title: Case C-192/09: Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/34

         Action brought on 28 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-192/09)
   2009/C 180/58
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Balta and H. te Winkel, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, (2) or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 15 September 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 105, p. 54.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 201, p. 37.


title: Case C-288/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 4(5) — Activities engaged in by bodies governed by public law — Provision of off-street car-parking facilities for which a charge is made — Distortions of competition — Meaning of would lead to and significant )

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — (United Kingdom)) — The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council
   (Case C-288/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 4(5) - Activities engaged in by bodies governed by public law - Provision of off-street car-parking facilities for which a charge is made - Distortions of competition - Meaning of ‘would lead to’ and ‘significant’)
   (2008/C 301/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Respondents: Isle of Wight Council, Mid-Suffolk District Council, South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council, West Berkshire District Council
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Activities or transactions engaged in by a body governed by public law in its capacity as a public authority — Off-street parking facilities for which a charge is made — Non-application of VAT leading to distortions of competition — Concept of ‘distortion of competition’ — Criteria for determination
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the significant distortions of competition, to which the treatment as non-taxable persons of bodies governed by private law acting as public authorities would lead, must be evaluated by reference to the activity in question, as such, without such evaluation relating to any local market in particular.

               2.

               The expression ‘would lead to’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, to be interpreted as encompassing not only actual competition, but also potential competition, provided that the possibility of a private operator entering the relevant market is real, and not purely hypothetical.

               3.

               The word ‘significant’ is, for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, to be understood as meaning that the actual or potential distortions of competition must be more than negligible.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case F-46/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Skareby v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appraisal — Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — Objectives — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/69

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2008 — Skareby v Commission
   (Case F-46/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appraisal - Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - Objectives - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2008/C 209/125)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carina Skareby (Bichkek, Kirghizistan) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers, then by S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and M.Velardo, agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the applicant's career development report for 2004 and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143 of 17.6.2006, p. 39.


title: Case C-310/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lunds Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 28 June 2007 — Svenska staten genom Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser v Anders Holmqvist

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lunds Tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 28 June 2007 — Svenska staten genom Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser v Anders Holmqvist
   (Case C-310/07)
   (2007/C 211/44)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Lunds Tingsrätt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Svenska staten genom Tillsynsmyndigheten i konkurser

      Defendant: Anders Holmqvist
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, most recently amended by Directive 2002/74/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council, to be interpreted as meaning that, for an undertaking to be regarded as having activities in the territory of a particular Member State, it is necessary for that undertaking to have a subsidiary or a permanent place of business in that Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is negative, what conditions must be met for an undertaking to be regarded as having activities in several Member States?

               3.

               If the company is to be regarded as having activities in the territory of several Member States and an employee performs work for the company in several of those Member States, what criteria determine where the work is usually performed?

               4.

               Does Article 8a of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, most recently amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, have direct effect?

      (1)  OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10.


title: Case F-95/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 May 2016 — Pals v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 3 May 2016 — Pals v Commission
   (Case F-95/15) (1)

   (2016/C 222/79)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7/9/2015, p. 84.


title: Case C-87/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Sezione distaccata di Schio (Italy) lodged on 15 February 2010 — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza — Sezione distaccata di Schio (Italy) lodged on 15 February 2010 — Electrosteel Europe SA v Edil Centro SpA
   (Case C-87/10)
   2010/C 100/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Vicenza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Electrosteel Europe SA

      Defendant: Edil Centro SpA

      Question referred

   Must Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/01 (1) — and, in any event, Community law — which lays down that, in the case of the sale of goods, the place of performance of an obligation is the place where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered, be interpreted as meaning that the place of delivery, relevant for the purposes of determining the court having jurisdiction, is the place of final destination of the goods covered by the contract or the place in which the seller is discharged of his obligation to deliver, in accordance with the substantive rules applicable to the individual case, or is that rule open to a different interpretation?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 7 March 2002 in Case C-39/01: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 96/61/EC)

text:
C 118/16                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             18.5.2002
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Second Chamber)                                                              (Second Chamber)
                                                                                7 March 2002
                             7 March 2002
                                                                              in Case C-64/01: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-39/01: Commission of the European Communi-                                               ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                               Ireland (1)
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 96/61/EC)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                  to transpose Directive 96/61/EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/25)
                            (2002/C 118/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                      (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-39/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: R. B. Wainwright) v United Kingdom of Great Britain                   In Case C-64/01, Commission of the European Communities
and Northern Ireland (Agent: R. Magrill, assisted by R. Ander-                (agents: R. B. Wainwright and P. Panayotopoulos) v Hellenic
son, Barrister): Application for a declaration that, by failing to            Republic (agent: N. Dafniou): Application for a declaration
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures                       that, by failing within the prescribed period to adopt the laws,
necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 96/61/                    regulations and administrative measures necessary in order to
EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution                       comply fully with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September
prevention and control (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), or, in any                     1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
event, by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,                  (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26), or alternatively by failing to
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has                  communicate the same to the Commission, the Hellenic
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
(Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the                  the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric,
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges;                    President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given               V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass,
a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:                                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and            1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative measures necessary in order to comply with                     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning                    Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning
      integrated pollution prevention and control, the United                       integrated pollution prevention and control, the Hellenic Repub-
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to                   lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                 2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
(1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Case T-117/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Cargill v Council

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/23

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — Cargill v Council
   (Case T-117/14)
   2014/C 151/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cargil SACI (Buenos Aires, Argentina) (represented by: J. Bellis and R. Luff, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it concerns the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have committed a manifest error in the appreciation of the facts by concluding that there was a distortion of the prices of soya beans and soybean oil justifying the application of the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the second paragraph of Article 2(5) of the Basic Antidumping Regulation, as construed by the Institutions in the present case, may not be applied to imports from a WTO member as it is inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the injury assessment fails to take into consideration factors that break the causal link between the alleged injury and the allegedly dumped imports in violation of Article 3(7) of the Basic-Anti-dumping Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case T-110/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 March 2007 — Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission (Officials — Career development report — Assessment period 2001/2002 — Action for annulment — Statement of reasons — Evaluation of merits — Evidence — Action for damages)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 March 2007 — Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission
   (Case T-110/04) (1)

   (Officials - Career development report - Assessment period 2001/2002 - Action for annulment - Statement of reasons - Evaluation of merits - Evidence - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 95/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider (Brussels, Belgium) (originally represented by G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, and then by G. Vandersanden and C. Ronzi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of the decision of 23 April 2003 containing the applicant's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and, second, an application for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 23 April 2003 containing the applicant's career development report for the period 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               2.

               Rejects the action for damages;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-147/10: Action brought on 30 March 2010 — Meda Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/40

         Action brought on 30 March 2010 — Meda Pharma v OHIM — Nycomed (ALLERNIL)
   (Case T-147/10)
   2010/C 148/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Meda Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Homburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nycomed GmbH (Konstanz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 29 September 2009 in Case R 697/2007-4 concerning the opposition filed on the basis of German mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ against application No 4 066 452 for the Community trade mark ‘ALLERNIL’;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Nycomed GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALLERNIL’ for goods in Class 5

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark No 1 042 583‘ALLERGODIL’ for goods in Class 5

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the trade mark law principles of likelihood of confusion were not correctly applied

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 due to breach of the duty to give reasons

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case F-87/07: Action brought on 31 August 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/45

         Action brought on 31 August 2007 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-87/07)
   (2007/C 247/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the note of 18 December 2006, prot. ADMIN.B.2 MB/hm (2006) 29517;

               —

               annul the decision, in whatever form, by which the Commission rejected the applicant's claim of 2 August 2006, seeking: (1) compensation for damage suffered by the applicant through unlawful actions and conduct concerning three medical certificates produced by the applicant in the summer of 2001 (the damage in question); and (2) authorisation under Article 19 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities to give evidence in legal proceedings which the applicant intends to bring in relation to the above actions and conduct, and to produce before the competent courts a note dated 14 August 2001;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the note dated 27 April 2007, ref. ADMINB.2/MB/ade D(07) 9132, rejecting the applicant's complaint of 12 January 2007 against the rejection of the claim of 2 August 2006;

               —

               annul, so far as necessary, the note of 27 September 2005, ref. ADMIN/IDOC/GC/eh D(2005) 22005;

               —

               ascertain the reality of the actions and conduct complained of in the applicant's claim of 2 August 2006, and declare them unlawful,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just, in compensation for damage suffered by the applicant to date;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant, from tomorrow until final implementation of judgment in favour of the applicant, the daily sum of EUR 20, or such other sum as the Tribunal may consider just, to be paid on the first day of each month in arrear, in respect of damage suffered by the applicant during the period between tomorrow and the date of implementation.

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Absolute failure to state reasons, and illogicality, inconsistency, irrationality, confusion and pretexts in the reasons put forward by the Commission; (2) serious and manifest breach of the law; (3) infringement of the duty to pay due regard to the welfare of officials and of the duty of sound administration.


title: Case C-289/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Public service contracts — Call for tenders — Analysis, development, maintenance and support of telematic systems for the monitoring of products subject to excise duty — Rejection of the tender — Failure to state reasons for that rejection)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/21

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 September 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
      (Case C-289/10 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Public service contracts - Call for tenders - Analysis, development, maintenance and support of telematic systems for the monitoring of products subject to excise duty - Rejection of the tender - Failure to state reasons for that rejection)
      (2012/C 25/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, dikigoros)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 19 March 2010 in Case T-50/05 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 November 2004 rejecting the appellant’s tender in a tendering procedure relating to the analysis, development, maintenance and support of telematic systems to control the movement of products subject to excise duty and awarding the contract to another tenderer

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case C-254/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Oskar Shomodi (Area of freedom, security and justice — ‘Local border traffic’ at the external land borders of the Member States — Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Maximum duration of stay — Rules for calculation)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Hungary) — Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége v Oskar Shomodi
   (Case C-254/11) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - ‘Local border traffic’ at the external land borders of the Member States - Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Maximum duration of stay - Rules for calculation)
   2013/C 156/05
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg Megyei Rendőrkapitányság Záhony Határrendészeti Kirendeltsége

      Defendant: Oskar Shomodi

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága — Interpretation of Article 2(a)(3), points 3 and 5 of Council and Parliament Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of 20 December 2006 Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention (OJ 2006 L 405, p. 1), and of the other relevant provisions of the Schengen acquis — Rejection of the application to enter the territory of a Member State made by a national of a third country in the context of the regime governing local border traffic, on the ground that the cumulative total of individual stays undertaken by the person concerned in the Member State at issue during the six-month period preceding the application for entry in question had exceeded the maximum permissible duration — Rules for calculation of the maximum duration of stay under the local border traffic regime

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EC) No 1931/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 laying down rules on local border traffic at the external land borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Schengen Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the holder of a local border traffic permit granted under the special local border traffic regime established by that regulation must be able, within the limits laid down in that regulation and in the bilateral agreement concluded for its implementation between the third country of which he is a national and the neighbouring Member State, to move freely within the border area for a period of three months if his stay is uninterrupted and to have a new right to a three-month stay each time that his stay is interrupted.

               2.

               Article 5 of Regulation No 1931/2006 must be interpreted as meaning that there is an interruption of stay, as referred to in that provision, upon the crossing of the border between the neighbouring Member State and the third country in which the holder of the local border traffic permit resides, in accordance with the conditions laid down in that permit, irrespective of the frequency of such crossings, even if they occur several times daily.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case T-526/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (Handbags) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing handbags — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — Individual character — Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (Handbags)
   (Case T-526/13) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing handbags - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 346/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Decker, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2013 (Case R 208/2012-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG and Yves Saint Laurent SAS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those incurred by Yves Saint Laurent SAS in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case F-3/15: Action brought on 9 January 2015  — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/25

         Action brought on 9 January 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-3/15)
   (2015/C 096/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission’s decisions rejecting the applicants’ requests for repayment of a portion of the contributions to the European Union pension scheme which were deducted from their pay and the request to reassess the credit relating to the transfer of pension rights, acquired before their entry into service, to the EU scheme.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare inapplicable Article 22 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations in the version in force since 1 November 2014;

               —

               annul the contested decisions;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 November 1996 in Case T-179/96 R: J. Antonissen v. Council and Commission of the European Communities (Milk quotas - Damage caused by the Community - Application for interim relief - Application for damages against the Community - Provisional nature - None)

text:
25 . 1 . 97         1 EN |               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 26 / 7
25 September 1996 , received at the Court Registry on               compliance with stricter noise limits, with the result that
29 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of           an aircraft admitted to traffic in another Member State
Aher-Waggon GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany on                  before the said Directive was adopted may no longer be
the following question:                                             granted admission to traffic in Germany because it
                                                                    exceeds German noise limits, even though aircraft of the
Is it compatible with the principles of free movement of            same construction which had already obtained German
goods pursuant to Article 30 of the EC Treaty for German            authorization beforehand may retain it without
law to rely on the noise-emission limits for aircraft               restrictions ?
pursuant to Directive 80/5 1 /EEC ( 1 ) as amended by
Directive 83/206/EEC (2 ), which are laid down as
minimum requirements, in making admission of aircraft to            (') OJN0LI8 , 24 . 1 . 1980, p. 26 .
traffic in the Federal Republic of Germany conditional on           ( 2 ) OJ No L 117, 4 . 5 . 1983 , p . 15 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                              Action brought on 14 November 1996 by Mediocurso,
            OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Estabelecimento de Ensino Particular Limitada, against the
                     of 29 November 1996                                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-180/96
in Case T- 179/96 R: J. Antonissen v. Council and
           Commission of the European Communities                                                ( 97/C 26/14 )
(Milk quotas — Damage caused by the Community —
Application for interim relief — Application for damages                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
    against the Community — Provisional nature — None)
                          ( 97/C 26/13 )                            An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 14 November
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                       1996 by Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de Ensino
                                                                    Particular Limitada, whose registered office is at Rua dos
In Case T-179/96 R, J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem,             Ferreiros a Estrela, n° 9, 2° Dto, Lisbon, represented by
the Netherlands, represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk,            Carlos Botelho Moniz and Paulo Moura Pinheiro, of the
of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                 the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 , Grand'-Rue, L-1661 ,
Guillaume, against the Council of the European Union                Luxembourg.
(Agents: G. Houttuin, A.-M. Colaert and J. -P. Hix) and
the Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T.               The applicant claims that the Court should :
van Rijn) — application for an order that the European
Community pay, by way of advance, the sum of
Fl 258 565,38 , with interest thereon at the rate of 5%             — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 1185 of 14 August
calculated from 1 September 1996, together with the sum                    1996 reducing the amount of Decision C(89 ) 0570 of
of Fl 20 000 per annum from the date on which the                          22 March 1989 concerning the granting of assistance
 application for interim relief was lodged until the date on               from the European Social Fund towards the financing
which the Court gives judgment in the main case — the                      in Portugal ( Mediocurso ), within the Community
 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on                 Support Framework, of Objective 1 ,
 29 November 1996, the operative part of which is as
 follows :
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
                                                                           proceedings .
 1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 2.   Costs are reserved.
                                                                     The applicant maintains that the contested act is unlawful
                                                                      and should be annulled on the following grounds :


title: Case C-403/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Maxime Lefort v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Maxime Lefort v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
   (Case C-403/15)
   (2015/C 302/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Maxime Lefort

      Respondent: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

      Questions referred

   In order properly to meet the requirements of non-discrimination under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, together with Article 45(2) TFEU, against the background of Article 33(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together, as necessary, with Article 7 thereof, when taking into account the actual degree of attachment of a non-resident student, who has applied for financial aid for higher-education studies, with the society and with the labour market of Luxembourg, being the Member State in which a frontier worker has been employed or has carried out his activity in the conditions referred to in Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher-education studies, as added by the Law of 19 July 2013 in direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 June 2013 (Case C-20/12) (2),

               —

               should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that he must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or

               —

               should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established?

               —

               From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance?

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

      (2)  EU:C:2013:411.


title: Case T-463/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Ocean Trawlers v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/44

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — Ocean Trawlers v Commission
   (Case T-463/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ocean Trawlers Ltd (Killybegs, Ireland), (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4750 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Golden Rose, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the Court of Justice delivered on 17 April 2008 in Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P Flaherty and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-2649; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4750 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application for a proposed new pelagic trawler to replace the MFV Golden Rose, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the Court of Justice delivered on 17 April 2008 in Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P Flaherty and Others v Commission [2008] ECR I-2649.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission breached an essential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursuant to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceeded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. It particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application because of the greater volume under the main deck of the proposed new vessel compared to the Golden Rose is manifestly flawed, as is its assumption that the proposed new vessel’s ‘fishing effort’ will be grater than that of the Golden Rose.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the right to equal treatment. It is submitted that Commission’s rejection of the application because of the greater volume under the main deck of his proposed new vessel constitutes gross difference in treatment amounting to impermissible discrimination against him compared to the wholly different approach adopted regarding the treatment of some of the applications for additional safety tonnage accepted in Commission Decision No 2003/245, as well as regarding one of the applications initially rejected in that decision but then accepted in the Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4765 of 13 July 2010.


               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/1

         (2008/C 285/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

      OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

      OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

      OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

      OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

      OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-163/06: Action brought on 28 June 2006 — BA.LA. di Lanciotti V. & C. S.A.S. and Others v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/26

         Action brought on 28 June 2006 — BA.LA. di Lanciotti V. & C. S.A.S. and Others v Commission
   (Case T-163/06)
   (2006/C 190/48)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: BA.LA. di Lanciotti V. & C. S.A.S. and Others (represented by: P.M. Tabellini, G. Celona, E. Bidoggia and E.M. Tabellini)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the applicants

               —

               that the Court of First Instance should declare admissible the action with regard to all the applicants

               —

               that, on the merits, the Court should annul Article 1(1) and (2)(b) of and recitals 28 to 31 and 250 to 252 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 of 23 March 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, and any preliminary or connected measure, in so far as they define children's footwear and exclude it from being subject to the anti-dumping duty

               —

               that the Court should order the defendant to pay all the applicants' costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants in this case are all manufacturers, either exclusively or chiefly, of children's footwear. They are situated so close to one another as to form a ‘footwear district’ on the boundary between the provinces of Fermo and Macerata.
   In support of their claims, the applicants plead:

               —

               misuse of powers, in that the defendant had recourse to a procedure introduced and strictly regulated by a Basic Regulation implementing an international agreement, in order to pursue vaguely social ends (recitals 250 to 252) that call for the exclusion from the notion of Community industry of a large proportion of products which are not merely similar but actually identical;

               —

               manifest errors of fact, in relation to the identification of such footwear with insoles of less than 24 centimetres with children's footwear, to the physical and technical features of children's footwear, and also the description of the sector concerned, to the alleged financial cost to families and to the real damage suffered by the children's footwear industry;

               —

               infringement of Council Decision 87/369 of 7 April 1987 concerning the conclusion of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System in so far as the contested regulation uses the measurement of the insole as a ground for distinguishing between one kind of footwear and another.

         Finally, the applicants allege breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-505/03 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Quality of water intended for human consumption — Directive 80/778/EEC)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-505/03 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Quality of water intended for human consumption - Directive 80/778/EEC)
   (2005/C 6/32)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-505/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 November 2003 – the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, E. Juhász (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to comply with the requirements of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption with regard to the nitrate content of water intended for human consumption in Brittany, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(6) and Annex I of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case F-78/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — Gross v EEAS (Civil Service — Staff of the EEAS — Officials — Promotion — Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations — Comparative examination of the merits of all officials eligible for promotion — Officials put forward by the services of the EEAS and those not put forward — Taking into account of the staff reports — Exclusively literal assessments)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/27

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — Gross v EEAS
   (Case F-78/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Staff of the EEAS - Officials - Promotion - Articles 43 and 45(1) of the Staff Regulations - Comparative examination of the merits of all officials eligible for promotion - Officials put forward by the services of the EEAS and those not put forward - Taking into account of the staff reports - Exclusively literal assessments))
   (2015/C 228/39)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Philipp Oliver Gross (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers, and subsequently by: J.-N. Louis, laywer)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decisions not to promote the applicant to the next grade in the 2013 promotion procedure of the European External Action Service (EEAS).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Appointing Authority of the European External Action Service of 9 October 2013 establishing the list of officials promoted under promotion year 2013 in so far as the name of Mr Gross is not included;

               2.

               Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Gross.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014, p. 31.


title: Case T-361/06: Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Ballast Nedam v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Rights of the defence — Effects in relation to third parties of a judgment annulling a measure)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — Ballast Nedam v Commission
   (Case T-361/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Netherlands market in road pavement bitumen - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Rights of the defence - Effects in relation to third parties of a judgment annulling a measure)
   2012/C 355/36
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Ballast Nedam NV (Nieuwegein (Netherlands)) (represented: initially by A. Bosman and J. van de Hel, and subsequently by A. Bosman and E. Oude Elferink, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by A. Bouquet, A. Nijenhuis and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted initially by F. Wijckmans, F. Tuytschaever and L. Gyselen, and subsequently by F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4090 final of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen (Netherlands)), in so far as it concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative (i) application for annulment in part of that decision in so far as it sets the duration of the infringement with respect to the applicant and (ii) application for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ballast Nedam NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-436/04: Action brought on 26 October 2004 by Carlos Sánchez Ferriz against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/43

         Action brought on 26 October 2004 by Carlos Sánchez Ferriz against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-436/04)
   (2005/C 6/85)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 October 2004, by Carlos Sánchez Ferriz, residing in Brussels, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the list of officials promoted under the 2003 procedure, in so far as that list does not include the applicant's name, and, incidentally, the formal measures leading to that decision;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the allocation of promotion points under the 2003 procedure in relation to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on pleas in law and main arguments identical to those pleaded by the applicants in Case T-434/04.


title: Case F-74/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 February 2013 — Bojc Golob v Commission (Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Contract of indefinite duration — Termination)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 February 2013 — Bojc Golob v Commission
   (Case F-74/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Termination)
   2013/C 114/69
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aleksandra Bojc Golob (Domžale, Slovenia) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Application for the annulment of the decision of the AACC terminating the applicant’s contract of indefinite duration.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Aleksandra Bojc Golob must bear her own costs and orders her to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011, p. 20.


title: Case C-237/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern (Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment and management — Fixing of limit values — Entitlement of a third party, whose health has been impaired, to have an action plan drawn up)

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/3

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-237/07) (1)

   (Directive 96/62/EC - Ambient air quality assessment and management - Fixing of limit values - Entitlement of a third party, whose health has been impaired, to have an action plan drawn up)
   (2008/C 236/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dieter Janecek

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55) — Entitlement of a third party whose health is impaired to have an action plan drawn up as provided for by the Directive, where that third party is entitled under national law to bring legal proceedings for measures to prevent the value limits of particulate matter being exceeded
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 September 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where there is a risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded, persons directly concerned must be in a position to require the competent national authorities to draw up an action plan, even though, under national law, those persons may have other courses of action available to them for requiring those authorities to take measures to combat atmospheric pollution.

               2)

               The Member States are obliged, subject to judicial review by the national courts, only to take such measures — in the context of an action plan and in the short term — as are capable of reducing to a minimum the risk that the limit values or alert thresholds may be exceeded and of ensuring a gradual return to a level below those values or thresholds, taking into account the factual circumstances and all opposing interests.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Action brought on 27 December 1996 by 'Y' against the European Parliament (Case T-219/96)

text:
No C 54/36           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22 . 2 . 97
adversely affect the applicant, the grounds on which they           The applicant further pleads that there has been a failure
are based are not stated and, consequently, they infringe           to take into account his entitlement to a pension .
the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 25           Although he applied for the transfer of the pension
of the Staff Regulations . Moreover, the administration             entitlement acquired by him in Germany, he received, by
committed a manifest error of assessment in considering             letter of 1 April 1996, a breakdown showing only the
that the applicant's qualifications were not exceptional for        reimbursement of his personal pension contributions . No
the purpose of applying Article 31 (2 ) of the Staff                transfer of his pension entitlement has been effected and
Regulations.                                                        he now enjoys only an extremely modest pension
                                                                    entitlement within the German system, whilst being
                                                                    deprived of any entitlement under the pension system of
                                                                    the Community civil service .
Action brought on 27 December 1996 by 'Y' against the
                    European Parliament
                      ( Case T-219/96 )
                         ( 97/C 54/59 )                             Action brought on 10 December 1996 by Elliniki
                                                                    Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE v. Council of the European
               (Language of the case: French)                          Union and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-220/96 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                                             ( 97/C 54/60 )
Communities on 27 December 1996 by 'Y', residing in
Brussels, represented by Gerard Collin, of the Brussels Bar,                        (Language of the case: Greek)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices
of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 rue de Cessange .                      An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 10 December
                                                                    1996 by Elliniki Viomikhania Oplon ( EVO ) AE, a
— order the European Parliament to reimburse to the                 company governed by Greek law having its seat in Athens,
    applicant the sums improperly withheld from his                 represented by Mikhail Stathopoulos and Ioannis
    salary between 1 November 1993 and 19 January                   Anagnostou , of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
     1996, together with default interest from the dates            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May.
    when they respectively became due and payable,
— order the European Parliament to pay compensation in              The applicant claims that the Court should :
    the provisional sum of Bfrs 3 000 000, subject to
    increase during the course of the proceedings,                  1 . delcare the application admissible,
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                   2 . order the defendants, for the reason set out in the
                                                                         application, to pay it US $ 75 451 500, or the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      equivalent in ecus on the date of payment according to
                                                                         the highest official rate of US $ to ecu, or, in the
On 6 October 1993 the appointing authority decided to                    alternative ECU 60 478 770 at the current official rate
suspend the applicant from his duties and to withhold half               of US $ to ecu, with interest at 8 % , as is usual in
of his basic salary, pursuant to Article 88 of the Staff                 international contracts, from the date on which the
Regulations. On 6 June 1994, the applicant was convicted                 application was lodged to the date of full settlement,
of an offence by the Tribunal Correctionnel de Bruxelles                 against the transfer to them of the applicant's claim
(Brussels Criminal Court ).                                              against the Central Bank of Iraq in that amount,
Under the third and fifth paragraphs of Article 88 of the
Staff Regulations, the applicant's situation should have            3 . order the defendants to pay the costs and fees of the
been definitively resolved within four months from the                   applicant's lawyers .
date when the verdict reached by the criminal court
hearing the case became final . Since his conviction became         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
final on 21 June 1994, the applicant's situation should
have been definitively resolved by no later than 21 October         The applicant company manufactures and trades in
1994 . The time limit of four months was clearly not                weapons and munitions . Under a contract of 12 January
complied with, since the applicant became aware on                  1987 it sold to Iraq munitions, which it supplied over the
5 February 1996 of the disciplinary decision removing him           period 25 October 1987 to 30 May 1989 , for a price
from his post which the appointing authority had taken              which was to be paid by the Central Bank of Iraq by way
on 19 January 1996 . The applicant is applying, pursuant            of irrevocable guaranteed letter of credit. The Central
to the fourth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff                  Bank of Iraq refused, however, to pay, relying on
Regulations, for reimbursement of the sums withheld from            Resolution No 660 of 6 August 1990 of the United
his remuneration; those sums were improperly withheld               Nations Security Council, on the basis of which Council
between 1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 .                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2340/90 was adopted, prohibiting


title: Case T-463/13: Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/25

         Action brought on 30 August 2013 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia v Commission
   (Case T-463/13)
   2013/C 304/43
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) (represented by: M. Lorenzo Outón, P. Egerique Mosquera, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision by holding that the measures implemented in the Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Autonomous Community of Galicia) did not constitute unlawful State aid;

               —

               in the alternative, in the event that the first head of claim is dismissed, annul the contested decision in order to conclude that RETEGAL is not a direct or an indirect beneficiary of unlawful State aid; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present case is the same as that in Case T-461/13 Spain v Commission, and Case T-462/13 Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco and Itelazpi v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.
   The applicant claims, in particular, that:

               1.

               The Commission erred in law in concluding that there was State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               The Commission infringed Article 106(2) TFEU in considering that the measures at issue are incompatible with the internal market.

               3.

               The Commission infringed Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, since it acknowledges, in the contested decision, that there is a structural deficiency in the public sector in question and that the public intervention at issue pursues an objective of public interest, but that it nevertheless describes the measure as State aid incompatible with the internal market on the ground that the principle of technological neutrality has been infringed.

               4.

               The Commission committed an error of assessment in taking the view that unlawful State aid had been paid to RETEGAL, an instrument of the Autonomous Community of Galicia, in so far as that instrument limited itself to buying and installing equipment financed by the public funds in question, with a view to their subsequent use by the municipalities, so that those municipalities can provide the public broadcasting service in rural and remote areas and thus compensate for the market failure that existed in those areas.


title: Case T-158/17 R: Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 21 April 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB (Interim measures — Public service contracts — Tendering procedure — Provision of communication services via a metropolitan area network for the buildings and offices of the European Investment Bank Group in Luxembourg — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/30

         Order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 21 April 2017 — Post Telecom v EIB
   (Case T-158/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public service contracts - Tendering procedure - Provision of communication services via a metropolitan area network for the buildings and offices of the European Investment Bank Group in Luxembourg - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid and award of the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))
   (2017/C 195/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Post Telecom SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Thewes, C. Saettel and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: T. Gilliams, P. Kiiver and C. Solazzo, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Belmessieri and B. Schutyser, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of operation of the decision of the EIB of 6 January 2017 rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant for lot No 1 of call for tenders OP-1305, entitled ‘Metropolitan area network and wide area network communication services for the European Investment Bank Group’, and of the decision to award that lot to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 15 March 2017 in Case T-158/17 R is revoked.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-323/04: Action brought on 4 August 2004 by Brandt Italia SpA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/50

         Action brought on 4 August 2004 by Brandt Italia SpA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-323/04)
   (2004/C 262/93)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 August 2004 against the Commission of the European Communities by Brandt Italia SpA, represented by Martijn van Empel, Claudio Visco and Salvatore Lamarca, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

               —

               declare void, and accordingly annul, Commission Decision C(2004)930 final of 30 March 2004;

               —

               in the alternative, declare the decision to be partially void, as regards only Article 3 thereof in so far as it orders the Italian State to recover illegally disbursed aid;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas and main arguments adduced in support:
   The contested decision declared incompatible with the common market State aid relating to urgent provisions in favour of employment which was implemented by Italy by means of Decree Law No 23 of 14 February 2003, converted into the Law of 17 April 2003, requiring the Italian Government to recover from the applicant the aid in question which it is said to have received in connection with the sale of a branch of the refrigeration business of Ocean Spa, situated in Verolanuova, Brescia.
   In support of its claims, Brandt contests first of all the premise of the Decision that Decree No 23/2003 conferred on the purchasers an individual benefit, resulting in distortion of competition. In fact, the alleged benefits deriving from the decree are, on the basis of the current legislation governing the Earnings and Mobility Supplement Fund (legislation of a general nature), generally available to any other company which takes on workers from the lists of workers available for transfer. Therefore, Decree 23/2003, although alleviating the position of workers who were transferred, does not grant any economic benefit to the purchasers, namely Brandt in the present case. Also, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to undertake a complete and detailed evaluation of the economic effects of the national measure, failing to take account of the additional costs incurred by companies which acquire businesses, they being obliged to take on burdens and responsibilities (both social and financial) to which — in the absence of the measure — they would not be subject. Finally, the applicant refers to the general nature of the measure in question, which in fact gives rise to the same consequences as those already provided for by the general provisions of Law No 223/91. According to the applicant, it was because, when examining Decree 23/2003, the Commission classified the measure as being similar to a general aid scheme that it ordered the Italian Government to recover the financial benefit which Brandt allegedly received on an individual basis by virtue of the decree. The Commission, by ordering repayment of an individual aid in the context of a decision relating to an aid scheme, infringed Article 88 EC, and also failed to comply with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 659/99 regarding the adoption of provisional recovery measures.
   The applicant also alleges infringement of Articles 88 and 89 EC and of Regulations Nos 994/98 and 2204/2002. In that connection, it complains that the Commission declared to be retrospectively illegal a measure potentially covered by the exemption rules contained in Regulation No 2204/2002, which was therefore classifiable as existing aid within the meaning of Article 88 EC. Moreover, the applicant claims, the Commission unlawfully arrogated to itself the right to determine that Decree 23/2003 was not covered by Regulation No 2204/2002, thereby exceeding the limits applicable to its power of intervention under the combined provisions of Article 89 EC and of Regulations Nos 994/98 and 2204/2002.
   The applicant also observes that Article 3 of the contested decision, which imposes on Italy an obligation to recover the alleged State aid from the beneficiaries of the measure, breaches the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
   Finally, the applicant alleges failure to fulfil the obligation to state reasons, laid down by Article 253 EC, and also misuse of powers.


title: Case F-69/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Schmidt v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/46

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Schmidt v Commission
   (Case F-69/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/64)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21/9/2013, p. 31.


title: Case C-123/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 March 2011 — A Oy

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 March 2011 — A Oy
   (Case C-123/11)
   2011/C 145/24
   Language of the case: Finish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A Oy

      Defendant: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö and Valtiovarainministerio

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU require that the acquiring company is entitled to deduct in its taxation losses incurred in previous years by a company merging with it, which has resided in another Member State where it has incurred the losses in connection with business activities, when the acquiring company will not have a fixed place of business in the resident state of the acquired company and when, under national legislation, the acquiring company is entitled to deduct the losses of an acquired company, if the acquired company was Finnish or if the losses had been incurred in a fixed place of business located in this state?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is affirmative, do Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU have a bearing on whether the loss to be deducted is calculated in accordance with the tax legislation of the acquiring company’s state of residence, or should the losses consolidated in the acquired company’s state of residence be considered as the deductible losses?


title: Case T-786/14: Action brought on 1 December 2014 — Bourdouvali e.a./Council e.a.

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/40

      Action brought on 1 December 2014 — Bourdouvali e.a./Council e.a.
      (Case T-786/14)
      (2015/C 073/52)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Eleni Pavlikka Bourdouvali (Meneou, Cyprus) and 47 other applicants (represented by: P. Tridimas, Barrister)

         Defendants: Council of the European Union, European Commission, European Union represented by the European Commission, Eurogroup represented by Council of the European Union, European Central Bank

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  order the defendants to pay the applicants the sums shown in the Schedule annexed to the application plus interest accruing from 16 March 2013 until the judgment of the Court;

                  —

                  order the defendants to pay the costs.

            In the alternative, by way of subsidiary claim, the applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  find that the European Union and/or the defendant institutions have incurred non-contractual liability;

                  —

                  determine the procedure to be followed in order to establish the recoverable loss actually suffered by the applicants;

                  —

                  order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicants (48 in total) are depositors and/or shareholders and/or bondholders of the Bank of Cyprus Public Company Ltd and/or Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co. Ltd. They seek compensation pursuant to Articles 268, 340(2) and 340(3) TFEU, governing the extra-contractual liability of the EU, for the loss that they have suffered as a result of the measures taken by the defendant institutions imposing a bail-in scheme on the Republic of Cyprus.
      The applicants consider that the defendant institutions adopted a bail-in scheme for the Republic of Cyprus which led directly to the loss of their deposits and shareholdings. In the view of the applicants, the bail-in measures adopted by the Republic of Cyprus were introduced solely in order to implement measures adopted by the defendants and were also approved by the defendant institutions.
      The applicants consider that the bail-in scheme violates the right to property, as protected by Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The applicants also argue that the bail-in scheme infringes the principle of proportionality, the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and the principle of non-discrimination.


title: Case T-604/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/21

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
   (Case T-604/14)
   2014/C 361/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Almashreq Investment Fund (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the applicant’s action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               in consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing measures, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case C-116/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Reinhard Nagel v Swiss International Air Lines AG

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 7 March 2017 — Reinhard Nagel v Swiss International Air Lines AG
   (Case C-116/17)
   (2017/C 178/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Reinhard Nagel

      Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can an air carrier make the deduction in all cases or is this dependent on the extent to which national law permits it or the court regards it as appropriate?

               2.

               In so far as national law is applicable or the court is to exercise its discretion: is compensation under Article 7 of the regulation (1) intended to redress only the inconvenience and loss of time suffered by passengers as a result of the cancellation, or is it also intended to address material damage?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case C-28/07 P: Order of the President of the Court of 6 December 2007 — Ter Lembeek International NV v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 December 2007 — Ter Lembeek International NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-28/07 P) (1)

   (2008/C 92/49)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-334/99: Action brought on 25 November 1999, by the Organización Impulsora del Discapacitado (OID) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 79/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.3.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
By his action the applicant is essentially seeking a declaration        The applicant in the present case, a non-profit-making chari-
that his dismissal, which was pronounced in the course of               table organisation whose object is the social, working, political,
disciplinary proceedings, was unlawful.                                 sporting and cultural integration of all physically, psychologi-
                                                                        cally and sensorially handicapped persons, challenges the
                                                                        Commission’s refusal to initiate infringement proceedings
In support the applicant advances the following arguments in
                                                                        against the Kingdom of Spain with regard to the refusal to
relation in particular to the disciplinary proceedings:
                                                                        authorise the holding of a daily nationwide lottery draw under
                                                                        the auspices of the applicant organisation with the purpose of
— The proceedings were unlawful since the jurisdiction of
                                                                        subventing its activities.
    the ECB conferred under Article 36 of the ESCB/ECB
    Statute to lay down employment conditions does not
    encompass responsibility for laying down disciplinary               The refusal is allegedly based on the fact that in Spain the only
    proceedings.                                                        games to be authorised are those organised by the Organismo
                                                                        National de Loterı́as y Apuestas del Estado (National lotteries
— The applicant was not given an adequate hearing.                      and betting body) and the Organización Nacional de Ciegos
                                                                        Españoles (National Spanish organisation for the blind).
— The contested decision is based on a failure to comply with
    duties as to conduct which were never communicated to               In the applicant’s view, such a monopoly is contrary to
    the applicant as such and which furthermore are not                 Community law on the freedom of competition.
    binding on him.
— The defendant breached prohibitions on the collection of
    evidence and is relying on erroneous findings of fact.
— The applicant and his representative were placed at a
    disadvantage by reason of the fact that the proceedings
    were conducted in German.                                           Action brought on 1 December 1999 by Lily Karoline
                                                                           Schuerer against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-338/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/67)
Action brought on 25 November 1999, by the Organiza-                                       (Language of the case: German)
ción Impulsora del Discapacitado (OID) against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                         (Case T-334/99)                                Communities on 1 December 1999 by Lily Karoline Schuerer,
                                                                        Munich, Germany, represented by Hermann J. Winzen, of the
                          (2000/C 79/66)                                Munich Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        Chambers of Marco Steil, 12 Rue d’Anvers, Luxembourg.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that, by fixing the applicant’s pension weighting,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             as from 3 October 1990, the day on which Berlin became
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                             the capital of Germany, according to the cost of living in
European Communities on 25 November 1999 by the Organ-
                                                                             Bonn rather than the Berlin cost index, the defendant has
ización Impulsora del Discapacitado, whose registered office is
                                                                             infringed the Treaty of the European Communities;
in Madrid, represented by Javier Gallego Sánchez, of the
Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the            — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Chambers of Michel Molitor, 55 Blvd. de la Pétrusse.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul the decision of the European Commission’s decision              The applicant, who was formerly an official of the Commission,
    of 19 October 1999 and order the European Commission                relies principally on the pleas in law already advanced in
    to initiate infringement proceedings against the Kingdom            Case T-81/99 against the Commission.
    of Spain for infringing Community law, or, in the alterna-
    tive, declare the Spanish legislation in question to be
    contrary to the Treaty on the European Union.