title: Case C-432/99: Action brought on 9 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 20/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                4. (a) Must a Member State’s legislation such as the VBS be
by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the                              deemed to constitute aid within the meaning of
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,                          Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the EC Treaty,
                       Rotterdam District                                        inasmuch as it exempts certain categories of partici-
                                                                                pants, particularly inland navigation, from the require-
                                                                                ment to pay the charge?
                         (Case C-431/99)
                                                                            (b) If so, does such aid come within the prohibition of that
                                                                                provision?
                          (2000/C 20/32)
                                                                            (c) If Question 4(b) is also answered affirmatively, does
                                                                                the description of aid prohibited under Community
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           law also have consequences under Community law for
European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State                           the remuneration which the participants, apart from
(Council of State) of 4 November 1999, received at the Court                     those exempted, are required to pay?
Registry on 8 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,
Rotterdam District on the following questions:
1. (a) Does legislation such as the VBS, in so far as it provides
        for mandatory participation in traffic accompaniment,
        constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services,
        as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 in
        conjunction with Article 59 (now Article 49) of the EC
        Treaty?
                                                                        Action brought on 9 November 1999 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    (b) If not, is it otherwise if participants in the scheme are
        charged for services provided?
                                                                                (Case C-432/99)
    (c) Must Question 1(b) be answered differently if that
        charge is levied on participants in the scheme whose
        participation is mandatory, though not on other users                                     (2000/C 20/33)
        such as inland navigation or sea vessels with a length
        of less than 41 metres?
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
2. (a) If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
        constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,         represented by Hendrik van Lier, of its Legal Service, and
        does such restriction then come under the exception             Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the
        provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC           Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
        Treaty for provisions justified on grounds of public            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
        security?                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    (b) Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2(a)        The applicant claims that the Court should:
        whether the charge is greater than the actual cost of
        the service provided to the individual vessel?
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or, in
                                                                            any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission
3. If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge                 within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
    constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    and such restriction is not justified under the exception               tive 96/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC                   Council of 3 September 1996 on energy efficiency require-
    Treaty, can the restriction be justified either because it              ments for household electric refrigerators, freezers and
    merely concerns a ‘sales arrangement’, as laid down in                  combinations thereof, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to
    Keck and Mithouard, and there is thus no question of                    fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    discrimination, or because it meets the yardsticks for such
    legislation laid down in other judgments, in particular in
    Gebhard?                                                            — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 20/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a                  Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty), under which
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon         a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are             upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for           on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 3 September               laid down in the directive. That period expired without Ireland
1997 without the Italian Republic having brought into force               having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive            directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
referred to in the Commission’s application.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265, 8.11.1995, p. 17-22.
                                                                          (2) on the certification of animals and animal products OJ L 13 of
(1) OJ 1996 L 236, p. 36.                                                     16.01.1997, p. 18-30.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 295, 29.10.1997, p. 35-36.
Action brought on 16 November 1999 by the Com-                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
   mission of the European Communities against Ireland                    Social Único de Algeciras, by order of that court of
                                                                          10 November 1999 in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez
                                                                                Melgar against the Municipality of Los Barrios
                          (Case C-437/99)
                                                                                (Case C-438/99)
                           (2000/C 20/34)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/35)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 November 1999                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented                European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo Social
by Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, and by Mr Keir Fitch,                  Único (Social Court), Algeciras, of 10 November 1999, which
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the             was received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1999, for
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as             a preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Luisa Jiménez Melgar
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos            against Municipality of Los Barrios, on the following questions:
Gómez de la Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, at the
Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.                                                1. Is Article 10 of Directive 92/85/EEC (1) sufficiently clear,
                                                                               precise and unconditional to be directly effective?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                               2. In providing that ‘Member States shall take the necessary
                                                                               measures to prohibit the dismissal of workers ... [who are
— declare that by failing to adopt the laws regulations or                     pregnant, have given birth or are breastfeeding] during the
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                         period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end
                                                                               of the maternity leave ... save in exceptional cases not
    — Directive 95/53/EC of the Council of 25 October 1995                     connected with their condition’, does Article 10 of the
         fixing the principles governing the organisation of                   Directive require the Member States to lay down, on a
         official inspections in the field of animal nutrition (1);            specific and exceptional basis, the available grounds for
                                                                               dismissing a worker who is pregnant, has given birth or is
    — Directive 96/93/EC of the Council of 17 December                         breast-feeding, so that they must introduce into national
         1996 (2) laying down the rules to be observed in issuing              legislation, together with the general rules on the
         the certificates required by veterinary legislation;                  extinguishment of employment contracts, a further special,
                                                                               exceptional and more limited set of rules expressly for
                                                                               those cases in which the worker is pregnant, has given
    — Directive 97/61/EC of the Council of 20 October 1997                     birth or is breast-feeding?
         amending the Annex to Directive 91/492/EEC laying
         down the health conditions for the production and                3. What repercussions does Article 10 of the Directive have
         placing on the market of live bi-valve molluscs (3)                   regarding non-renewal by an employer of a fixed-term
                                                                               contract of a woman who is pregnant under the same
    and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,                        circumstances as prevailed in relation to earlier contracts?
    Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under those                   Does Article 10 affect the protection enjoyed by a pregnant
    Directives, and                                                            woman in the context of temporary employment relation-
                                                                               ships, and if so, in what way, according to what parameters
— order Ireland to pay the costs.                                              and to what extent?


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-124/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Artrada (Freezone) NV, Videmecum BV, Jac. Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf BV v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees (Health checks — Production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products — Mixture made of sugar, cocoa and skimmed-milk powder, imported from Aruba)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-124/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Artrada (Freezone) NV, Videmecum BV, Jac. Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf BV v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees (1)

   (Health checks - Production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products - Mixture made of sugar, cocoa and skimmed-milk powder, imported from Aruba)
   (2005/C 6/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-124/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 11 March 2003, received at the Court on 20 March 2003, in the proceedings between Artrada (Freezone) NV, Videmecum BV, Jac. Meisner Internationaal Expeditiebedrijf BV v Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 2(2) of Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products is to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘milk for the manufacture of milk-based products’ does not include milk constituents of a product which also contains other non-milk constituents if the milk constituent cannot be separated from the non-milk constituents.

               2.

               Article 2(4) of Directive 92/46 is to be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘milk-based products’ covers both finished products and semi-finished products which must undergo further processing before they can be offered for sale to the consumer. In such a case, it is with regard to the semi-finished product that it must be ascertained whether its milk content is an essential part, in terms of quantity or for its characterisation. To do that, account must be taken of the characteristics and objective properties of the semi-finished product when it is imported, particularly the proportion of milk or milk product in the semi-finished product, the use which can be made of the semi-finished product and its taste.

      (1)  OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-454/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Directive 96/59/EC — Waste management — Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls)

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/1

         COURT OF JUSTICE

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 10 June 2004
   in Case C-454/01: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Directive 96/59/EC - Waste management - Disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls)
   (2004/C 190/01)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-454/01: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen ) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and R. Stüwe ) - application for a declaration that, by failing to draw up or to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the plan provided for in the first indent of Article 11(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT) (OJ 1996 L 243, p. 31), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty - the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to draw up, within the prescribed period, the plan provided for in the first indent of Article 11(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.


title: Case C-340/12 P: Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-416/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/20

         Appeal brought on 16 July 2012 by Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 8 May 2012 in Case T-416/10: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-340/12 P)
   2012/C 295/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Other parties to the proceedings: Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd and Pi-Design AG, Bodum France, Bodum Logistics A/S

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the Appeal in its entirety

               —

               annul the Contested Judgment

               —

               order Yoshida Metal Industry Co. Ltd to pay the costs incurred by the Office.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The appellant submits that the General Court failed to state the reasons in support of the Contested Judgment to the extent that it did not address the Office’s argument referred to at paragraph 18 of the Contested Judgment.

               —

               The appellant also submits that the General Court breached Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR. It should have observed that a two-dimensional sign may be, not only applied to, but also incorporated in a three-dimensional object. Applying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR thus requires to take account of all possible manners in which it can be envisaged, on the date of filing, that the sign in question could be embodied in a three-dimensional object. The General Court distorted the evidence by ruling that the Board of Appeal had based its examination exclusively on the goods actually marketed. In fact, the Board of Appeal made it clear that its findings are primarily based on the patents submitted by Pi-Design. In any event, reference to additional material, including patents and the goods actually marketed, should not be prohibited where such material corroborate the conclusion that the features of the contested sign, as filed, are liable to achieve a technical result once incorporated in a three dimensional object. This is the only appropriate approach for preserving the legal security and the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR.


title: Case T-16/10: Action brought on 22 January 2010 — Alisei v Commission

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/49

         Action brought on 22 January 2010 — Alisei v Commission
   (Case T-16/10)
   2010/C 63/87
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Alisei (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, lawyer, R. Sciaudone, lawyer, A. Neri, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the rejection decision;

               —

               annul the award decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay compensation for the damage suffered;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, Alisei seeks:

               —

               annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2009, by which the Commission (i) did not grant the application for funding which Alisei had submitted in response to the call for proposals on the theme ‘Facility for rapid response to soaring food prices in developing countries’ (EuropeAid/128608/C/ACT/Multi) and (ii) placed Alisei’s application on a reserve list;

               —

               annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 October 2009, by which the Commission selected the application for funding submitted by another organisation;

               —

               compensation for the damage suffered.

         It is submitted in that regard that, in accordance with the information set out in the call for proposals, Alisei proposed a direct action to improve production capacity in Sao Tomé and Principe, suggesting as local partner for those purposes an organisation experienced in the agricultural sector.
   As its proposal was shortlisted, Alisei was asked to submit the full application by 15 September 2009.
   On receiving no word as to the outcome of the evaluation of its bid, unlike the other organisations which had responded to the call for proposals, Alisei requested information by email of 17 November 2009. On the same day, the Commission answered that the reply had already been sent to all the participants but, in any event, appended a copy of the reply. By the contested decision, the European Commission informed Alisei that the evaluation committee had not selected the proposal that it had submitted with a view to the grant of funding and had decided to place its proposal on a reserve list which would remain valid until 31 December 2009. The Commission also stated that, should Alisei not be contacted before that deadline, it would no longer be taken into consideration for the purposes of a grant of funding in connection with that particular call for proposals.
   In support of its application for annulment of the decision refusing its application for funding, Alisei pleads:

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons, in so far as the Commission had failed to indicate, even in summary form, the reasons for which Alisei’s application had been set aside and placed on a reserve list, and had refused, knowingly and expressly, the request for information in that regard;

               —

               breach of the principle of the transparency of administrative action, of the principle of equal treatment, and of the rights of the defence, in so far as the Commission had informed the other unsuccessful candidates of the reasons for their exclusion, while making the communication of the information to Alisei a function of the expiry of the validity of the reserve list.

         In support of its application for annulment of the decision awarding the funding to the successful organisation, Alisei pleads:

               —

               that the assessment made in the decision was erroneous and unfounded, in so far as the Commission selected for the grant of funding an application which had been submitted by an organisation with limited professional experience and insufficient technical capability and which was not an independent application, by contrast with those submitted by the other organisations and, in particular, with the application submitted by Alisei.

         Lastly, Alisei claims compensation for the damage suffered.


title: Case T-60/14: Judgment of the General Court of 17 June 2015 — BMV Mineralöl v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark GO — Earlier Community figurative mark GO — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 June 2015 — BMV Mineralöl v OHIM — Delek Europe (GO)
   (Case T-60/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark GO - Earlier Community figurative mark GO - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 262/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. von Fuchs and I. Czernik, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Delek Europe BV (Breda, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 November 2013 (Case R 382/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH and Delek Europe BV.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders BMV Mineralöl Versorgungsgesellschaft mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93, 29.3.2014.


title: Case F-22/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014  — Mészáros v Commission (Civil service — Competitions — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/207/11 — Successful candidate included on the reserve list — Verification by the appointing authority of the conditions for taking part in an AD 7 grade competition — Professional experience of a shorter duration than the minimum duration required — Manifest error of assessment by the selection board — Withdrawal by the appointing authority of the offer of employment — Mandatory duty of the appointing authority)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/55

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 July 2014 — Mészáros v Commission
   (Case F-22/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Competitions - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/207/11 - Successful candidate included on the reserve list - Verification by the appointing authority of the conditions for taking part in an AD 7 grade competition - Professional experience of a shorter duration than the minimum duration required - Manifest error of assessment by the selection board - Withdrawal by the appointing authority of the offer of employment - Mandatory duty of the appointing authority))
   2014/C 421/77
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mátyás Tamás Mészáros (Kraków, Poland) (represented by: M. Pecyna, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the request for recruitment of the applicant made by ESTAT and finding that the applicant did not meet the conditions for admission to competition EPSO/AD/207/11.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               The European Commission is to bear its own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by Mr Mészáros.

      (1)  OJ C 291, 5.10.2013, p. 7.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 February 2000 in Case T-241/97: Stork Amsterdam BV v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination of complaints — Infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC)— Comfort letters — Reopening the procedure — Statement of reasons — Duty to provide — Extent — Cooperation agreement — Exclusive mutual supply clause — No-compete clause)

text:
C 102/20                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 17 February 2000
                                                                                of 15 December 1999
in Case T-241/97: Stork Amsterdam BV v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
                                                                           in Case T-300/97: Benito Latino v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Competition — Administrative procedure — Examination
of complaints — Infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty
(now Article 81 EC) — Comfort letters — Reopening the
procedure — Statement of reasons — Duty to provide —                       (Officials — Occupational disease — Exposure to asbestos
Extent — Cooperation agreement — Exclusive mutual                          — Rate of permanent partial invalidity — Irregularity of
               supply clause — No-compete clause)                          the opinion of the medical board — Failure to state reasons)
                            (2000/C 102/39)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/40)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-241/97: Stork Amsterdam BV, established in Amster-                                   (Language of the case: French)
dam, represented by A.J. Braakman, of the Rotterdam Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: Wouter Wils and Hans                     In Case T-300/97: Benito Latino, a former official of the
Gilliams), supported by Serac Group, established in Paris,                 Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
represented by Mary-Claude Mitchell, of the Paris Bar, with an             sels, represented initially by Olivier Eben, of the Brussels Bar,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — application for annulment                 of Jean Tonner, 29 Rue du Fossé, Esch-sur-Alzette, and
of the decision contained in the Commission’s letter of 20 June            subsequently by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
1997 rejecting the complaint made by the applicant with a                  Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
view to obtaining a declaration that a cooperation agreement               offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck, v
it entered into with Serac Group to market complete pro-                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
duction lines for manufacturing plastic bottles and filling them           Currall and Jean-Luc Fagnart) — application, first, for annul-
aseptically with liquid foods is incompatible with Article 85 of           ment of the Commission’s decision of 11 February 1997
the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — the Court of First                     acknowledging the applicant’s occupational disease and fixing
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos,                  his rate of permanent partial invalidity at 5 % and, second, for
President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-             compensation for the non—material damage allegedly suffered
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 February             by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second
2000, in which it:                                                         Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, President, and C.W. Bella-
                                                                           my and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 15 December 1999, in which it:
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision contained in its letter of
     20 June 1997, rejecting the complaint made by the applicant
     seeking a declaration that a cooperation agreement between Stork      1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 11 February 1997
     Amsterdam BV and Serac Group for marketing production lines                concerning the applicant’s request for acknowledgement of his
     for manufacturing plastic bottles and aseptically filling them             occupational disease;
     with liquid foods is incompatible with Article 85 of the EC
     Treaty (now Article 81 EC);
                                                                           2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
2. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
     incurred by the applicant, apart from those occasioned to the
     applicant by the intervention of Serac which shall bear its own       3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
     costs, and the applicant to bear the costs it has incurred as a
     result of Serac’s intervention.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.


title: Joined Cases T-155/03, T-157/03 and T-331/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  13 December 2005  — Cwik v Commission (Officials — Staff report — Promotion exercises 1995/1997, 1997/1999 and 1999/2001 — Actions for annulment — Drawing-up successive staff reports at the same time — Procedural irregularities — Lateness — Personal file — Manifest error of assessment — Misuse of powers — Inconsistency of the statement of reasons — Compensation for damage suffered — Material damage — Non-material damage)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/27

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2005 — Cwik v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-155/03, T-157/03 and T-331/03) (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Promotion exercises 1995/1997, 1997/1999 and 1999/2001 - Actions for annulment - Drawing-up successive staff reports at the same time - Procedural irregularities - Lateness - Personal file - Manifest error of assessment - Misuse of powers - Inconsistency of the statement of reasons - Compensation for damage suffered - Material damage - Non-material damage)
   (2006/C 48/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Michael Cwik (Tervuren, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and E. de Schietere de Lophem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Application for
   Firstly, annulment of the Commission decisions drawing-up the definitive version of the applicant's staff reports for the periods running from 1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997, from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 and from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001 and, so far as necessary, the Commission decisions rejecting the applicant's complaints as to those reports, and, secondly, compensation for the material and non-material damage alleged.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission decisions drawing-up the definitive version of the applicant's staff reports for the periods 1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and the Commission decisions rejecting the applicant's complaints as to those staff reports;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 2 000 by way of damages;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the actions;

               4.

               In Cases T-155/03 and T-157/03, orders the Commission to pay the costs;

               5.

               In Case T-331/03, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half the applicant's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.


title: Case C-141/03: Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
C 124/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.5.2003
Such national legislation also infringes Article 2(1)(a)(i) of             Pleas in law and main arguments
Directive 2000/13/EC, according to which the labelling and
methods used must not be such as could mislead the purchaser,
particularly as to the characteristics of the foodstuff and, in            The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
particular, as to its nature, identity, properties, composition,           5 December 2001.
quantity, durability, origin or provenance, method of manufac-
ture or production.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 139 of 10.6.2000, p. 28.
( 1) OJ 1991 L 198, p. 1.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1935/95 of 22 June 1995 amending
     Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricul-
     tural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural
     products and foodstuffs OJ 1995 L 186, p. 1.
( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1804/1999 of 19 July 1999 sup-
     plementing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production
     of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on
     agricultural products and foodstuffs to include livestock pro-        Action brought on 28 March 2003 by the Commission
     duction OJ 1999 L 222, p. 1.                                          of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
( 4) OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.                                                                               Sweden
                                                                                (Case C-141/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/20)
Action brought on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 March
                            of Germany
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by P. Hellström and J.M. Flett, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-139/03)
                          (2003/C 124/19)                                  The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     Declare that by failing to adopt the laws and other
                                                                                provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive
                                                                                2000/52/EC ( 1) of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                            723/EEC (2) on the transparency of financial relations
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     between Member States and public undertakings or, in
ties on 27 March 2003 by the Commission of the European                          any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer and                       the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations
Hans Støvlbæk, of its Legal Service, with an address for service                 under the directive, and
in Luxembourg.
                                                                           —     Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary laws,               Pleas in law and principal arguments
       regulations and administrative provisions to implement
       Commission Directive 2000/38/EC (1) of 5 June 2000
       amending Chapter Va (Pharmacovigilance) of Council
                                                                           The period prescribed for implementing the directive ended
       Directive 75/319/EEC on the approximation of pro-
       visions laid down by law, regulation or administrative              on 31 July 2001.
       action relating to medicinal products and/or to notify the
       Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic of
       Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the              (1 ) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 75.
       directive;                                                          (2 ) OJ L 195, 29.7.1980, p. 35.
2.     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case T-230/12: Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2012 — Axa Belgium v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/69

         Order of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 21 November 2012 — Axa Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-230/12) (1)

   2013/C 26/140
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-4/04: Action brought on 8 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
21.2.2004              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 47/25
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                  2.    Which place should be considered as the place where or
Giudice di Pace di Gorizia by order of that Court of                         from which such an employee in fact performs most of
27 November 2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola                             his duties for his employer when the duties under the
                  Tomadin Silvano and AGEA                                   contract of employment are to be performed partly on
                                                                             the ground (airport) of a Contracting State and partly
                         (Case C-554/03)                                     on an aircraft which has the nationality of another
                                                                             Contracting State which also recruited the employee?
                          (2004/C 47/41)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Gorizia (Magistrate, Gorizia) of 27 November 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 29 December 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Tomadin
Silvano and AGEA on the following question:
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March           Action brought on 8 January 2004 by the Commission
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/921 (2) of              of the European Communities against the Republic of
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the                                                  Austria
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are                                     (Case C-4/04)
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
                                                                                (2004/C 47/43)
(1) OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 January
                                                                       2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Karen Banks and Dr Claudia Schmidt, Agents,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
travail de Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, by order of that
Court of 15 December 2003 in the case of Magali Warbecq
against RYANAIR Ltd, a company incorporated under                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
                              Irish law
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
                         (Case C-555/03)                                     the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC (1)
                                                                             of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
                          (2004/C 47/42)                                     1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inven-
                                                                             tions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under that directive; and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal du travail de            2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the case.
Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, of 15 December 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 24 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Magali Warbecq against RYANAIR Ltd, a
company incorporated under Irish law on the following
questions:                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    For the purposes of Article 19(2) of Council Regulation
      No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and               The period within which the directive was to be implemented
      the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil            expired on 30 July 2000.
      and commercial matters (1), what are the relevant criteria
      for determining the Contracting State on the territory of
      which an employee habitually performs his work, when             (1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.
      that employee is employed as a member of the air crew
      of an undertaking engaged in international air passenger
      transport?


title: Case F-65/07: Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Aayhan and Others v European Parliament

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/70

         Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Aayhan and Others v European Parliament
   (Case F-65/07)
   (2007/C 269/127)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Laleh Aayhan (Strasbourg. France) and Others (represented by: R. Blindauer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the express decision of the European Parliament of 20 April 2007 rejecting the applicants' complaint of 19 December 2006;

               —

               amend all the fixed-term contracts linking the applicants and the Parliament by converting them into a single contract for an indefinite period;

               —

               rule that the Parliament is required to restore to all those members of staff the benefit of a contract for an indefinite period;

               —

               rule that members of the auxiliary staff of the Parliament called ‘session auxiliaries’ are entitled to an allowance representing the right to paid leave which they acquired through working for all the work periods since their employment began;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay to each applicant the sum of EUR 2 000 for their irrecoverable costs of bringing proceedings;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are session auxiliary staff employed by the Parliament at the time of its plenary sessions at Strasbourg, for 12 plenary sessions a year.
   In support of their action, the applicants plead, first, the unlawfulness of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, inasmuch as that provision excludes the category of session auxiliaries from the scope of any State or Community source of law.
   The applicants rely, next, on the breach of the principle of non-discrimination as stated, in particular, in the European Social Charter and in Convention C 111 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) concerning discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. They claim, further, that the Parliament infringed the principle requiring any employer to state reasons for a decision to terminate employment, a principle recognised, in particular, in Article 4 of Convention C 158 of the ILO concerning termination of employment at the initiative of the employer.
   Finally, the applicants submit that, as provided, in particular, by Directive 1999/70 (1), the general form for the employment relationship between employers and workers is a contract of an indefinite duration.

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case F-72/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/54

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 April 2016 — Glowacz-De-Chevilly v Commission
   (Case F-72/15) (1)

   (2016/C 191/80)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 24/8/2015, p. 55.


title: Case T-149/15: Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Ben Ali v Council

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/27

         Action brought on 26 March 2015 — Ben Ali v Council
   (Case T-149/15)
   (2015/C 262/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sirine (Cyrine) Bent Zine El Abidine Ben Haj Hamda Ben Ali (Tunis, Tunisia) (represented by: S. Maktouf, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP of 31 January 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, 2.2.2011, p. 62) and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 31, 5.2.2011, p. 1) as periodically renewed (1) and amended (2) (‘the Impugned Decisions’), in so far as they designate the applicant,

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment. The applicant contends that given the political changes which have taken place in Tunisia, the rationale for the sanctions is no longer valid.
   Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment since the domestic criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant are being prosecuted in a dilatory manner such that it cannot be said that she is under ‘genuine’ investigation for the offences justifying the imposition of the sanctions.
   Third plea in law, alleging insufficient statement of reasons since the one proffered by the Council for listing the applicant merely reiterates the underlying rationale for the sanctions.
   Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of fundamental rights since the applicant has been subject to the arbitrary imposition of measures designed to facilitate the future confiscation of assets. Accordingly, the applicant’s right of property and presumption of innocence have been breached.
   Fifth plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment, since the statement of reasons proffered by the Council and the domestic legal provisions underpinning it do not conform to the rationale for the sanctions.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 27, 31.1.2012, p. 11) and Council Decision 2013/72/CFSP of 31 January 2013 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 32, 1.2.2013, p. 20).

      (2)  Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP of 30 January 2014 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, 31.1.2014, p. 38) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 of 30 January 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ L 28, 31.1.2014, p. 2).


title: Case C-638/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2011/64/EU — Article 2(1)(c) — Article 5(1)(a) — Definitions of ‘smoking tobacco’, ‘tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split’ and ‘industrial processing’)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud — Czech Republic) — Eko-Tabak s. r. o. v Generální ředitelství cel
   (Case C-638/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2011/64/EU - Article 2(1)(c) - Article 5(1)(a) - Definitions of ‘smoking tobacco’, ‘tobacco which has been cut or otherwise split’ and ‘industrial processing’))
   (2017/C 168/15)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eko-Tabak s. r. o.

      Defendant: Generální ředitelství cel

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1)(c) and Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2011/64/EU of 21 June 2011 on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that dried, flat, irregular, partly stripped leaf tobacco and/or parts thereof which have undergone primary drying and controlled dampening, which contain glycerine and which are capable of being smoked after simple processing by means of crushing or hand-cutting, fall within the definition of ‘smoking tobacco’ for the purpose of those provisions.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by order of that court of 17 July 1997 in the case of Consorzio fra i Caseifici dell'Altopiano di Asiago against Regione Veneto (Case C-288/97)

text:
C29SI22                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27 . 9 . 97
on 1 August 1997 by the Commission of the European                       Must Articles 9 and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 of
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                   28 December 1992 (') be interpreted as meaning that any
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for               person delivering milk , regardless of the legal nature of
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                the relationship which gave rise to the delivery, may be
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                         treated as a 'purchaser' liable to pay the additional levy
                                                                         and , in particular, as meaning that a group of cooperatives
                                                                         may be so regarded with respect to milk delivered, not
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             sold, to it by the members of the cooperative ?
                                                                         (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
       or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       European Parliament and Council Directive 94/63/
       EC (') of 20 December 1994 on the control of volatile
       organic compound (VOC ) emissions resulting from the
        storage of petrol and its distribution from terminals to
        service stations, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
        fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
        Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 10 ( 1 ) of             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
        Directive 94/63/EC ,                                             Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by order of that
                                                                         court of 17 July 1997 in the case of Consorzio fra i
                                                                           Caseifici dell'Altopiano di Asiago against Regione Veneto
— declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform                                           ( Case C-288/97
        the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
        Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations                                          ( 97/C 295/37 )
        under those provisions,
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                         Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's
                                                                          Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 17 July 1997, received at
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         the Court Registry on 29 July 1997, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Consorzio fra i Caseifici
                                                                         dell'Altopiano di Asiago v. Regione Veneto on the
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                    following questions :
those in Case C-282/97 ( 2 ); the time-limit for transposing
the Directive expired on 31 December 1995 .
 (') OJ L 365 , 31 . 12 . 1994 , p. 24 .
                                                                          1 . Must Articles 9 and 2 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/
 ( 2 ) See page 20 of this Official Journal .                                  92 of 28 December 1992 (') be interpreted as meaning
                                                                              that any person delivering milk, regardless of the legal
                                                                              nature of the relationship which gave rise to the
                                                                               delivery, may be treated as a 'purchaser' liable to pay
                                                                               the additional levy and, in particular, as meaning that
                                                                               a group of cooperatives may be so regarded with
                                                                               respect to milk delivered, not sold, to it by the
                                                                               members of the cooperative ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
 Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by order of that
 court of 17 July 1997 in the case of Claudio Matteazzi
              against Caseificio Sociale San Rocco scarl                  2 . Must Article 2 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 of
                            ( Case C-287/97 )                                  28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                               purchasers are actually and personally required to
                              ( 97/C 295/36 )                                  deduct from the amount paid to producers the amount
                                                                               payable by way of additional levy, or that it is merely
                                                                               a right conferred in the purchaser's interests, failure to
                                                                               exercise which cannot entail penalties ?
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  European Communities by order of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's             (') OJ L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
  Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 17 July 1997, received at
  the Court Registry on 29 July 1997, for a preliminary
  ruling in the case of Claudio Matteazzi v. Caseificio
  Sociale San Rocco scarl on the following question :


title: Action brought on 11 August 1997 by Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-236/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 318/33
Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 1997                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
by Franco Campoli, residing in Brussels, represented by
Sergio Diana , of the Cagliari Bar.
                                                                         1.    annul the Commission 's decision not to increase the
                                                                               amount in Danish krone transferred to the applicant's
                                                                               building loan savings account;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         2. order the Commission to pay :
— annul        the     Commission 's     decision   rejecting  the
       applicant's application to be classified in Grade A 7 at                — Ecu 3 per day as from 28 August 1996 by way of
       the time of taking up his duties,                                           compensation for the non-material damage it has
                                                                                caused to the applicant,
       order the Commission to pay the costs .                                     and
                                                                               — the costs of these proceedings .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
in Case T-16/97 Chauvin v. Commission (').                               The application seeks the annulment of the Commission's
                                                                         decision rejecting the applicant's request to increase by
                                                                         Danish Krone 15 000 per month the amount transferred
                                                                         to a building loan savings account opened under his name .
The applicant maintains that the judgment in Case T-17/
95 Alexopoulou v. Commission ( 2 ) and the Commission
decision published in March 1996 constitute new facts,                   The applicant states in this regard that he has made the
and also indications of the will of the administration to                application as a result of the judgment of the Court of
reapply a provision of the Staff Regulations ( Article 31 ( 2 ))         First Instance of the European Communities of 1 1 June
which was unlawfully disapplied. The applicant argues in                 1996 which held his application inadmissible in Case
that respect that, in correcting the unlawfulness of its                 T- 11 1 /94 (') after finding that the administrative
earlier conduct as impugned in the case cited above,                     procedure had been exhausted in the absence of an act
the Commission should give Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff                 adversely affecting him and of a request that a decision
Regulations an application not limited in time to the date               relating to him be taken .
of the judgment in that case .
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the
(') OJ C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                      same as those in the applications in Cases T- 11 0/94 ( 2 )
( 2 ) 119951 ECR-SC 11-683 .                                             and T-l 11 /94 ( 3 ), basically alleging an error of assessment
                                                                         of the conditions required by the applicable legislation in
                                                                         order to be entitled to an increase in the amount of the
                                                                         transfer referred to herein, as well as disregard for the
                                                                         obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         (') ECR-SC 11-819 .
Action brought on 11 August 1997 by Giovanni                             ( 2 ) OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 27.
        Ouzounoff Popoff against the Commission of the                   n OJ C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994, p . 28 .
                       European Communities
                           ( Case T-236/97 )
                             ( 97/C 318/63 )
                                                                         Action brought on 14 August 1997 by Comunidad
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                               Autonoma de Cantabria against the Council of the
                                                                                European Union
                                                                                Case T-238/97 )
An action against the Commission of the European
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                    ( 97/C 318/64 )
Instance of the European Communities on 11 August
 1997 by Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, residing at Brussels,                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Alex
 Subirachs Amigo, both of the Barcelona Bar, with an
 address for service at 78 Avenue d'Audeghem, 1040                        An action against the Council of the European Union
 Brussels .                                                              was brought before the Court of First Instance of


title: Case C-503/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Alexander Wieland v Land Berlin

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 8 November 2012 — Alexander Wieland v Land Berlin
   (Case C-503/12)
   2013/C 26/55
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alexander Wieland

      Defendant: Land Berlin

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is European primary and/or secondary law, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, (1) to be interpreted as a comprehensive prohibition of unjustified age discrimination, such that it also covers national rules on the remuneration of Land civil servants?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law mean that a national provision under which the level of the basic pay of a civil servant on establishment of the status of civil servant is substantially dependent on his age and also, in particular, rises according to the duration of civil servant status constitutes direct or indirect age discrimination?

               3.

               If Question 2 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of this European primary and/or secondary law preclude the justification of such a national provision by the legislative aim of making payment for professional experience?

               4.

               If Question 3 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, where a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has not been implemented, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective remuneration of those discriminated against at the highest pay step in their pay grade?
               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to State liability under European Union law?

               5.

               Does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a national measure which makes the claim to (retrospective) payment or compensation dependent on the civil servants’ having enforced that claim in good time?

               6.

               If Questions 1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative: does it follow from the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law that a transitional law — under which existing civil servants are placed on a step of the new system solely according to the amount of the basic pay they attained under the old (discriminatory) law on remuneration on the transition date, and according to which further progression to higher steps is thereupon calculated solely according to the periods of experience attained since the entry into force of the transitional law, irrespective of the civil servant’s absolute period of experience — constitutes a perpetuation of the existing age discrimination, continuing until the highest pay step is reached in each case?

               7.

               If Question 6 is also answered in the affirmative: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law preclude a justification of this unrestricted, continuing unequal treatment by the legislative aim whereby the transitional law is to protect not (only) the acquired rights existing on the transition date but (also) the expectation of the lifetime income in the respective pay grade that was forecast to be paid under the old law on remuneration?
               Can the continuing discrimination against existing civil servants be justified by the fact that the regulatory alternative (individual placement also of existing civil servants according to periods of experience) would involve increased administrative expenditure?

               8.

               If such justification is rejected in Question 7: does the interpretation of European primary and/or secondary law, until a non-discriminatory right to remuneration has been implemented also for existing civil servants, permit a legal consequence other than retrospective and continuing remuneration of existing civil servants at the highest pay step in their pay grade?

               9.

               Does the legal consequence of infringement of the prohibition of discrimination in that case follow from European primary and/or secondary law itself, here in particular Directive 2000/78/EC, or does the claim follow only from the point of view of failure to implement the rules of European law in accordance with the claim to state liability under European Union law?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2000 in Case T-256/97: Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European Communities (Antidumping proceeding — Consumer association — Refusal of recognition as an interested party — Agreement on implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 — Articles 6(7) and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)

text:
C 79/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            18.3.2000
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those incurred
                                                                                by the Commission, save for the costs incurred by the Commission
                                                                                in relation to the intervention of the Federal Republic of Germany.
                       of 15 December 1999                                      The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its own costs
                                                                                and those incurred by the Commission as a result of its
                                                                                intervention. The United Kingdom is ordered to bear its own
in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96: Freistaat Sachsen                        costs.
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-
                                 ties (1)                                  (1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.
(State aids — Compensation for economic disadvantages
caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in
the economy of a Member State — Regional economic
development — Community Framework on State Aid to the
                      Motor Vehicle Industry)
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           (2000/C 79/48)
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
                                                                           in Case T-256/97: Bureau Européen des Unions de Con-
                    (Language of the case: German)                         sommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
In Joined Cases T-132/96: Freistaat Sachsen, represented by                (Antidumping proceeding — Consumer association —
Karl Pfeiffer and Jochim Sedemund, Rechtsanwälte, Berlin,                  Refusal of recognition as an interested party — Agreement
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                  on implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 —
of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, and Volkswagen AG and                               Articles 6(7) and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH, with their respective registered
offices at Wolfsburg and Mosel (Germany), represented by                                                (2000/C 79/49)
Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, and Martina Maier,
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Bonn and Schmitt, 62                                       (Language of the case: English)
Avenue Guillaume, supported by the Federal Republic of
Germany (Agents: initially Ernst Röder, and subsequently
Wolf-Dieter Plessing and Thomas Oppermann), against the                    In Case T-256/97: Bureau Européen des Unions de Consomma-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                  teurs (BEUC), established in Brussels, represented by Bernard
Paul Nemitz and Anders Jessen, and subsequently Paul Nemitz,               O’Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcı́a Porras, of the Bar of
Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Georg Berrisch and Marco Nuñez Müller),                 Salamanca, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                       Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adélaïde,
Northern Ireland (Agents: John Collins and Sarah Moore) —                  supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision               Ireland, represented by Michelle Ewing and David Anderson v
96/666/EC of 26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by                        Commission of the European Communities — application for
Germany to the Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and                     annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 July 1997
Chemnitz (OJ 1996 L 308, p. 46) — the Court of First Instance              refusing to recognise the applicant as an interested party,
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of                        within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
A. Potocki, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, C.W. Bella-             22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
my, J. Azizi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,              from countries not members of the European Community (OJ
has given a judgment on 15 December 1999, in which it:                     1996 L 56, p. 1), for the purposes of the antidumping
                                                                           proceeding leading to the adoption of Commission Regulation
                                                                           (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 imposing a provisional
1. Takes formal note that the applicants in Case T-143/96                  antidumping duty on imports of unbleached cotton fabrics
    withdraw from their action in so far as it seeks the annulment of      originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt, India,
    the first indent of Article 2 of Commission Decision 96/666/EC         Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey (OJ 1998 L 111, p. 19) — the
    of 26 June 1996 concerning aid granted by Germany to the               Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
    Volkswagen Group for works in Mosel and Chemnitz;                      of: J.D. Cooke, President and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P. Lindh,
                                                                           J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
                                                                           the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 January 2000, in
2. Dismisses the remainder of the actions;                                 which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 18.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 79/23
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 18 July 1997 refusing to             of: J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh,
     recognise the applicant as an interested party in the context of the   Judges; M.A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
     antidumping proceeding leading to the adoption of Commission           a judgment on 18 January 2000, in which it:
     Regulation (EC) No 773/98 of 7 April 1998 imposing a
     provisional antidumping duty on imports of unbleached cotton           1. Dismisses the action;
     fabrics originating in the People’s Republic of China, Egypt,
     India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey;
                                                                            2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those incurred
     by its request for a ruling that there was no need to adjudicate;
4. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
     Ireland to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 26 January 2000
                                                                            in Case T-86/98: Dimitrios Gouloussis v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (Officials — Promotions — Grade A 2 post — Action for
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                            annulment)
                          of 18 January 2000                                                         (2000/C 79/51)
in Case T-290/97: Mehibas Dordtselaan BV v Commission                                           (Language of the case: Greek)
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                            In Case T-86/98: Dimitrios Gouloussis, an official of the
(Action for annulment — Poultry imports — Article 13                        Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 — Commission decision                        sels, represented by Eleni Metaxaki and Panayotis Giatagantzi-
refusing repayment of agricultural levies — Revoked —                       dis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in
Statement for the file — Legality — Legitimate expectations                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Catherine Thill-Kamitaki,
— Legal certainty — Manifest errors of assessment — Duty                    4 rue de l’Avenir, against Commission of the European
                          to provide reasons)                               Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia, Julian Currall and
                                                                            Paraskevas Anestis) — application for the annulment of the
                                                                            decision to appoint Antonio Caeiro as Principal Legal Adviser
                            (2000/C 79/50)                                  at the Commission, the decision rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                            candidature for the same post and the implied decision of the
                                                                            Commission rejecting the applicant’s complaint — the Court
                                                                            of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. Potocki,
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                         President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Regis-
                                                                            trar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2000, in which it:
In Case T-290/97: Mehibas Dordtselaan BV, a company
incorporated under Netherlands law, established in Rotterdam,               1. dismisses the application.
the Netherlands, represented by Pierre Bos, Jasper Helder and
Marco Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                   2. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: Hendrick van Lier and Jules Stuyck ) — application                 (1) OJ 1998 C 327.
for annulment of Commission Decision C (97) 2331 of 22 July
1997 refusing the application submitted by the Kingdom of
the Netherlands for repayment to the applicant of agricultural
levies — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed


title: Case C-127/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014  — Guido Strack v European Commission (Appeal — Right to be heard — Right to be heard by a court or tribunal established in accordance with the law — Access to documents held by the institutions — Partial refusal to grant the appellant access to the documents concerned — Initial refusal — Implied decision deemed to exist — Replacement of an implied refusal by express decisions — Interest in bringing proceedings after the adoption of the express refusals — Exceptions to the right of access to documents — Safeguarding the interests of good administration — Protection of personal data and commercial interests)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 2 October 2014 — Guido Strack v European Commission
   (Case C-127/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Right to be heard - Right to be heard by a court or tribunal established in accordance with the law - Access to documents held by the institutions - Partial refusal to grant the appellant access to the documents concerned - Initial refusal - Implied decision deemed to exist - Replacement of an implied refusal by express decisions - Interest in bringing proceedings after the adoption of the express refusals - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Safeguarding the interests of good administration - Protection of personal data and commercial interests))
   2014/C 421/12
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Guido Strack (represented by: H. Tettenborn, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Conte and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Strack v Commission, T-392/07, EU:T:2013:8 in so far as, by that judgment, the General Court annulled the decision of the European Commission of 24 July 2007;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal for the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               4.

               Dismisses the action for annulment in so far as it is directed against the decision of the European Commission refusing access to the extract of the register concerning refusals of confirmatory applications for access to documents;

               5.

               Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs in the present proceedings and to pay one third of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission to pay two thirds of the costs relating to the present proceedings;

               7.

               Orders the costs relating to the proceedings at first instance which gave rise to the judgment in Strack v Commission (T-392/07, EU:T:2013:8) to be paid in accordance with the arrangements laid down in paragraph 7 of the operative part thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-291/10: Order of the President of the Court of 10 January 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/9

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 January 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-291/10) (1)

   2011/C 120/22
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.08.2010.


title: Case C-143/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2011 — Jörg-Detlef Müller v Bundesrepublik Deutschland

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 24 March 2011 — Jörg-Detlef Müller v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Case C-143/11)
   2011/C 269/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jörg-Detlef Müller

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Question referred

   Does Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1) apply to national legislation on the grant of assistance to public servants in cases of illness?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16


title: Case C-15/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Etimine SA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Environment and protection of human health — Directive 67/548/EEC — Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 — Borate substances — Classification as reprotoxic substances in category 2 — Directive 2008/58/EC and Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 — Adaptation of the classifications to technical and scientific progress — Validity — Methods of assessing the intrinsic properties of those substances — Manifest error of assessment — Legal basis — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Etimine SA v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-15/10) (1)

   (Environment and protection of human health - Directive 67/548/EEC - Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 - Borate substances - Classification as reprotoxic substances in category 2 - Directive 2008/58/EC and Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 - Adaptation of the classifications to technical and scientific progress - Validity - Methods of assessing the intrinsic properties of those substances - Manifest error of assessment - Legal basis - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of proportionality)
   2011/C 269/15
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Etimine SA

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Intervener: Borax Europe Ltd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Validity, so far as concerns the classification of borates as substances toxic for reproduction, of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ 2008 L 246, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (OJ 2009 L 235, p. 1) — Incorrect assessment of the existence, as required by Annex VI to Directive 67/548/EEC, of a risk upon normal handling and use of the substance

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity, first, of Commission Directive 2008/58/EC of 21 August 2008 amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances and, second, of Commission Regulation (EC) No 790/2009 of 10 August 2009 amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, in so far as that directive and that regulation classified certain borate substances as reprotoxic in category 2.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case T-589/15: Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA

text:
               25.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 27/61

         Action brought on 12 October 2015 — Eurorail v Commission and INEA
   (Case T-589/15)
   (2016/C 027/78)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurorail NV (Aalst, Belgium) (represented by: J. Derenne, N. Pourbaix and M. Domecq, lawyers)

      Defendants: Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA) and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare, pursuant to Article 272 TFEU, that INEA's decision of 17 July 2015 terminating the Grant Agreement (1) and ordering the recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant, is invalid and unenforceable, and that the final grant amount due to the applicant be set at EUR 951,813;

               —

               alternatively, the applicant claims that the Commission and INEA be held contractually liable for the loss caused to the applicant as a result of the decision and order the recovery of EUR 581,770 (plus interest);

               —

               alternatively, order INEA/the Commission to withdraw the decision, and;

               —

               order INEA/the Commission to bear the applicant’s legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission acted in breach of their obligations under the Grant Agreement. As a result, the applicant submits that they wrongfully terminated the Grant Agreement and ordered recovery of part of the advances paid to the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission acted in breach of the principle of performance in good faith of contractual obligations.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that INEA and the Commission breached the applicant's legitimate expectations.

      (1)  Grant Agreement MPO/09/058/SI1.5555667 ‘RAIL2’ (Marco Polo II Call 2009).