrusted with providing benefits under an
mermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 occupational pension scheme are required to ensure equal treatment
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 October 2001,                 between men and women, even if the employees discriminated against
the operative part of which is as follows:                                  on the basis of sex have, as against those directly liable, namely their
                                                                            employers in their capacity as parties to their employment contracts,
1.     By failing to adopt all the measures necessary to ensure the         a protected right in the event of insolvency that excludes all
       correct implementation of Articles 2(d), 11 and 12 of                discrimination.
       Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 on the
       approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions of the Member States regarding the protection of          (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes,
       and by failing to provide for an adequate system of penalties for
       non-compliance with the requirements of Directive
       86/609/EEC, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       the Directive, in particular Article 25 thereof, and under the
       EC Treaty, in particular Article 5 thereof (now Article 10 EC);
2.     Ireland is ordered to pay the costs.                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.                                                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2001
                                                                            in Joined Cases C-396/99 and C-397/99: Commission of
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                          of 9 October 2001                                 Directives 90/388/EEC and 96/2/EC — Market for telecom-
                                                                            munications services — Mobile and personal communi-
in Case C-379/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                                                       cations)
from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Pensionskasse für die
Angestellten der Barmer Ersatzkasse VVaG v Hans Menau-                                                 (2001/C 348/06)
                                  er (1)
(Equal pay for men and women — Occupational pensions                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
— Pension funds entrusted with carrying out the employer’s
obligation as regards payment of a supplementary pension —                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          Survivor’s pension)                                                   in the European Court Reports)
                            (2001/C 348/05)
                     (Language of the case: German)                         In Joined Cases C-396/99 and C-397/99: Commission of the
                                                                            European Communities (Agents: B. Doherty and D. Triantafyl-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      lou) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: N. Dafniou and S. Chala) —
                     in the European Court Reports)                         application for a declaration that, by failing to take, within the
                                                                            prescribed period, all the measures necessary to comply with
                                                                            Article 2(1) (Case C-396/99) and Article 2(2) (Case C-397/99)
In Case C-379/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                  of Commission Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996
EC from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Federal Labour Court)                     amending Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and
 ---pagebreak--- C 348/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8.12.2001
personal communications (OJ 1996 L 20, p. 59), in conjunc-                   (Agents: E. De Persio and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
tion with the second and third paragraphs of Article 3a of                   annulment of the Commission decision, notified to the Italian
Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on                           Republic by letter SG(99) D/6463 of 6 August 1999, published
competition in the markets for telecommunications services                   in the Official Journal of the European Communities of
(OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10) as amended by Directive 96/2/EC, the                  23 October 1999 (OJ 1999 C 306, p. 2), to initiate the
Helenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               procedure under Article 88(2) EC concerning State aid C 64/99
Treaty and those Directives — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     (ex NN 68/99) — Italyl — granted to undertakings in the
composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,                   Tirrenia di Navigazione group, in so far as that decision rules
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann                    on the suspension of the aid in question — the Court,
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, and J.N. Cunha Rodri-                composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
gues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                      F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2001,                Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
in which it:                                                                 L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                             Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
                                                                             Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,       9 October 2001, in which it:
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      to comply with Article 2(1) and (2) of Commission Directive
      96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 amending Directive                          1.    Dismisses the application by the Commission of the European
      90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal communi-                       Communities, based on Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure
      cations, in conjunction with the second and third paragraphs of              of the Court of Justice, for a declaration that there is no need to
      Article 3a of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June                     adjudicate or that the action is inadmissible;
      1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications
      services, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations       2.    Declares that the proceedings are to continue as to the substance
      under those Directives;                                                      of the case;
                                                                             3.    Reserves the costs.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000, OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 October 2001
                          of 9 October 2001
                                                                             in Case C-441/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-400/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the                       from the Högsta domstolen): Riksskatteverket v Soghra
                     European Communities (1)                                                            Gharehveran (1)
(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid to a maritime                        (Directive 80/987/EEC — Approximation of the laws of the
transport undertaking — Public service contract — Exiting                    Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
aid or new aid — Initiation of the procedure under                           event of the insolvency of their employer — Scope of the
Article 88(2) EC — Obligation to suspend — No need to                        exclusion relating to Sweden provided for in point G of
                   adjudicate or inadmissibility)                            Section I of the Annex to the Directive — Designation of the
                                                                             State as liable to pay guaranteed wage claims — Effect on
                                                                                Directive 80/987/EEC)
                            (2001/C 348/07)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/08)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-400/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted               In Case C-441/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
by P.G. Ferri) v Commission of the European Communities                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Högsta domstolen


title: Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-26/97)

text:
No C 108/22           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5 . 4 . 97
excludes it from the procedure and consequently from the                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
conclusion of renewable four-year contracts in private
tendering procedures ( involving for the first four-year                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period a sum of at least ECU 18 million); in other words,
once the contracts are concluded, they are capable of                   The applicant, who was engaged on 1 December 1994 as
excluding for an indefinite period, as regards those not                a member of the temporary staff in Grade B 3 at the
allowed to participate, the possibility of gaining access to            Commission, challenges the decision to impose on her the
the sector or of continuing to operate in it.                           disciplinary measure of termination of her employment
                                                                        without notice, provided for in Article 50 ( 1 ) of the
The applicant also claims that any purported imposition                 Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
of the condition, for admission to competitive bidding for
                                                                        European Communities ( CEOS ), on the ground that she
the supply of services, that candidates must have a                     had furnished false information as to her qualifications.
subsidiary in Community countries other than that in
which they are established infringes the Community rules
on services and contracts. The applicant states that, at a              The applicant alleges, in the first place, infringement of
meeting with DG VIII, the Director made it clear that, in               Articles 12 and 50 of the CEOS and the third paragraph
adopting the contested decision, importance had been                    of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest
attached to the fact that the applicant had not indicated in            error of assessment. She points out, in this regard, that she
its application that it had ' branch offices' in Community              fulfils the general and particular qualifications required by
countries. In so far as that requirement may be a                       the vacancy notice even if she did not possess, as she had
manifestation of a new Commission policy, the applicant                 stated in her application form, a secondary school
considers that participation in a tendering procedure for               diploma. The applicant points out that she holds a
the award of a contract cannot have applied to them a                   university degree in the specific field mentioned in the
policy adopted by a Commission department which is not                  vacancy notice and can show evidence of professional
clearly set out in the notice of tender.                                experience in excess of the minimum required. She
                                                                        therefore concludes that the inaccurate information which
In any event, the applicant considers that a European                   she furnished in her application form did not mislead the
Economic Interest Grouping or a ' dependency thereof in                 Administration as to her professional abilities and that,
which an undertaking has a holding' cannot be regarded                  accordingly, it could not have been a determining factor in
as a subsidiary of that undertaking. It states in that                  her being employed , as the defendant maintains .
connection that, from informal contacts with other firms
participating in the procedure and from information                     The applicant claims, moreover, that the authority
obtained from those responsible for the sector, it has                  empowered to conclude contracts of employment cannot
emerged that a number of those prequalified were selected               terminate her contract on the ground that a diploma is
on the basis that they had met the requirement of what                  missing, since it is not competent to verify the conditions
DG VIII has defined as ' branch offices' by setting up a                governing access to the selection procedure for temporary
grouping of that kind shortly before submitting their                   staff.
applications.
(') OJ No C 177, 20 . 6 . 1996 , p . 9 .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea
   against the Commission of the European Communities                                           ( Case T-26/97 )
                          ( Case T-21/97)                                                         97/C 108/45 )
                           ( 97/C 108/44
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 6 February
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 January                      1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands),
 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea, residing at Brussels, represented              represented by W. Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the
 by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel                 Amsterdam and Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an
 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N.
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de                          Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe .
 Cessange .
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul     the    decision     of      the Director-General   of       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of
     Personnel and Administration of 7 May 1996                               8 January 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
     terminating the applicant's contract as a member of                      respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
     the temporary staff on 1 September 1996 ,                                countries and territories P ),
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 108/23
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Communities on 27 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands ), represented by W.
                                                                        Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the Amsterdam and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Loesch, 1 1 Rue
This case is related to the judgment of the Court of First              Goethe .
Instance of 14 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-480/93
and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills NV and Others v.
Commission of the European Communities [ 1995] ECR II                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
2305 . The Commission has introduced new safeguard
measures on account of persisting difficulties on the
market in rice, which the applicant is now challenging.                 — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97 of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                         17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
those adduced in the abovementioned cases .
                                                                            respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                            countries and territories ('),
(') OJ No L 5 , 9 . 1 . 1997, p . 24 .
                                                                        — order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 27 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
     Mills NV against the Council of the European Union                 By Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97, the Council repealed
                           ( Case T-4 1/97)                             Commission Regulation ( EC) No 21 /97, yet nevertheless
                             ( 97/C 108/46 )
                                                                        adopted the same substantive provisions . The pleas in law
                                                                        and the main arguments are the same as those in Case
                                                                        T-26/97 Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                          European Communities, in which annulment is sought of
                                                                        Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              O OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .


title: Case T-309/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Acegas v Commission (State aid — Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — Acegas v Commission
   (Case T-309/02) (1)

   (State aid - Scheme of aid granted by the Italian authorities to certain public utilities in the form of tax exemptions and loans at preferential rates - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 180/71
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Acegas-APS SpA, formerly Acqua, Elettricità, Gas e servizi SpA (Acegas) (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: F. Devescovi, F. Ferletic, L. Daniele, F. Spitareli and S. Gobbato, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Acegas-APS SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 23.11.2002.


title: Action brought on 22 January 1999 by Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-25/99)

text:
C 86/32               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 27.3.1999
    from outside the institution who, in the applicant's            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    opinion, had already been pre-selected, regardless of
    the suitability or otherwise of candidates inside the
    institution;
                                                                    The applicants in the present case are Greene King PLC's
                                                                    (GK) tenants at the Fox and Hounds Public House at
                                                                    Kempston in Bedfordshire. GK is a UK brewer and
Ð infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                    wholesaler. The applicants entered into their lease with
    in that the appointing authority did not undertake a
                                                                    GK for a tenancy, which contained an exclusive beer
    detailed comparative examination of candidatures and
                                                                    purchasing agreement in terms which are standard in the
    attributed unlawful decisive importance to the
                                                                    UK, namely a obligation to buy beer exclusively from GK
    recommendations' of the Advisory Committee for
                                                                    or its nominees.
    Selection Procedures;
Ð arbitrariness and manifest error of assessment;                   On 23 May 1997 the applicants requested that the
                                                                    Commission hold that GK, by its network of beer supply
                                                                    agreements in the UK, infringed Article 85 of the EC
Ð misuse of powers and breach of Article 7(1) and                   Treaty. The current application challenges the formal
    Article 27 of the Staff Regulations;                            Commission's rejection of this complaint.
Ð infringement of Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations
                                                                    The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
    and of the principle of non-discrimination;
                                                                    decision on the grounds that the defendant failed
Ð infringement of the principle of transparency of
    administrative measures.                                        Ð properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish
                                                                        the existence of an infringement of Article 85 by GK;
                                                                    Ð to give adequate reasons for its decision rejecting the
                                                                        complaint; and
Action brought on 22 January 1999 by Colin Arthur
Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts against the Commission
                of the European Communities                         Ð properly to evaluate the existence of an infringement
                                                                        of Article 85 by reason of a price fixing cartel in the
                        (Case T-25/99)
                                                                        UK brewing industry operating at wholesale level.
                        (1999/C 86/55)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Action brought on 25 January 1999 by VASA Energy
Instance of the European Communities on 22 January                  GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the
1999 by Colin Arthur Roberts and Valerie Ann Roberts,                                 European Communities
Kempston in Bedfordshire (United Kingdom), represented                                     (Case T-29/99)
by Becket Bedford of the Middle Temple, S. C. I.
Ferdinand and J. Tracy Kelly of Ferdinand Kelly,                                          (1999/C 86/56)
Solicitors, 21 Bennetts Hill, Birmingham B2 5QP (United
Kingdom).
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the decision of the Commission in Case IV/                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
    36.511/F3 Ð Roberts/Greene King dated 12 November               Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
    1998;                                                           1999 by VASA Energy GmbH & Co. KG, Hamburg,
                                                                    represented by Dörte Annemarie Fouquet, Rechtsanwältin,
                                                                    of Messrs Kuhbier & Fouquet, Hamburg, with an address
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of this                     for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs
    application.                                                    Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 Rue Mathias Hardt.


title: Removal from the register of C-204/96

text:
C 7/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
          Removal from the register of C-88/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-183/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/32)                                                        (98/C 7/36)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court            By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/96 (reference for a         removal from the register of Case C-183/96 (Reference for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione           a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
Prima Civile): Igino Mazzola Srl v. Amministrazione delle          Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
Finanze dello Stato.                                               Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-121/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/33)                                       Removal from the register of C-204/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/37)
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-121/96 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht                 removal from the register of Case C-204/96 (reference for
Hamburg): Sultan Bulut v. Deutsche Bundespost.                     a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): E. F.
                                                                   Liebelt GmbH & Co. KG v. Marianne Seidel.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 247, 24. 8. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-128/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/34)                                       Removal from the register of C-278/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/38)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-128/96 (Reference for          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           removal from the register of Case C-278/96 (Reference for
Section)): Trinity Alimentari Italia SpA v. Amministrazione        a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
delle Finanze dello Stato.                                         Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
                                                                   Section)): Vezza SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 26. 10. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-155/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/35)
                                                                            Removal from the register of C-354/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/39)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/96 (Reference for          By order of 23 October 1997, the President of the Sixth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze          of Case C-354/96: Commission of the European
dello Stato.                                                       Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 180, 22. 6. 1996.                                         (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in the case of Quelle Schickedanz AG and Co. v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/M. (Case C-80/96)

text:
 18 . 5 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 145/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                  ( 1 ) states criteria to identify private persons or
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 March 1996                          organizations having a legitimate interest in protecting
in the case of Quelle Schickedanz AG and Co. v.                               consumers, and
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/M.
                          ( Case C-80/96 )                              ( 2 ) allows such private persons or organizations to take
                                                                              action before the courts or before competent
                             ( 96/C 145/04 )                                  administrative bodies for a decision as to whether
                                                                              contractual terms drawn up for general use are
                                                                              unfair ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches
Finanzgericht ( Hessen Finance Court) of 7 March 1 996,                 (') OJ No L 95 , 21 . 4 . 1993 , p . 29 .
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 March
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Quelle
Schickedanz         AG   and       Co . v.   Oberfinanzdirektion
Frankfurt/M. on the following questions :
( a ) Where goods put up in sets for retail sale, comprising a          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di
      brassière and briefs, are classified individually pursuant        Cassazione — First Civil Division — by order of that court
      to the Annex to Commission Regulation ( EC )                      of 4 December 1995 in the case of Provincia Autonoma di
      No 1966/94 of 28 July 1994 concerning the                         Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provinciale di Trento against
      classification of certain goods in the combined                                    Dega di Depretto Gino Snc
      nomenclature ( OJ No L 198 , 30 . 7. 1994, p . 193 ), is                                    ( Case C-83/96 )
      that classification valid, inasmuch as it thereby conflicts
      with Rule 3 ( b ) of the general rules for the                                                ( 96/C 145/06 )
      interpretation of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( b ) If the answer to question ( a ) is in the negative :              European Communities by an order of the First Civil
                                                                        Division of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of 4 December
      Is a set put up for retail sale, comprising a knitted             1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
      brassière and knitted briefs, covered by code number              18 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Provincia Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico
      6212 10 00 because the brassière fails to be regarded, in
      accordance with Rule 3 ( b ) of the said general rules, as        Provinciale di Trento against Dega di Depretto Gino Snc on
      the component which gives the goods their essential               the following question :
      character ?
                                                                        Must Article 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 ) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on
                                                                        the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                        to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
                                                                        for sale to the ultimate consumer (*) be interpreted as
                                                                        meaning that the expression 'established within the
                                                                        Community' used in it, refers only to the seller or refers, in
                                                                        the absence of a seller established within the Community,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                 also to the manufacturer and/or packager ? Must that
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of              provision therefore be taken to mean that, in the absence of
28 February 1996, in the case of The Queen against                      a seller established in the Community, the manufacturer
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:                    and/or the packager must be established in the
         ( 1 ) Consumers' Association; (2 ) Which (?) Ltd               Community ?
                          ( Case C-82/96 )
                            ( 96/C 145/05 )                             (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 28 February 1 996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:            Landessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 February
                                                                        1996 in the case of Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat
( 1 ) Consumers' Association; ( 2 ) Which (?) Ltd, on the
following questions :                                                                                Bayern
                                                                                ( Case C-85 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/07 )
Does Article 7 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (^ impose
obligations on Member States to ensure that national                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
law :                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Ninth Senate of


title: Action brought on 27 June 1996 by SA Promotion Leopold against the European Parliament (Case C-224/96)

text:
No C 269/6                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         Council Directive 91 /156/EEC ( ) of 18 March 1991
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                            amending Directive 75/442/EEC ( 2 ) on waste, or by not
                           ( Case C-222/96 )                                    communicating those measures, the French Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                             ( 96/C 269/ 14 )
                                                                          — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, acting as
Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an address for             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                 in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed in the Directive
Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,                 expired on 1 April 1993 .
Kirchberg.
                                                                          (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              ( 2 ) OJ No L 194 , 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 39 .
                                                                          ( 3 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 92/32/EEC (') of 30 April 1992
      amending for the seventh time Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 )
      on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions relating to the classification,
      packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, or by
      not communicating those measures , the Kingdom of                   Action brought on 27 June 1996 by SA Promotion Leopold
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the                             against the European Parliament
      first-mentioned Directive,                                                                    ( Case C-224/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/ 16 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                27 June 1996 by SA Promotion Leopold, represented by
in Case C-205/96 ( 3 ); the period prescribed by the Directive            Lucien Simont and Paul Alain Foriers , acting as Agents, with
expired on 31 October 1993 .                                              an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of J.
                                                                          Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
(') OJ No L 154 , 5 . 6 . 1992 , p . 1 .
( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1967, p. 234 .           The applicant claims that the Court should :
( 3 ) OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 , p . 7 .
                                                                          — declare the application admissible and well founded
                                                                                and, consequently, rule that the final capital cost of
                                                                                Building D2 for the purposes of the building contract
                                                                                with an option to purchase dated 8 January 1 992 should
                                                                                include the sum of Bfr 23 355 000 by way of interest
Action brought on 26 June 1996 by the Commission of the                         during construction on the part of the initial advance of
      European Communities against the French Republic                          Bfr 1 000 000 000 on that building,
                             Case C-223 /96 )
                               96/C 269/ 15 )                             — as far as is necessary order the Parliament to pay charges
                                                                                calculated on the basis of the amended total and interest
                                                                                at the rate prescribed by law of 8 % from the date it
An action against the French Republic was brought before                        became due ,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 June 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities , represented by Maria Kontou-Durande,                        — order the Parliament to pay the costs .
acting as Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, Avocat, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Gomez de la Cruz, of the Commission 's Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                          The pleas in law and main arguments are based on a contract
                                                                          concluded between the parties which in addition contains an
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              arbitration clause .
— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with


title: Case T-157/01: Action brought on 11 July 2001 by Danske Busvognmænd against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.9.2001             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 275/13
—    Article 34 of the Staff Regulations is not applicable to his      Pleas in law and main arguments
     employment. His probationary period was governed by
     Article 14 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
     Servants of the European Communities and by the
     contract.                                                         In 1995 the Danish Minister for Transport established the
                                                                       company DSB Busser A/S with ownership vested in De Danske
                                                                       Statsbaner (DSB). The company took over buses and other
—    Under Article 5(a) of the contract and Article 14 of the
                                                                       assets from DSB and operated a number of regional and local
     Conditions of Employment, his probationary period was
                                                                       bus routes in Denmark. The company was subsequently
     six months, coming to an end on 30 April 2000.
                                                                       transferred to the Danish Ministry of Transport and changed
                                                                       its name to Combus A/S (’Combus’).
—    He was not dismissed during that six-month probationary
     period.
—    The termination decision did not provide him with the             In connection with the company’s taking over of the operation
     requisite three- months’ notice and was thus made in              of routes, employees of DSB placed on loan to Combus were
     breach of Article 5(b) of the contract and Article 47 of          offered compensation for transferring to employment on a
     the Conditions of Employment. In addition, no or no               group contract basis, this compensation being paid by DSB. In
     full compensation has been paid, in further breach of             1999 the Ministry of Transport granted Combus a secured
     Article 47.                                                       loan of DKK 100 million and made a capital injection of DKK
                                                                       200 million, ostensibly in order to prevent Combus, which
—    In any event the applicant never accepted the proposed,           was in serious financial difficulties, from going into liquidation.
     or any, extension of his probationary period. On the
     contrary, he expressly and repeatedly rejected any exten-
     sion whatsoever.                                                  The applicant, which is a branch organisation of bus compani-
                                                                       es, lodged a complaint with the Commission in November
                                                                       1999 in regard to the above measures.
                                                                       In November 2000 the Danish State informed the Commission
                                                                       that it intended to grant State aid to Combus in connection
Action brought on 11 July 2001 by Danske Busvognmænd                   with the company’s sale to the English-owned company Arriva
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   Danmark A/S. The aid was estimated at DKK 171.8 million. In
                                                                       the contested decision the Commission approved the aid in
                       (Case T-157/01)                                 the respective amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK 171.8
                                                                       million.
                       (2001/C 275/27)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Commission has approved
                  (Language of the Case: Danish)                       unlawful State aid in so far as the conditions in
                                                                       Article 87(3)(c) EC have not been satisfied. Even though the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              Commission can, as a general rule, lawfully apply the frame-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the             work provisions on State aid to undertakings in crisis, those
European Communities on 11 July 2001 by Danske Bus-                    framework provisions cannot depart from the provisions of
vognmænd, Frederiksberg (Denmark), represented by Per Dal-             Article 87 EC. The aid for Combus, it argues, is not in the
skov.                                                                  Community interest and does not serve those objectives which
                                                                       may justify approval of aid as restructuring aid. The aid was in
                                                                       the nature of operating aid or, possibly, rescue aid, but this has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            not been mentioned by the Commission as relevant in this
                                                                       case. Further, the aid had the effect of distorting competition.
—    Primarily: annul the European Commission’s decision
     of 28 March 2001 concerning aid measure
     No NN 127/2000 (State aid for Combus A/S) (SG (2001)              The applicant also claims that the Commission has mistakenly
     D/287297), and rule that the decision is void pursuant to         dealt with only two out of three tranches of State aid in that it
     the first paragraph of Article 231 EC;                            failed to address the obligation which DSB undertook to pay
                                                                       compensation to employees transferring to employment on a
—    In the alternative: annul the European Commission’s               group contract basis. The Commission further erred, it argues,
     approval of the portion of the aid granted to Combus A/S          in treating the State aid as one entire aid measure despite the
     on 31 May 1999;                                                   fact that three separate and independent State aid measures
                                                                       were granted. While there was presumably a causal connection
—    Order the European Commission to pay the costs                    between the two aid amounts of DKK 300 million and DKK
     involved in bringing the case before the Court of First           171.8 million, these were separate in time and served different
     Instance.                                                         objectives.
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.9.2001
The applicant goes on to argue that the Commission erred in                     —     to assign to the unit in Directorate A of DG INFSO
applying Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council (1) to                            responsible for telecommunications the duties of
the situation in this case. It submits that Combus has neither                        organising and managing the internet infrastructures
a ‘tariff obligation’ nor an ‘obligation to operate’, and that the                    which the applicant carried out in his capacity as
company does not provide a public service. The regulation is                          advisor;
not applicable to Combus and the State aid granted to Combus
does not come with the scope of that regulation.                                —     to abolish his duties as advisor;
In the contested decision, the Commission proceeded on the                      —     to transfer him in due course to another Directorate
basis that the aid for Combus is restructuring aid. Against this,                     General by way of redeployment; and
the applicant argues that the aid granted is not restructuring
aid, but rather an operating subsidy, and that at no time was a                 —     to transfer him in the interim as advisor ad personam
restructuring plan submitted for any of the three subsidies                           at Directorate A of DG INFSO.
granted in total. Further, it is a condition of the framework
provisions that aid recipients must contribute significantly to           —     annul the implied decision rejecting a number of adminis-
the restructuring programme using their own means from                          trative complaints lodged by the applicant on 4 and
external financing, and it is, according to the applicant, obvious              19 December 2000, and on 19 January 2001, against the
that Combus did not itself make any contribution.                               decisions of 1 December.
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
So far as Article 73 EC is concerned, the applicant submits
inter alia that neither the Member States nor the Commission
can invoke Article 73 EC in order to legitimise aid for the
transport industry or transport objectives which cannot be                Pleas in law and main arguments
regarded as being compatible with Article 87 EC.
                                                                          —     the existence in the present case of a manifest error of
The applicant concludes by arguing that the Commission has                      assessment;
infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality,
has failed to meet its obligation to provide reasons, and has             —     manifestly inadequate reasons for the contested acts;
committed essential procedural errors, for instance through its
use of fundamentally flawed facts in support of the decision.             —     infringement of the decision of 26 July 2000
                                                                                implementing ‘peer review’, as set out in the memor-
                                                                                andum of 13 September 2000 from the Secretary General
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on
                                                                                to the Directors General and Heads of Service;
    action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in
    the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and
    inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1969(I), p. 276).        —     breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                                officials;
                                                                          —     infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Christopher Wilkin-
  son against Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-159/01)
                                                                          Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez
                                                                          Escanilla against the Commission of the European Com-
                         (2001/C 275/28)                                                               munities
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                  (Case T-163/01)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (2001/C 275/29)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Christopher
Wilkinson, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert                                   (Language of the case: French)
Lucas, lawyer.
                                                                          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 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez
—     annul the decisions of 1 December 2000 of the Director              Escanilla, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
      General of DG INFSO:                                                and Véronique Peere, lawyers.


title: Case T-390/07 P: Appeal brought on 11 October 2007 by Michael Alexander Spenser against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2007 in Case F-146/06, Speiser v Parliament

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/45

         Appeal brought on 11 October 2007 by Michael Alexander Spenser against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 10 September 2007 in Case F-146/06, Speiser v Parliament
   (Case T-390/07 P)
   (2007/C 297/92)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Michael Alexander Spenser (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by F. Theumer, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul paragraphs 1 and 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal in full;

               —

               Annul paragraph 3 of the operative part of the decision of the Tribunal in so far as it does not order the other party to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is directed against the decision of the Civil Service Tribunal of 10 September 2007 in Case F-146/06, Speiser v Parliament, by which the appellant's application was dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.
   The appellant submits, in support of his appeal, first of all, that the evidence relevant to the ruling presented by both parties was in part not assessed, contradictorily and/or not properly assessed. He further argues that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to apply the principles of good faith and sound administration to the whole of its decision. Finally, the appellant contends that, by the disputed decision, the Civil Service Tribunal departs from its ruling of 28 June 2006 in Case F-101/05, Grundheid v Commission.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-232/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-327/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/52)                                                       (2001/C 118/55)
By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Court of              By order of 5 October 2000 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-232/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-327/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                             ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport
                                                                      SpA v New Times International Transport Service Co. Ltd.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-243/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-362/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/56)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-243/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport           from the register of Case C-362/99: [reference for a preliminary
SpA v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.                 ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: SEIKO
                                                                      Kabushiki Kaisha v Mohammed Ibrahim.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-284/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-250/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/57)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-284/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: New Yorker           from the register of Case C-250/00: Commission of the
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco.                              European Communities v Portugal.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case C-120/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf of 17 February2004 in proceedings between MEDION AG and THOMSON multimedia SalesGermany & Austria GmbH

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf of 17 February 2004 in proceedings between MEDION AG and THOMSON multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH
   (Case C-120/04)
   (2004/C 106/55)
   The Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) Düsseldorf, on the basis of its decision of 17 February 2004, received at the Court's Registry on 5 March 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between MEDION AG and THOMSON multimedia Sales Germany & Austria GmbH, refers to the Court of Justice for the European Communities for a preliminary ruling the following question:
   Is Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p.1; hereinafter ‘the Trade Mark Directive’) to be interpreted as meaning that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public owing to the identity of the goods or services covered by competing signs in a case where an earlier word mark with normal distinctiveness is reproduced in a later composite word sign belonging to a third party, or in a word or figurative sign belonging to a third party that is characterised by parts of a word, in such a way that the third party's company name is placed in front of the earlier mark and the earlier mark, though not alone characterising the overall impression conveyed by the composite sign, has an independent distinctive role within the composite sign?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p.1


title: Case C-313/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie, Poland) — Maciej Brzeziński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie (Internal taxation — Taxes on motor vehicles — Excise duties — Second-hand vehicles — Import)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie, Poland) — Maciej Brzeziński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie
   (Case C-313/05) (1)

   (Internal taxation - Taxes on motor vehicles - Excise duties - Second-hand vehicles - Import)
   (2007/C 56/10)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maciej Brzeziński

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Poland) — Interpretation of Articles 25 EC, 28 EC and 90 EC, and of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — National tax (excise duty) imposed on vehicles when first registered within the national territory, the rate being calculated on the basis of the age of the vehicle — Intra-Community acquisition of a second-hand vehicle — Obligation to submit a declaration within five days of such acquisition
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               An excise duty such as that introduced in Poland by the 2004 Law, which does not affect passenger vehicles by reason of the fact that they cross the frontier, is not a customs duty on import or a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25 EC.

               2)

               The first paragraph of Article 90 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes an excise duty, in so far as the amount of the duty imposed on second-hand vehicles over two years old acquired in a Member State other than that which introduced such a duty exceeds the residual amount of the same duty incorporated into the purchase price of similar vehicles which had been previously registered in the Member State which introduced that duty. It is for the national court to examine whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, in particular the application of Article 7 of the Order of the Minister for Finance of 22 April 2004 on the lowering of the rates of excise duty, has such an effect.

               3)

               Article 28 EC does not apply to a simplified declaration such as that provided for in Article 81(1)(1) of the Polish Law of 23 January 2004 on Excise Duty and Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products does not preclude such a declaration when the legislation in question may be interpreted as meaning that that declaration must be made as from the time of the acquisition of the right to use the passenger vehicle as owner and, at the latest, as from the time of its registration in Poland under road traffic provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.