title: Case C-273/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mecsek-Gabona Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Conditions of exemption for intra-Community transactions characterised by the obligation on the purchaser to ensure, as from the time of their loading, the transport of the goods of which it disposes as owner — Obligation on the vendor to prove that the goods have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply — Removal from the register, with retroactive effect, of the customer’s VAT identification number)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Hungary) — Mecsek-Gabona Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-273/11) (1)

   (VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 138(1) - Conditions of exemption for intra-Community transactions characterised by the obligation on the purchaser to ensure, as from the time of their loading, the transport of the goods of which it disposes as owner - Obligation on the vendor to prove that the goods have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply - Removal from the register, with retroactive effect, of the customer’s VAT identification number)
   2012/C 355/09
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Baranya Megyei Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mecsek-Gabona Kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Baranya Megyei Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Conditions of exemption for intra-Community transactions characterised by the obligation on the purchaser to ensure, as from the time of their loading, the transport of the goods of which it may dispose as owner — Obligation on the taxable person to prove that the goods have been transported to another Member State and that, as a result of that transport, they have physically left the territory of the Member State of supply

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, is to be interpreted as not precluding, in circumstances such as those of the case before the referring court, refusal to grant a vendor the right to the VAT exemption for an intra-Community supply, provided that it has been established, on the basis of objective evidence, that the vendor has failed to fulfil its obligations as regards evidence, or that it knew or should have known that the transaction which it carried out was part of a tax fraud committed by the purchaser, and that it had not taken every reasonable step within its power to prevent its own participation in that fraud.

               2.

               A vendor may not be refused the VAT exemption for an intra-Community supply, in accordance with Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/88, solely on the ground that the tax authority of another Member State has removed the purchaser’s VAT identification number from the register, with retroactive effect from a date prior to the sale of the goods even though the number was removed after the goods had been supplied.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-193/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Gόrażdże Cement v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 — Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions — Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/36

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 23 September 2008 — Gόrażdże Cement v Commission
   (Case T-193/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan in respect of emission allowances for Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 - Decision by the Commission not to raise objections subject to certain conditions - Competence of Member States in the individual allocation of emission allowances - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 301/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Gόrażdże Cement S.A. (Chorula, Poland) (represented by: P. Muñiz, lawyer and R. Forbes, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and D. Lawunmi, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Republic of Poland for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Gόrażdże Cement S.A. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-224/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Martha Nussbaumer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/57/EEC — Implementation of minimum safety and health requirements on temporary and mobile construction sites — Article 3 — Requirement to appoint a coordinator for safety and health matters and draw up a safety and health plan)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Martha Nussbaumer
   (Case C-224/09) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 92/57/EEC - Implementation of minimum safety and health requirements on temporary and mobile construction sites - Article 3 - Requirement to appoint a coordinator for safety and health matters and draw up a safety and health plan)
   2010/C 328/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bolzano

      Party in the main proceedings

   Martha Nussbaumer

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Bolzano — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 6) — Private works not subject to planning permission — Derogation from the requirement to appoint a coordinator for safety and health matters during the project preparation stage or during the execution of the works

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Article 3 of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) must be interpreted as follows:

                           —

                           Article 3(1) precludes national legislation under which, for private works not subject to planning permission on a construction site on which more than one contractor is to be present, it is possible to derogate from the requirement imposed on the client or project supervisor to appoint a coordinator for safety and health matters at the project preparation stage or, in any event, before the works commence;

                           —

                           Article 3(2) precludes national legislation under which the requirement for the coordinator responsible for the execution stage of the works to draw up a safety and health plan is confined to the situation in which more than one contractor is engaged on a construction site involving private works that are not subject to that obligation and which does not use the particular risks such as those listed in Annex II to the directive as criteria for that requirement.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-233/10: Action brought on 11 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/13

         Action brought on 11 May 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-233/10)
   2010/C 195/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nienhuis and H. te Winkel)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 amending Council Directive 92/49/EEC and Directives 2002/83/EC, 2004/39/EC, 2005/68/EC and 2006/48/EC as regards procedural rules and evaluation criteria for the prudential assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in the financial sector, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of that directive;

               —

               order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of the Directive into national law expired on 20 March 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 247, p. 1.


title: Case C-367/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation, Belgium, by order of that court of  6 September 2005  in the criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Cassation, Belgium, by order of that court of 6 September 2005 in the criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink
   (Case C-367/05)
   (2006/C 48/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Court of Cassation, Belgium, of 6 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 September 2005, in the criminal proceedings against Norma Kraaijenbrink on the following questions:

               1.

               ‘Must Article 54 of the Schengen (1) implementing agreement of 19 June 1990, read with Article 71 of that agreement be construed as meaning that the criminal offences of acquiring or having available in the Netherlands or transferring from there sums of money in foreign currencies originating from the trade in narcotics (offences which were prosecuted and in respect of which a conviction was obtained in the Netherlands for receiving and handling in breach of Article 416 of the Criminal Code), which differ from the criminal offences consisting in the exchanging at exchange bureaus in Belgium of the relevant sums of money from the trade in narcotics received in the Netherlands (prosecuted in Belgium as the offence of receiving and handling and performing other acts in regard to goods resulting from crime, in breach of Article 505 of the Criminal Code), are to be regarded as the “same acts” for the purposes of Article 54 aforesaid where the courts establish that they share a common intention and thus legally constitute a single act?’

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
               ‘Must the expression “may not be prosecuted … for the same acts” in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement be interpreted as meaning that the “same acts” may also be constituted by different acts sharing the same intention, and thus constituting a single act, which would mean that a defendant can no longer be prosecuted for the offence of money-laundering in Belgium once he has been duly convicted in the Netherlands of other offences committed with the same intention, regardless of any other offences committed during the same period but which became known or in respect of which prosecutions were brought in Belgium only after the date of the definitive foreign judgment or, in such a case, must that expression be interpreted as meaning that the court determining the merits may enter a conviction in respect of these other acts on a subsidiary basis, taking into account the sentences already imposed, unless it considers that those other sentences in its view constitute sufficient punishment of all the offences, and ensuring that the totality of the penalties imposed may not exceed the maximum of the severest penalty?’

      (1)  OJ 2000, L 239, p. 19.


title: Case C-225/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria (Italy) lodged on 15 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Domenico POLITANO’

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Reggio Calabria (Italy) lodged on 15 May 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Domenico POLITANO’
   (Case C-225/15)
   (2015/C 262/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Reggio Calabria

      Party to the main proceedings

   Domenico POLITANO’

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Article 49 TFEU, as well as the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness, be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9)g] of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition relating to economic and financial standing, as a result of the failure to provide for criteria other than the requirement of two bank references from two separate banks?

               2)

               Must Article 47 of Directive 2004/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which provides for the organisation of a fresh call for tenders (as governed by Article [10(9)g] of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012) for the award of licences [that includes clauses excluding from the tendering procedure undertakings which have failed to meet the condition] relating to economic and financial standing, as a result of the failure to provide for alternative documentation and options, as laid down under [EU] legislation?

      (1)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).


title: Case T-139/16: Action brought on 31 March 2016 — SDSR v EUIPO — Berghaus (BERG OUTDOOR)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/33

         Action brought on 31 March 2016 — SDSR v EUIPO — Berghaus (BERG OUTDOOR)
   (Case T-139/16)
   (2016/C 175/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sports Division SR, SA (SDSR) (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by: A. Sebastião and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berghaus Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BERG OUTDOOR’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 116 936

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 January 2016 in Case R 153/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to grant the registration of International trademark no. 1116936 designating the EU in its entirety;

               —

               order the intervener to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-70/12: Action brought on 4 July 2012 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/29

         Action brought on 4 July 2012 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-70/12)
   2012/C 258/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 15 November 2011 not to promote the applicant to Grade AD 13 in the 2011 promotion exercise;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Opinion 3/15: Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/13

         Request for an opinion submitted by the European Commission pursuant to Article 218(11) TFEU
   (Opinion 3/15)
   (2015/C 311/15)
   Language of procedure: all the official languages

      Applicant

   European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, B. Hartmann, J. Samnadda, Agents)

      Question submitted to the Court

   Does the European Union have exclusive competence to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired, or otherwise print disabled?


title: Case C-158/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Auto 24 SARL v Jaguar Land Rover France

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 1 April 2011 — Auto 24 SARL v Jaguar Land Rover France
   (Case C-158/11)
   2011/C 179/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Auto 24 SARL

      Defendant: Jaguar Land Rover France

      Question referred

   What is to be understood by the words ‘specified criteria’ in Article 1(1)(f) of Regulation No 1400/2002 (1) as regards a quantitative selective distribution?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30).


title: Case C-78/13 P: Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/5

         Appeal brought on 15 January 2013 by Constantin Hârsulescu against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 November 2012 in Case T-400/12 Constantin Hârsulescu v Romania
   (Case C-78/13 P)
   2013/C 377/09
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Parties

      Appellant: Constantin Hârsulescu (represented by: I.L. Cioplea, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Romania
   By order of 3 October 2013, the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and the application for legal aid.


title: Case C-130/14: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-130/14) (1)

   (2014/C 431/25)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-248/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Market for ‘cement and related products’ — Administrative procedure — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 18(1) and (3) — Decision requesting information — Statement of reasons — Clarification of the application)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 March 2016 — Schwenk Zement KG v European Commission
   (Case C-248/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Market for ‘cement and related products’ - Administrative procedure - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 18(1) and (3) - Decision requesting information - Statement of reasons - Clarification of the application))
   (2016/C 156/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Schwenk Zement KG (represented by: M. Raible and S. Merz, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 14 March 2014 in Schwenk Zement v Commission (T-306/11, EU:T:2014:123);

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2011) 2367 final of 30 March 2011 relating to a proceeding under Article 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (Case COMP/39520 — Cement and related products);

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Schwenk Zement KG with respect to both the proceedings at first instance in Case T-306/11 and the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-327/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te s'-Gravenhage by decision of that Court of 16 September 2002 in the case of Lili Georgieva Panayotova, Radostina Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata Lis, Lubica Sopova, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika Rusiecka against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

text:
C 274/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
tember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                   1.    Must the answer given by the Court to question 4 in its
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                     judgment of 27 November 2001 in Case C-257/99
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                            Barkoci and Malik be interpreted to mean that it is
                                                                               incompatible with Article 45(1) in conjunction with
                                                                               Article 59(1) of the Association Agreement with Bulgaria,
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                         Article 44(3) in conjunction with Article 58 of the
                                                                               Association Agreement with Poland and Article 45(3) in
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  conjunction with Article 59 of the Association Agreement
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   with the Slovak Republic for the competent authority,
      Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on                     when assessing an application submitted in the Nether-
      the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds                lands for a full residence permit with a view to establish-
      due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and             ment in accordance with the Association Agreement, to
      installations or, in any event, by failing to communicate                refrain from examining the contents of the application
      such provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of                        solely on the ground that the applicant does not have a
      Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                    temporary residence permit? Does the fact that the
      directive;                                                               substantive entry requirements are clearly and manifestly
                                                                               satisfied make any difference to the answer to this
—     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                             question?
                                                                         2.    Is it relevant for the purposes of answering the first
                                                                               question, and if so how, whether the person applying for
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                               a full residence permit is legally resident in the Nether-
                                                                               lands at the time of the application, whether or not on
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 249 EC                    the basis of an entitlement other than a temporary
and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC requires the Member                   residence permit, such as the ‘free period’ referred to in
States to adopt the measures necessary to implement the                        Article 8 of the Vreemdelingenwet?
directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period
prescribed for that purpose. The period in question expired on
1 April 2001 without Spain’s having introduced the necessary
measures.
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank te                                            (Case C-330/02)
s’-Gravenhage by decision of that Court of 16 September
2002 in the case of Lili Georgieva Panayotova, Radostina
Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata Lis, Lubica Sopo-                                           (2002/C 274/35)
va, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika Rusiecka
 against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie
                         (Case C-327/02)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                         (2002/C 274/34)                                 Justice of the European Communities on 19 September 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of the Rechtbank te
s’-Gravenhage (District Court, The Hague) of 16 September                The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2002, received at the Court Registry on 18 September
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lili Georgieva
Panayotova, Radostina Markova Kalcheva, Izabella Malgorzata              —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
Lis, Lubica Sopova, Izabela Leokadia Topa and Jolanta Monika                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Rusiecka against Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Inte-                     Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
gratie (Minister for Alien Affairs and Integration) on the                     the limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
following questions:                                                           due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and


title: Case T-233/05: Action brought on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/46

         Action brought on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-233/05)
   (2005/C 217/100)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc, established in London (United Kingdom), represented by C.-D. Ehlermann, F. Louis, A. Vallery and G. Axel Gutermuth, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision D(2005) 3507 of 13 April 2005 in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission has, in the contested decision, confirmed its refusal to grant the applicants access to a copy of the non-confidential version of all documents collected during the proceedings and investigations leading to the adoption of the Commission's decision of 14 July 2004 in State Aid case No. CZ 46/2003 — Czech Republic — Investicní a postovní banka, a.s. (IPB)/Ceskoslovenská obchodní banka, a.s. (CSOB).
   The applicants submit that the Commission wrongly applied the exception in Article 4(2), third indent, of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) to all the documents in question and that the Commission, amongst other things, failed to carry out an individual assessment of the content of the documents.
   With regard to the documents originating from the Czech authorities and the Commission's internal documents, the applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the exceptions laid down in Article 4(3), second subparagraph, and Article 4(5) of the Regulation.
   The applicants moreover submit that the Commission erred in refusing to grant partial access to the requested documents under Article 4(6) of the Regulation and that the Commission failed to provide sufficient reasoning in accordance with Article 253 EC.
   Finally, the applicants are of the opinion that the exceptions in Article 4(2), third indent, and Article 4(3), second subparagraph, of the Regulation should be set aside and that access to the documents should be granted for the benefit of the overriding public interest in the protection of the integrity of the European Union's State aid and enlargement policies.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2003 in Case T-220/00: Cheil Jedang Corp. v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Turnover — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 213/27
(Belgium), represented by J. Stuyck, lawyer, with an address for            cation for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2001/
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                         418/EC of 7 June 2000 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
Communities (agents: H.M.H. Speyart and L. Flynn) — an                      Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA
application for annulment of Commission Decision C (2000)                   Agreement (Case COMP/36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ 2001
36 of 31 January 2000 reducing the amount of financial                      L 152, p. 24) or a reduction in the fine imposed on the
assistance initially provided by Decision C (1994) 3059 of                  applicants, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
25 November 1994 approving the grant of assistance through                  composed of: M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi,
the European Social Fund for an operational programme under                 Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
the Community framework of support for the achievement of                   given a judgment on 9 July 2003, in which it:
Objective 3 in Belgium (Flemish Community) — the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent, and P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:                    1.     Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Cheil Jedang Corp. at
J. Plingers, Administrator, gave the following judgment on                         EUR 10 080 000;
9 July 2003:
                                                                            2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.     Commission Decision C (2000) 36 of 31 January 2000
       reducing the amount of financial assistance initially provided       3.     Orders Cheil Jedang Corp. to bear its own costs and to pay two
       by Decision C (1994) 3059 of 25 November 1994 approving                     thirds of the Commission’s costs and orders the Commission to
       the grant of assistance through the European Social Fund for                bear one third of its own costs.
       an operational programme under the Community framework of
       support for the achievement of Objective 3 in Belgium
       (Flemish Community) is annulled in so far as it reduces by           (1 ) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.
       EUR 181 067 the financial assistance under the European
       Social Fund of which the Vlaams Fonds voor de Sociale
       Integratie van Personen met een Handicap is the recipient;
2.     The Commission is ordered to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.00.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 9 July 2003
                                                                            in Case T-223/00: Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd and
                                                                            Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH v Commission of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     European Communities ( 1)
                            of 9 July 2003
                                                                            (Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
                                                                            method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity of the
in Case T-220/00: Cheil Jedang Corp. v Commission of the                          infringement — Turnover — Concurrent sanctions)
                    European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/52)
(Competition — Cartel — Lysine — Guidelines on the
method of setting fines — Applicability — Gravity and
duration of the infringement — Turnover — Mitigating                                             (Language of the case: English)
                            circumstances)
                           (2003/C 213/51)
                                                                            In Case T-223/00, Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd, established in
                                                                            Tokyo (Japan), Kyowa Hakko Europe GmbH, established in
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by C. Canenbley, and
                                                                            K. Diedrich, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                            bourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                            W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Application for partial annul-
In Case T-220/00, Cheil Jedang Corp., established in London                 ment of Commission Decision 2001/418/EC of 7 June 2000
(United Kingdom), represented by A.R.M. Bell, solicitor,                    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
R.P. Gerrits, lawyer, and J. Killick, barrister, with an address for        Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                         36.545/F3 — Amino Acids) (OJ 2001 L 152, p. 24) or a
Communities (Agents: W. Wils, R. Lyal and J. Flynn): Appli-                 reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants, the Court of


title: Case C-208/11 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-36/10 Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. v Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/14

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2011 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-36/10 Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. v Commission
   (Case C-208/11 P)
   2011/C 211/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. (represented by: H. Kaltenecker, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the contested measures and give final judgment in the case, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the General Court to make a fresh decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant is a non-governmental organisation under German law which acts in the humanitarian field. The background to the dispute is a contract, ‘LIEN 97-2011’, concluded with the Commission for the co-financing of a medical aid project in Kazakhstan. The contract and the project were unilaterally terminated by the Commission, wrongly in the appellant’s opinion, in October 1999.
   The appellant has attempted since the termination of the contract to ascertain the Commission’s reasons for ending the project, which in its opinion and that of the Kazakhstan Government was important and had been successfully started. It suspects misuse of powers, and has therefore attempted in several procedures before the European Ombudsman and the European Union judicature to obtain disclosure by the Commission of all the relevant documents pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The Commission is refusing full access.
   The appeal is directed against the order of the General Court dismissing as inadmissible the appellant’s action for annulment of a Commission decision of 9 October 2009 which confirmed its refusal to disclose all the documents, and also ordering the appellant to pay the costs. The appellant complains that the General Court wrongly calculated and interpreted the time-limit for bringing the application.
   The appellant complains in particular that the General Court did not take into account that its application was directed against a decision of the Commission provided for in the two-stage procedure under Regulation No 1049/2001. It would not have been able, in terms of procedural law, to bring an action before the answer the Commission said it would give to the appellant’s confirmatory request of 15 October 2009 asking for review of the answer of 9 October 2009 to its initial request. The appellant acted in this respect in accordance with the case-law of the European Union judicature. The period for bringing proceedings started to run from the receipt of the answer to its confirmatory request, deemed to be negative in accordance with Article 8(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, on 2 December 2009. It ended on 2 February 2010. The application was therefore made in good time, in the opinion of the appellant. The appellant cannot understand how the General Court could, erring in law, set the start of the period for bringing proceedings at 16 October 2009 (the date of making the confirmatory request) and the end at 29 December 2009, without taking into account that it was not until the negative answer to its confirmatory request that the decision of 9 October 2009 (provisional answer to its initial request) became a legal act amenable to challenge.


title: Case T-149/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 — Dover v Parliament (Application for interim measures — Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Inadmissibility — No urgency)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/51

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2009 — Dover v Parliament
   (Case T-149/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Recovery of allowances paid by way of reimbursement of parliamentary assistance expenses - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Inadmissibility - No urgency)
   2009/C 180/96
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Densmore Ronald Dover, (Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vaughan QC, M. Lester, Barrister, and M. French, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Krück, D. Moore and M. Windisch, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Decision D (2009) 4639 of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 29 January 2009 concerning the recovery of allowances unduly paid to the applicant by way of reimbursement of his parliamentary assistance expenses, of the debit note based on that decision and of any decision taken with a view to offsetting the amount claimed against payment of other parliamentary allowances due to the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-163/08: Order of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast v OHIM (Golden Toast) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Golden Toast — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/34

         Order of the General Court of 19 May 2010 — Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast v OHIM (Golden Toast)
   (Case T-163/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Golden Toast - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2010/C 179/57
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast e.V. (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Späth and G. Hasselblatt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: S. Schäffner, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 January 2008 (Case R 761/2007-1) relating to an application to register the word sign Golden Toast as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Golden Toast e.V. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.


title: Action brought on 16 September 1997 by Anton Dürbeck GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-252/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          IEN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 357/31
By the decision of 9 July 1997 which is now being                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
challenged, the Commission refused the application made
by the applicant on 16 December 1996 .
                                                                       By the contested decision, the application made by the
                                                                       applicant for the award of additional licences to import
The applicant relies on a number of incidents (colapse of              bananas within the framework of the customs quota,
businesses, criminal activities) with South American                   pursuant to Article 30 of Regulation (EEC ) No 404/93 ('),
contractual partners or potential contractual partners                 was granted only in part.
which, it contends, amount to force majeure and justify
the adoption of arrangements to cater for a case of
hardship, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of              In 1991 , the applicant had concluded a long-term contract
Justice (2). Furthermore, the applicant had concluded a                with an Ecuadorian undertaking. That contract contains a
preliminary contract in November 1991 with a South                     guarantee by the applicant as regards the difference with
American undertaking. At that time it was not to be                    the official producer prices in Ecuador and an obligation
envisaged that the external trade rules of the Community               on it to pay to its contractual partner compensation of up
system for bananas would consist of quota rules with                   to US $ 1 million, if it terminates the contract before the
favourable tariffs . The applicant should not under any                agreed date on grounds other than those provided for in
circumstances have had to anticipate a flagrant                        the contract. A restriction on imports was not agreed as a
infringement of the GATT, as was established by the                    ground for termination since, at that time, the parties to
GATT Panel in January 1994. It could have expected that                the agreement still did not have any idea of the structure
it would not be impeded when it marketed in the                        of an EC market organization for bananas. In particular,
Community through quotas the quantities contracted for                 the applicant should have been able to assume that a
with its contractual partner.                                          future EC market organization for bananas would comply
                                                                       with the GATT and, at any rate, that the quantities
                                                                       contracted for would be allowed to be marketed in the
(') OJ L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .
(2 ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und      Community unhindered by quotas.
     Ernährung [ 1996] ECR 1-6065 .
                                                                       The applicant contends that its inability to import the
                                                                       bananas into the Community because it does not have an
                                                                       import licence amounts to a circumstance which satisfies
                                                                       all the preconditions for the adoption of arrangements to
                                                                       cater for a case of hardship.
Action brought on 16 September 1997 by Anton Diirbeck
        GmbH against the Commission of the European
                             Communities                               The applicant challenged, in addition to the part of the
                          ( Case T-252/97)
                                                                       decision refusing the grant of the licences, the provision
                                                                       under which the licences granted on grounds of hardship
                            ( 97/C 357/59 )                            are not to be taken into account in calculating its
                                                                       reference quantities for future years. The contested
                 (Language of the case: German)                        decision adopted by the Commission not only infringes
                                                                       Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 as interpreted by the
                                                                       Court of Justice in its case-law ( 2 ) but also constitutes a
An action against the Commission of the European                       misuse of powers.
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 16 September
                                                                       (') OJ L 47, 25 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .
 1997 by Anton Diirbeck GmbH, Frankfurt am Main,                        ( 2 ) Case C-68/95 T. Port v. Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und
represented by Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with                        Ernährung [ 1996] ECR 1-6065 .
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Marc Baden, 24 Rue Marie-Adelaide .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty                  Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Fruchthandels
      and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission             gesellschaft mbH Chemnitz against the Commission of the
      of 10 July 1997 on the adoption of transitional                                         European Communities
      measures in favour of A. Diirbeck under the common
                                                                                (Case T-254/97)
      organization of the market in bananas in so far as,
      pursuant to Article 1 ( 6 ) of the decision, the licences                                    ( 97/C 357/60 )
      granted on grounds of hardship are not to be taken
      into account in calculating the applicant's reference
      quantities for future years and, under Article 2, the                              (Language of the case: German)
      further applications made by the applicant on
      24 December 1996 were rejected,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                               Instance of the European Communities on 19 September


title: Case T-651/13: Order of the General Court of 2 June 2014  — Time v OHIM (InStyle)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/72

         Order of the General Court of 2 June 2014 — Time v OHIM (InStyle)
   (Case T-651/13) (1)

   2014/C 315/121
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case T-133/16: Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence v ECB

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/30

         Action brought on 29 March 2016 — Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence v ECB
   (Case T-133/16)
   (2016/C 175/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Caisse régionale de crédit agricole mutuel Alpes Provence (Aix-en-Provence, France) (represented by: H. Savoie, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the European Central Bank decision of 29 January 2016 (ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/98) adopted under Article 4(1)(e) of Regulation (EU) No 468/2014 of the European Central Bank and under Articles L. 511-13, L. 511-52, L. 511-58, L. 612-23-1 and R. 612-29-3 of the French monetary and financial code (code monétaire et financier français).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful to the extent that it misconstrues the provisions of Article 13 of Directive 2013/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on access to the activity of credit institutions and the prudential supervision of credit institutions and investment firms, amending Directive 2002/87/EC and repealing Directives 2006/48/EC and 2006/49/EC (‘the CRD IV Directive’), and the provisions of Article L. 511-13 of the French monetary and financial code (‘the CMF’).

               2.

               Second plea, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful to the extent that it misconstrues the provisions of Article L. 511-52 of the CMF.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful to the extent that the ECB infringed Article L. 511-13 of the CMF and Articles 13 and 88 of the CRD IV Directive.

               4.

               Fourth plea, raised in the alternative, alleging that the contested decision is also unlawful to the extent that the ECB infringed Article L. 511-58 of the CMF.


title: Case T-443/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/39

         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — António Conde & Companhia v Commission
   (Case T-443/17)
   (2017/C 293/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: António Conde & Companhia, SA (Gafanha de Nazaré, Portugal) (represented by: J. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision refusal to forward promptly to the Secretary of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission the names of the Portuguese-licensed vessels SANTA ISABEL and CALVÃO, thus preventing them from operating, as from 1 July 2017, in the fishing zones of the North-East Atlantic, in order to fish for redfish and shrimp, and thereby infringing Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1236/2010 (1);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, alleging that the defendant has acted in breach of Article 5(1) of Regulation No 1236/2010 by interfering in the process of drafting or communication of the list of vessels drawn up by Portugal for forwarding to the Secretary of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The defendant is not entitled to comment upon, amend, make recommendations regarding, assess, deny, draft or put pressure on the Member States in respect of such lists.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1236/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 laying down a scheme of control and enforcement applicable in the area covered by the Convention on future multilateral cooperation in the North-East Atlantic fisheries and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 2791/1999 (OJ 2010 L 348, p. 17).


title: Case T-321/11 and 322/11: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Morelli v OHIM — Associazone nazionale circolo del popolo della libertà et Brambilla (PARTITO DELLA LIBERTA’) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a Community word mark PARTITO DELLA LIBERTA’ and the Community figurative mark Partito della Libertà — Name of the earlier national domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’ — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Failure to demonstrate the use of the earlier domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’ in the course of trade)

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2013 — Morelli v OHIM — Associazone nazionale circolo del popolo della libertà et Brambilla (PARTITO DELLA LIBERTA’)
   (Case T-321/11 and 322/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a Community word mark PARTITO DELLA LIBERTA’ and the Community figurative mark Partito della Libertà - Name of the earlier national domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’ - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Failure to demonstrate the use of the earlier domain name ‘partitodellaliberta.it’ in the course of trade)
   2013/C 178/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Raffaello Morelli (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Brenelli, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Associazone nazionale circolo del popolo della libertà (Milan, Italy) (Case T-321/11); and Michela Vittoria Brambilla (Milan) (Case T-322/11) (represented by: P. Tarchini, G. Sena and C.M. Furlani, lawyers)

      Re:

   Actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2011 (Cases R 1303/2010-1 and R 1304/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Mr Raffaello Morelli, and, respectively, l’Associazione nazionale circolo del popolo della libertà and Mrs Michela Vittoria Brambilla.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-321/11 and T-322/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Mr Raffaello Morelli to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case T-489/12: Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Planet v Commission (Arbitration clause — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration — Contracts relating to Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects — Eligible costs — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissible)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/24

         Order of the General Court of 9 September 2013 — Planet v Commission
   (Case T-489/12) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration - Contracts relating to Ontogov, FIT and RACWeb projects - Eligible costs - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissible)
   2013/C 336/51
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Planet AE Anonymi Etaireia Parochis Symvouleftikon Ypiresion (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, agents, and by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 272 TFEU and the first paragraph of Article 340 TFEU seeking a declaration that, first, the refusal by the Commission to allow as eligible costs certain sums paid in advance of completion of the contracts ‘Ontology enabled E-Gov Service Configuration (ONTOGOV)’, ‘Fostering self-adaptive e-government service improvement using semantic technologies (FIT)’ and ‘Risk Assessment for Customs in Western Balkans (RACWeb)’, concluded as part of the Sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European Research Area and to innovation (2002-2006), is an infringement by the Commission of its contractual obligations and, secondly, that those sums are eligible costs and ought not to be repaid.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Planet AE Anonymi Etaireia Parochis Symvouleftikon Ypiresion shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-193/04: Action brought on 1 June 2004 by Hans-Martin Tillack against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/19

         Action brought on 1 June 2004 by Hans-Martin Tillack against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-193/04)
   (2004/C 251/36)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 June 2004 by Hans-Martin Tillack, Brussels, represented by Ian S. Forrester, QC, Thierry Bosly, Christoph Arhold, Nathalie Flandin, Justus Herrlinger and Juliette Siaens, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of OLAF to make its complaint to the German and Belgian authorities;

               —

               award him pecuniary damages for an amount of money to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at a rate to be fixed by the Court;

               —

               award him the costs of the present action;

               —

               take such other or further action as justice may require.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In March 2004, the applicant's office and home were searched by the Belgian authorities following an official complaint of the Antifraud Unit of the European Commission (OLAF), accusing the applicant of bribery of an EU official.
   The applicant submits that OLAF's decision must be declared void, since it was taken in breach of essential procedural requirements and it infringed the fundamental right of the protection of journalistic sources.
   The applicant alleges that in breach of Article 11(7) of Regulation 1073/1999 (1), the OLAF Supervisory Committee was not informed prior to the complaints to the national authorities. During the entire internal OLAF investigation, the applicant has never been heard. Moreover, the decision was void in that it was based on the wrong legal basis. OLAF acted in the context of an internal OLAF investigation which aims to cover alleged breaches of applicable rules by officials although the applicant is neither an official nor a servant of any Community organ.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that OLAF's decision infringed the fundamental right of protection of journalistic sources, as part of freedom of the press, since the national authorities were asked to search the applicant's home and office in order to identify his informants within the Commission.
   As far as his application for damages is concerned, the applicant alleges that OLAF's complaints to the national authorities and its various public accusations of the applicant constituted maladministration which caused significant injury to the applicant's professional and personal reputation.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25.12.1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136 of 31.5.1999, p. 1).


title: Removal from the register of Case C-213/94

text:
No C 286/ 8           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 10 . 95
      Removal from the register of Case C-2 13/94 (M                         Removal from the register of Case C-93/95 (M
                          ( 95/C 286/17)                                                         ( 95/C 286/18 )
By order of 27 July 1995 the President of the Court ofJustice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-213/94 : Commission of the European                By order of 21 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
                                                                      register of Case C-93/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                      V ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 13 July 1995                                                       of 13 July 1995
in Case T-44/93 : Monique Saby v. Commission of the                   in Joined Cases T-466/93 , T-469/93 , T-473/93 , T-474/93
                 European Communities (*)                             and T-477/93 : Thomas O'Dwyer and Others v. Council of
(Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Proper                                 the European Union ( ] )
conduct of the pre-litigation procedure — Duty to provide             (Common organization of the market in milk and milk
assistance — Duty to have regard for the welfare ofofficials         products — Milk quotas — Additional levy — Reduction of
  — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations)           reference quantities without compensation — Claim for
                          ( 95/C 286/ 19 )                                                          damages)
                                                                                ( 95/C 286/20 )
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-44/93 : Monique Saby, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Mérète Turlin and Aloyse May, of             In Joined Cases T-466/93 , T-469/93 , T-473/93 , T-474/93
the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                    and T-477/93 : Thomas O'Dwyer, Thomas Keane, Thomas
Luxembourg at their Chambers, 31 Grand-Rue,                           Cronin and James Reidy, residing respectively at
Luxembourg, v. Commission of the European Communities                 Drumdowney, Snowhill, Waterford, Ireland; at Corbally,
( Agent : Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) — application, first, for a        Gurtymadden, Loughrea, County Galway, Ireland; at
declaration of misconduct on the part of the Commission               Ardmore, Waterford, Ireland ; and at Carrowreagh, Cooper,
and, second, for compensation for alleged material and                Tubbercurry, County Sligo, Ireland, represented by
non-material damage — the Court of First Instance (Third              Anthony Burke, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ), composed of J. Biancarelli , President, and C. P.          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12
Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has              Boulevard de la Foire, against Council of the European
given a judgment on 13 July 1995 , in which it:                       Union ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Michael Bishop ),
                                                                      supported by Commission of the European Communities
                                                                      ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and Christopher Docksey ) —
                                                                      application, in Cases T-466/93 , T-469/93 , T-473/93 and
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                      T-474/93 , for reparation of the damage allegedly suffered by
                                                                      the applicants as a result of the application of Council
                                                                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 816/92 of 31 March 1992 amending
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 on the common organization
                                                                      of the market in milk and milk products ( OJ 1992 L 86 ,
                                                                      p. 83 ) and, in Case T-477/93 , for reparation of the damage
(') OJ No C 206 , 30 . 7. 1993 .                                      allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the
                                                                      application of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 748/93 of
                                                                      17 March 1993 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92
                                                                      establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
                                                                      sector ( OJ 1993 L 77, p. 16 ) — the Court of First Instance


title: Case F-127/05: Action brought on  21 December 2005  — Nanbru v European Parliament

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/55

         Action brought on 21 December 2005 — Nanbru v European Parliament
   (Case F-127/05)
   (2006/C 60/102)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Nicole-Kiwi Nanbru (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament, notified to the applicant on 3 May 2005, giving new notification of her retirement pension rights as from 1 January 2005;

               —

               Restore the applicant to her pension rights as stated by continuous, consistent and checked figures supplied in writing (mails or notes) and confirmed orally by the DG Personnel of the European Parliament, awarding her a differential sum of EUR 634.40 per month until the expiry of her retirement pension;

               —

               Compensate for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant, provisionally assessed, ex aequo et bono, at EUR 250 000.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a temporary servant of the European Parliament in retirement since 1 January 2005, challenges the decision of that institution to reduce the amount of her pension from what had been indicated to her at the time when she was considering whether it was appropriate to retire and, if appropriate, request transfer to the Community system of her pension rights acquired in Belgium.
   Concerning the application for annulment, the applicant argues that, even if it is possible for an administrative authority to replace an illegal decision, in this case the new decision fixing her pension rights at a lower level than previously anticipated was not taken within a reasonable time. In those circumstances, the confidence she might legitimately have as to the amount of her pension had been breached.
   She argues that the non-material damage arises from the whole of the faults committed by the European Parliament throughout the case.


title: Case T-654/14: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION — Mark consisting of an advertising slogan — Absolute ground for refusal — Absence of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Revolution v EUIPO (REVOLUTION)
   (Case T-654/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark REVOLUTION - Mark consisting of an advertising slogan - Absolute ground for refusal - Absence of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 251/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Revolution LLC (Washington DC, United States) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, F. Rossi and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2014 (Case R 2143/2013-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign REVOLUTION as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Revolution LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: Case T-324/08: Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescatori San Francesco di Paola v Commission

text:
               25.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/37

         Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Pescatori San Francesco di Paola v Commission
   (Case T-324/08)
   (2008/C 272/72)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Società Cooperativa Pescatori San Francesco di Paola (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

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

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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


title: Case C-556/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Valladolid — Espagne) — María Jesús Lorenzo Martínez v Junta de Castilla y León, Dirección General de Recursos Humanos de la Consejería de Educación (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Non-university teaching — Right to six-yearly continuing professional education increments — Exclusion of teachers employed as temporary officials — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/13

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Valladolid — Espagne) — María Jesús Lorenzo Martínez v Junta de Castilla y León, Dirección General de Recursos Humanos de la Consejería de Educación
   (Case C-556/11) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Non-university teaching - Right to six-yearly continuing professional education increments - Exclusion of teachers employed as temporary officials - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2012/C 133/23
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 4 de Valladolid

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: María Jesús Lorenzo Martínez

      Defendant: Junta de Castilla y León, Dirección General de Recursos Humanos de la Consejería de Educación

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo de Valladolid — Interpretation of Clause 4 of the Annex to 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) — Principle of non-discrimination — Grant to teaching staff of a six-yearly continuing professional education increment — Increment granted exclusively to established (career) civil servants

      Operative part of the order

   Clause 4(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999 and annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which restricts, in the absence of any objective justification, the right to receive a six-yearly continuing professional education increment solely to teachers employed as established (career) civil servants, to the exclusion of those working as temporary officials, where, in respect of the receipt of that increment, those two categories of workers are in comparable situations.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2010.


title: Case T-26/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (CALDEA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark CALDEA — Earlier international word mark BALEA — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2014 — dm-drogerie markt v OHIM — Semtee (CALDEA)
   (Case T-26/13) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark CALDEA - Earlier international word mark BALEA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 93/39
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: O. Bludovsky, B. Beinert and A. Bender, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Semtee (Escaldes Engordany, Andorra)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 October 2012 (Case R 2432/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG and Semtee.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-429/04: Action brought on 30 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/13

         Action brought on 30 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-429/04)
   (2004/C 284/26)
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Wouter Wils.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

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

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

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

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 13, p. 9.


title: Case T-388/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/45

         Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (JN-JOY)
   (Case T-388/15)
   (2015/C 381/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘JN-JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 410 041

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1353/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Office:

               —

               to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;

               —

               to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-31/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 March 2006  — Eurodrive v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark euroMASTER — Earlier national word marks EUROMASTER — No similarity between the goods or services — Partial dismissal of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 — Eurodrive v OHIM
   (Case T-31/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark euroMASTER - Earlier national word marks EUROMASTER - No similarity between the goods or services - Partial dismissal of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 108/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Eurodrive Services and Distribution NV (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) (represented by: E. Chávarri and A. Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jesús Gómez Frías (Madrid, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 November 2003 (Cases R 419/2001-1 and R 530/2001-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Jesús Gómez Frías and Eurodrive Services and Distribution NV
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.


title: Case C-231/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 14 May 2002 in the case of Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H against Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha — Neusiedl/See

text:
14.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 219/3
In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:                       Question 2:
Question 2:
                                                                        In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:
Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
that an undertaking only has or had an interest in a particular         Is the abovementioned provision of the Directive to be
public contract if — in addition to its participating in the            construed in such a way that — where a bid was eliminated
public procurement procedure — it takes all steps available to          otherwise than in accordance with the law but the review body
it under national law to prevent the contract from being                in the course of its review procedure assumes and establishes
awarded to another bidder?                                              as a preliminary matter that the bid had properly to be
                                                                        eliminated — the tenderer of that bid is entitled to bring an
Question 3:                                                             application in respect of an alleged infringement of the law —
                                                                        in the present case the contracting authority’s decision to make
Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-            the award to another bidder — because owing to the
ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and               contracting authority’s defective award procedure the applicant
administrative provisions relating to the application of review         may in any event be presumed to have suffered loss and
procedures to the award of public supply and public works               errors in the award procedure can no longer be remedied
contracts, in conjunction with Article 2(1) thereof, to be              subsequently in the review procedure by substitution of
interpreted as meaning that an undertaking must be afforded             decisions of the contracting authority, and the review pro-
the opportunity in law to seek review of an award procedure             cedure must therefore be available to the applicant?
regarded by it as unlawful or discriminatory even where it is
not capable of performing the totality of the services for which
bids were invited and, for that reason, did not submit a bid in
that award procedure.                                                   (1 ) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.
( 1) OJ L 395 [1989], p. 33.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the korkein hallinto-
beamt (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of                   oikeus by order of that Court of 1st July 2002 in the
14 May 2002 in the case of Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H                                  appeal brought by Kauppatalo Hansel Oy
against Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha
                          — Neusiedl/See
                                                                                (Case C-244/02)
                          (Case C-231/02)
                          (2002/C 219/05)                                                         (2002/C 219/06)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Republic of Austria) of 14 May 2002, received at the Court             European Communities by order of the korkein hallinto-
Registry on 20 June 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the               oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) of 1st July 2002,
case of Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H against Abwasserverband                  received at the Court Registry on 4 July 2002, for a preliminary
Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha — Neusiedl/See on the                     ruling in the appeal brought by Kauppatalo Hansel Oy on the
following questions:                                                    following questions:
Question 1:
                                                                        1.    Is Council Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993
Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-                  coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
ber 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and                     contracts to be interpreted as meaning that a contracting
administrative provisions relating to the application of review               authority which has commenced a tender procedure on
procedures to the award of public supply and public works                     the basis of the lowest price may discontinue the
contracts ( 1) to be broadly interpreted as meaning that under it             procedure without awarding a contract when it discovers
entitlement to apply for a review procedure must be available                 after examining and comparing the tenders that because
to any person seeking to receive a specific public contract                   of the content of the invitation to tender it is not possible
whose award is pending, irrespective of whether such person                   for it to award a contract on the basis of the invitation to
has suffered or may suffer loss as a result of the alleged                    tender in question in the most advantageous way from
infringement of the law?                                                      the point of view of total costs?


title: Case T-401/07: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission (ERDF — Reduction of financial assistance — Global grant for local development in Portugal — Action for annulment — Whether directly concerned — Inadmissibility — Arbitration clause)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2011 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission
   (Case T-401/07) (1)

   (ERDF - Reduction of financial assistance - Global grant for local development in Portugal - Action for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Inadmissibility - Arbitration clause)
   2011/C 113/23
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: N. Mimoso Ruiz, F. Ponce de Leão Paulouro and C. Farinhas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and L. Flynn, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995, and a claim for an order against the Commission to pay the final balance of the financial assistance under Article 238 EC.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders the Caixa Geral de Depósitos, SA to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Portugal to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008