title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 132, 28.5.2005

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/45

         (2005/C 143/85)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

      OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

      OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

      OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

      OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-52/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/25
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest          Action brought on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte
       thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May                against the Council of the European Union and the
       1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                 Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-53/97 )
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                                         ( 97/C 142/52 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
Case T-50/97 (').                                                       the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                        Communities on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte, of
                                                                        Fleringen ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                        of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                        Guillaume .
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
against the Council of the European Union and the
            Commission of the European Communities                      ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                           ( Case T-52/97)                                     applicant the sum of Fl 279 389, together with interest
                             ( 97/C 142/51 )                                   thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full ;
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                               in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
                                                                               applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
An action against the Council of the European Union and                        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 45 349
the Commission of the European Communities was                                 ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
Communities on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans, of                           thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Herkenbosch (Netherlands ), represented by E. Fl .                             1992 until the date of the payment in full;
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in               ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
 Guillaume .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-50/97 (').
 ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
        applicant the sum of Fl 60 863 , together with interest          (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
        thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
        1992 until the date of payment in full;
        in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
        applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 22 390 ,                Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil
        ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           against the Council of the European Union and the
        Regulation ( EEC) No 2187/93 ), together with interest                      Commission of the European Communities
        thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                                            ( Case T-54/97 )
        1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                                   ( 97/C 142/53 )
 ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil , of
 Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                         Winterswijk Miste (Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
                                                                          Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
  (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                  van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden , 62 Avenue
                                                                          Guillaume .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 November 2003 in Case T-286/02: Oriental Kitchen SARL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark KIAP MOU — Earlier national word marks MOU — Refusal to register)

text:
24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               against Economic and Social Committee of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: M. Bermejo Garde and D. Waelbroeck)
                     of 26 November 2003                                  — application for annulment of the decisions of the Bureau
                                                                          of the Economic and Social Committee of the European
                                                                          Communities of 20 September 2001 rejecting the applicant’s
in Case T-222/02: HERON Robotunits GmbH v Office for                      candidature for the post of head of the Italian Translation
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     and Transcription Division of the Logistics and Translation
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                Directorate and the decision of 16 October 2001 appointing
                                                                          another candidate to the post — the Court of First Instance
(Community trade mark — Word mark ROBOTUNITS —                            (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President,
Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation              and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,
           (EC) No 40/94 — Descriptive character)                         Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                          11 November 2003, in which it:
                          (2004/C 21/69)
                                                                          1.    dismisses the application.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
In Case T-222/02, HERON Robotunits GmbH, established
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.
in Lustenau (Austria), represented by M. Bergermann and
R. Hackbarth, lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents:
S. Bonne and G. Schneider): Action against the decision of the
First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 May 2002
(Case R 1095/2000-1) refusing to register the word mark
ROBOTUNITS as a Community trade mark, the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President,                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 November 2003, in                                         of 25 November 2003
which it:
                                                                          in Case T-286/02: Oriental Kitchen SARL v Office for
1.    Dismisses the action;                                               Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.                                                Application for the Community word mark KIAP MOU —
                                                                            Earlier national word marks MOU — Refusal to register)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/71)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 11 November 2003                                                      (Language of the case: French)
in Case T-248/02: Carla Faita v Economic and Social
        Committee of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          In Case T-286/02, Oriental Kitchen SARL, established in
                                                                          Choisy-le-Roi (France), represented by J.-J. Sebag, lawyer, v
(Officials — Vacancies — Article 29(1) of the Staff Regu-                 Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
lations — Appointments procedure — Manifest error of                      and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Lory, O. Waelbroeck and
             assessment — Statement of reasons)                           O. Montalto), the intervener before the Court being Mou
                                                                          Dybfrost A/S, established in Esbjerg N (Denmark), represented
                          (2004/C 21/70)                                  by T. Steffensen, lawyer: Action against the decision of the
                                                                          Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2002
                                                                          (Case R 114/2001-4) in respect of the opposition of the
                                                                          proprietor of the national trade marks MOU to registration of
                                                                          the sign KIAP MOU as a Community trade mark, the Court of
In Case T-248/02: Carla Faita, official of the Economic and               First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N. J. Forwood,
Social Committee of the European Communities, residing in                 President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen,
Brussels, represented by A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
S. Orlandi, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                    25 November 2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 21/34                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.1.2004
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 15 October 2003
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.
                                                                          in Case T-372/02: Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Development cooperation — European Community
                                                                          Humanitarian Office — Framework partnership agreement
                                                                          for the co-financing of operations carried out by NGOs —
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Rejection of an application — Action for annulment —
                                                                                Inadmissible)
                     of 27 November 2003
                                                                                (2004/C 21/73)
in Case T-348/02: Quick restaurants SA v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                      Designs) (OHIM)1 (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Community trade mark — Trade mark consisting of the
word Quick — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive
character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                  Registration refused in part)
                                                                          In Case T-372/02, Internationaler Hilfsfonds eV, established in
                                                                          Rosbach (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer, v
                          (2004/C 21/72)                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Wil-
                                                                          derspin and S. Fries): Application for (i) annulment of the
                                                                          Commission’s decision of 22 October 2002 rejecting the
                   (Language of the case: French)                         application by the applicant to sign a framework partnership
                                                                          agreement with the European Community Humanitarian
                                                                          Office (ECHO), (ii) an order requiring the Commission either
                                                                          to reinstate the applicant in the position it had in 1996 when
                                                                          it applied to sign a framework partnership agreement or,
In Case T-348/02, Quick restaurants SA, established in Brussels           alternatively, to invite it to sign the framework partnership
(Belgium), represented by L. Van Bunnen, lawyer, with an                  agreement now in force and (iii) an order requiring the
address for service in Luxembourg, v Office for Harmonisation             Commission to reimburse to the applicant the costs relating to
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                   its complaint to the European Ombudsman, the Court of First
(Agents: A. Rassat and S. Laitinen): Action for partial annul-            Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President,
ment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                 R. García-Valdecasas and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              has made an order on 15 October 2003, the operative part of
and Designs) of 17 September 2002 (Case R 1117/2000-2)                    which is as follows:
concerning registration of the word Quick as a Community
trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on              1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible in its entirety.
27 November 2003, in which it:
                                                                          2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                     Commission.
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.
(1) OJ C 31 of 8.2.2003.


title: Case F-24/13: Action brought on 21 March 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/56

         Action brought on 21 March 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-24/13)
   2013/C 207/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annul the rejection of the applicant’s claim for damages for the errors committed by the Commission during a recruitment procedure which was not completed.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the appointing authority of 5 June 2012 and 7 December 2012 rejecting the applicant’s claim for compensation;

               —

               order the Commission to re-establish the applicant’s career;

               —

               order the Commission to pay EUR 14 911,07 in addition to payment of contributions to the pension scheme from October 2011, and to pay EUR 2 500 in respect of the material and non-material damage caused, subject to increase or reduction during the proceedings, those sums to be increased by late-payment interest calculated from the date on which the sums were due at the rate applied by the ECB to its main refinancing operations plus two points;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Joined Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Commission v Strack (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Access to documents — Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — No act adversely affecting an official — Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2012 — Commission v Strack
   (Joined Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Access to documents - Articles 26 and 26a of the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - No act adversely affecting an official - Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure)
   2013/C 38/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: P. Costa de Oliveira and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Two appeals brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission (2011) ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P for the purposes of the present judgment;

               2.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 20 January 2011 in Case F-121/07 Strack v Commission (2011) ECR I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 in so far as that Tribunal considered itself to have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action for annulment against a decision adopted under Regulation No 1049/2001;

               3.

               Dismisses the appeal in Case T-198/11 P;

               4.

               Orders Mr Guido Strack to bear his own costs in Cases T-197/11 P and T-198/11 P and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in Case T-198/11 P;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs in Case T-197/11 P;

               6.

               Orders Mr Strack to pay the Civil Service Tribunal EUR 2 000 in order to reimburse part of the costs which that latter had to incur.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Cordis Obst- und Gemüsegrosshandel GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-18/99)

text:
C 86/28               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                27.3.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    Instance of the European Communities on 20 January
                                                                       1999 by KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk mbH, Linz (Austria),
The applicant was fined ECU 1 500 000 by the                           represented by the firm of Grassner, Lenz, Thewanger and
Commission for participating in a cartel between                       Partners, Rechtsanwälte, Linz, with an address for service
manufacturers and distributors of district heating pipes (1).          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch and
                                                                       Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
The applicant pleads:
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð infringement of the right to a proper hearing;
Ð infringement of the duty to state reasons under                      1. annul Commission Decision C(1998) 3117 final of
     Article 190 of the EC Treaty;                                          21 October 1998 concerning a proceeding under
                                                                            Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/35.691/E-4, Fern-
                                                                            wärmetechnik-Kartell), as amended by Commission
Ð infringement of the principles of non-retroactivity and                   Decision C(1998) 3415 final of 6 November 1998, in
     the protection of legitimate expectations, and of the                  so far as it concerns the applicant;
     duty of the administration to act in accordance with
     statute;
                                                                            or, in the alternative,
Ð abuse of discretion in applying the guidelines on
     fines (2);
                                                                       2. annul the fine imposed on the applicant;
Ð abuse of discretion and discrimination in applying the
     rules whereby undertakings cooperating with the
     Commission during its investigation into a cartel may                  or, in the alternative,
     be exempted from fines (3);
                                                                       3. reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;
Ð misapplication of heading D of the above rules;
Ð infringement of the principles of equal treatment and                4. order the Commission to pay the costs in any event.
     proportionality, and of the prohibition of arbitrary
     action;
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð inaccuracy of the facts alleged;
                                                                       The applicant was fined ECU 360 000 by the Commission
Ð incorrect assessment of the turnover figures relevant to
                                                                       for participating in a cartel between manufacturers and
     determining the amount of the fine;
                                                                       distributors of district heating pipes. (1)
Ð fixing of an excessive interest rate; and
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are essentially the
Ð erroneous legal assessment.                                          same as in Cases T-9/99 and T-16/99.
(1) See Case T-9/99.                                                   (1) See Case T-9/99.
(2) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the
    ECSC Treaty (OJ C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).
                                                                       Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Cordis Obst- und
                                                                       Gemüsegrosshandel GmbH against the Commission of the
Action brought on 20 January 1999 by KE KELIT Kunst-                                        European Communities
stoffwerk mbH against Commission of the European
                         Communities                                                            (Case T-18/99)
                        (Case T-17/99)                                                          (1999/C 86/50)
                        (1999/C 86/49)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European                       An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 86/29
Instance of the European Communities on 21 January                  in the same position as if the reference period giving rise
1999 by Cordis Obst- und Gemüsegrosshandel GmbH,                    to entitlement had covered the years 1995 to 1997. The
Ostrau (Germany), represented by Gert Meier,                        applicant maintains that Article 6(3) of that regulation
Rechtsanwalt, Jakordenstraûe 10, Köln.                              should also be annulled as an ancillary because reduction
                                                                    of the quantity allocated was contrary to the GATT. The
                                                                    enactment of Community legislation contrary to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         GATT after final judgment by a legal organ of the WTO
                                                                    that an infringement had taken place represented a misuse
                                                                    of powers by the Commission giving rise to a right to
1. order the Commission to compensate the applicant for             compensation.
    its loss suffered as a result of
                                                                    In the applicant's view, however, compensation in kind
    (a) the Commission's adopting the years 1994 to 1996            through the issuing of import rights capable of serving as
         as the reference period for traditional operators,         a basis of reference for the future is possible in this case.
    (b) the quantity provisionally approved by the                  (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 27.
         competent authorities being reduced by application         (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998
         of the adjustment coefficient;                                 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas
                                                                        into the Community (OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 32).
2. order the Commission, in so far as the quantities to
    which the applicant is legitimately entitled have been
    wrongly reduced, to make good that loss by allocating
    to it additional licences in the future (compensation in
    kind);
                                                                    Action brought on 21 January 1999 by DKV Deutsche
                                                                    Krankenversicherungs AG against the Office for
3. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and
                                                                                designs)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                         (Case T-19/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/51)
The applicant has already brought an action against the
Commission in Case T-612/97 (1), challenging the                                    (Language of the case: German)
Commission's decision refusing the applicant additional
licences by way of compensation for hardship.
                                                                    An action against the Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                    Market (trade marks and designs) was brought before the
The applicant now claims compensation on the ground                 Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
that, after the entry into force of Regulation (EC)                 21 January 1999 by DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherungs
No 2362/98 (2), it applied for the allocation of a reference        AG,       of Cologne,       represented     by Stephan        v.
quantity of 2 591 427 kg of bananas for the years 1994 to           Petersdorff-Campen, of Rechtsanwälte von Rospatt, von
1996, but the quantity allocated was reduced by                     der Osten, Prost, Düsseldorf, with an address for service
application of the adjustment coefficient.                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, Loesch
                                                                    and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
The applicant argues that by adopting the years 1994 to
1996 as the reference period for the year 1999, the                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission unlawfully put the reference period back by a
year, given that in accordance with Article 19(2) of
                                                                    Ð alter the contested decision and order the defendant to
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 the reference period was the
                                                                         register the sign COMPANYLINE, application number
period from 1995 to 1997. Imports in 1994 had already
                                                                         319038, for the services claimed in class 36 (insurance
been used three times for reference purposes, namely in
                                                                         bodies; financial bodies) as a Community trade mark
the years 1996 to 1998. The applicant maintains that the
                                                                         in the register of Community trade marks subject to a
putting back of the reference period is arbitrary, a misuse
                                                                         disclaimer by the applicant that it will not claim any
of powers and insufficiently reasoned under Article 190 of
                                                                         exclusive rights in the constituent elements (namely
the EC Treaty. It also alleges infringement of Article I:1 of
                                                                         COMPANY and LINE) of the sign;
the GATT, Articles II and XVII of the GATS and
Articles I:2 and I:3 of the WTO Agreement on Licences.
                                                                         In the alternative
Moreover, as an ancillary, Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 2362/98 should be annulled for arbitrariness, lack of                 to annul the contested decision.
reasoning and misuse of powers, and the applicant placed


title: Case T-441/15: Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA (Arbitration clause — Multiple framework contract involving the ‘cascade’ system EMA/2012/10/ICT — External service provision for software applications — Request to provide services addressed to the applicants — Rejection of the candidates proposed by the applicants — Proportionality — Reclassification in part of the action — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 February 2017 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Others v EMA
   (Case T-441/15) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Multiple framework contract involving the ‘cascade’ system EMA/2012/10/ICT - External service provision for software applications - Request to provide services addressed to the applicants - Rejection of the candidates proposed by the applicants - Proportionality - Reclassification in part of the action - Non-contractual liability))
   (2017/C 112/47)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece), European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially I. Ampazis and M. Sfyri, then M. Sfyri, D. Papadopoulou and C.-N. Dede, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, G. Gavriilidou and P. Eyckmans, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 263 TFEU and asking for annulment of the EMA’s decision of 4 June 2015, notified to the applicants by means of an e-mail from the IT Resource Manager, rejecting two of the candidates whom the applicants had proposed in response to the request for services SC001, in the context of the ΕΜΑ/2012/10/ICT framework-agreement, and, second, application based on Article 268 TFEU and asking for compensation for the harm that the applicants had allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE and European Dynamics Belgium SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 5.10.2015.


               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/32

         Designation of the judge to replace the President of the Civil Service Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures
   (2006/C 261/66)
   On 20 September 2006, in accordance with Article 3(4) of Decision 2004/752 and Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, the Tribunal decided that, for the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007, Judge Kreppel, President of the First Chamber, shall replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures in the event of the President's absence or his being prevented from attending.


title: Case T-182/03: Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando and Others against the European Parliament

text:
2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
                                                                          the Board of Appeal:             gistration
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilm’, applica-
sought:                          tion no 2 467 348
                                                                          Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
                                                                          Appeal:                          peal
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42
                                 (creating photographs etc.)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-
                                                                                ulation No 40/94 (1)
Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
the Board of Appeal:             gistration
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                              Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
Appeal:                          peal
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)          Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addi-
                                 and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-             mando and Others against the European Parliament
                                 ulation No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                (Case T-182/03)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                                (2003/C 184/96)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                       20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando, residing in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg, and 32 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
                         (Case T-179/03)                                  lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2003/C 184/95)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                               changing, with effect from a year not further specified
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                        during which the applicants were officials of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                         European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg                              annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the
(Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.                                journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the
                                                                               destination of Athens;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the                   or, in the alternative,
      defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 638/2002-3;
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
                                                                               (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                during which the applicants were officials of the
                                                                               European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilmMaker’, ap-                Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
sought:                          plication no 2 467 017                        nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                          —    annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                               decisions annulment of which is sought;
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9          —    reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42                   following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                 (creating photographs etc.)                   which is sought, together with legal interest;
 ---pagebreak--- C 184/44              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA
      Parliament to pay those costs.                                       against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-                                        (Case T-184/03)
ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                                               (2003/C 184/98)
applicants in support of their application are similar to those
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular                         21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA, (Madrid), represented by José
Evolution, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                Antonio Calderón Chavero, lawyer at the Madrid Bar.
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-183/03)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2003/C 184/97)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                of 10 March 2003 in Case R-183/2002;
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           —     dismiss in its entirety opposition procedure no B262.271;
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc., San Diego,               —     uphold the claims of the appellant and allow the relevant
USA, represented by Mr A. Deutsch, lawyer.                                       Opposition Division at OHIM to register the trade mark
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      in question; and
—     Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-              —     order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs.
      marks and Designs) in the case R 108/2002-2 of
      13 March 2003.
—     Order the defendant to register the mark No 001586510
      ‘APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION’
—     Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
      defendant                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Applicant for Community          GESINAR S.L. (Assignee: the ap-
Applicant for Community          Applied    Molecular     Evolution,       trade mark:                      plicant)
trade mark:                      Inc
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘APPLIED MOLECU-
sought:                          LAR EVOLUTION’ for certain
                                 services in Class 42 (application         Community       trade    mark    Figurative mark ‘Gesinar’ — Ap-
                                 No 001586510)                             sought:                          plication no 1 202 027 for
                                                                                goods in Classes 35, 36 and
Examiner's decision:             Application refused                                                        41 (business management assis-
                                                                                tance, administration, brokerage,
Decision of the Board of         Appeal dismissed                                                           leasing, evaluation, appraisal
Appeal:                                                                                and development of all kinds
                                                                                of real estate; issue of tokens
Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 7(1)                                             of value, educational and enter-
                                 (b) and (c), of Regulation 40/                                             tainment services)
                                 94 (1).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or sign       GESTIONES         ADMINISTRATI-
                                                                           cited in the opposition pro-     VAS Y SERVICIOS INMOBI-
                                                                           ceedings:                        LIARIOS MAR S.L.


title: Case C-114/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/29

         Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-114/07)
   (2007/C 95/53)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 85.


title: Case C-312/05 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2007 — TeleTech Holdings, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Teletech International SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Community word mark — Application for declaration of invalidity — Earlier national word mark)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/7

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 March 2007 — TeleTech Holdings, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Teletech International SA
   (Case C-312/05 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Community word mark - Application for declaration of invalidity - Earlier national word mark)
   (2007/C 155/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant: TeleTech Holdings, Inc. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo and I. de Medrano Caballero, Agents), Teletech International SA (represented by: J.-F. Adelle and F. Zimeray, avocats)
   Re:
   Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 25 May 2005, TeleTech Holdings v OHIM (intervener: Teletech International SA) (T-288/03), in which the Court of First Instance dismissed the appeal against a decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) which had upheld in part an application for a declaration of invalidity regarding the Community trade mark ‘TELETECH GLOBAL VENTURES’ brought by Teletech International SA as holder of the national trade mark ‘TELETECH INTERNATIONAL’
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               TeleTech Holdings, Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281 of 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-294/14: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Klemme v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate — Action for annulment — Application to amend the form of order sought — No new information — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/22

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2015 — Klemme v Commission
   (Case T-294/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate - Action for annulment - Application to amend the form of order sought - No new information - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 245/26)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Klemme AG (Lutherstadt Eisleben, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, M. Ringel, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by A. Luke and C. Maurer, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               The application seeking that the form of order sought in the present action be amended to cover Commission decision C (2014) 8786 final of 25 November 2014 relating to State Aid SA. 33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users is rejected as inadmissible.

               3.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for intervention submitted by the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               4.

               Klemme AG shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

               5.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-391/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus Miesto 1 Apylinkės Teismas (Republic of Lithuania), lodged on 2 October 2009 — Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v The Municipal Government Administration of the City of Vilnius, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, the State Commission on the Lithuanian Language and the Civil Registry Division of the Legal Affairs Department of the Municipal Government Administration of the City of Vilnius

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus Miesto 1 Apylinkės Teismas (Republic of Lithuania), lodged on 2 October 2009 — Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn v The Municipal Government Administration of the City of Vilnius, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, the State Commission on the Lithuanian Language and the Civil Registry Division of the Legal Affairs Department of the Municipal Government Administration of the City of Vilnius
   (Case C-391/09)
   2009/C 312/33
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus Miesto 1 Apylinkės Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Malgožata Runevič-Vardyn and Łukasz Paweł Wardyn

      Defendants: The Municipal Government Administration of the City of Vilnius, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, the State Commission on the Lithuanian Language and the Civil Registry Division of the Legal Affairs Department of the Municipal Government Administration of the City of Vilnius

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of the rules contained in Council Directive 2000/43/EC (1) of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, is Article 2(2)(b) of that directive to be construed as prohibiting Member States from indirectly discriminating against individuals on grounds of their ethnic origin in the case where national legal rules provide that personal first names and surnames may be written in documents indicating civil status using only the letters of the national language?

               2.

               In the light of the rules contained in Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, is Article 2(2)(b) of that directive to be construed as prohibiting Member States from indirectly discriminating against individuals on grounds of their ethnic origin in the case where national legal rules provide that the first names and surnames of individuals of different origin or nationality must be written, in documents indicating civil status, using Roman letters and not employing diacritical marks, ligatures or other modifications to the letters of the Roman alphabet which are used in a variety of languages?

               3.

               In the light of Article 18(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which provides that every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and in the light of the first paragraph of Article 12 of that Treaty, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality, should those provisions be construed as prohibiting Member States from providing in national legal rules that personal first names and surnames may be written in documents indicating civil status using only the letters of the national language?

               4.

               In the light of Article 18(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which provides that every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, and in the light of the first paragraph of Article 12 of that Treaty, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality, should those provisions be construed as prohibiting Member States from providing in national legal rules that the first names and surnames of individuals of different origin or nationality must be written, in documents indicating civil status, using Roman letters and not employing diacritical marks, ligatures or other modifications to the letters of the Roman alphabet which are used in a variety of languages?

      (1)  OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.


title: Case C-423/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Vilniaus energija UAB v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius (Request for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Directive 2004/22/EC — Metrological verification of measuring systems — Hot-water meter satisfying all the requirements of that directive and connected to a remote (telemetric) data-transmission device — Prohibition of the use of that meter without a prior metrological verification of the system)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — Vilniaus energija UAB v Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius
   (Case C-423/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Measures having equivalent effect - Directive 2004/22/EC - Metrological verification of measuring systems - Hot-water meter satisfying all the requirements of that directive and connected to a remote (telemetric) data-transmission device - Prohibition of the use of that meter without a prior metrological verification of the system))
   2014/C 409/23
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vilniaus energija UAB

      Defendant: Lietuvos metrologijos inspekcijos Vilniaus apskrities skyrius

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 34 TFEU and Directive 2004/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on measuring instruments must be interpreted as precluding national legislation and practice according to which a hot-water meter which satisfies all the requirements of that directive and is connected to a remote (telemetric) data-transmission device is to be regarded as a measuring system and, as a result, cannot be used for its intended purpose so long as it has not been subject, together with that device, to a metrological verification as a measuring system.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case C-127/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/65/EC — Distance marketing of financial services — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-127/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/65/EC - Distance marketing of financial services - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 331/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (OJ 2002 L 271, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 21(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


10.6.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 163/23
2. order the defendant to pay the costs.                                        Removal from the register of Case C-218/99 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                  (2000/C 163/43)
In the Commission’s view, the practice followed in Austria
does not accord with the principle of proportionality (Article           By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of
30 EC). That practice fails to take account of the fact that             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
vitamins and mineral nutrients may be harmful to a greater or            from the register of Case C-218/99: Commission of the
lesser degree. It would be less restrictive to fix a limit for each      European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
individual mineral nutrient and to require any preparation
with a nutrient content in excess of that limit to be classified         (1) OJ C 266 of 7.8.1999.
as a medicinal product. It seems too sweeping, therefore, to
take the daily dose alone as the determining criterion.
At the same time, the practice referred to fails to take account
of the fact that the Member State concerned is required to
state, in relation to each individual product, that it constitutes
a serious health risk. It is unacceptable to require the applicant
to prove that a substance is not harmful, since it is for the                   Removal from the register of Case C-361/99 (1)
Member State itself to show that a higher concentration
presents a health risk where the critical limits accepted by the                                 (2000/C 163/44)
scientific bodies are not reached.
                                                                         By order of 16 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-361/99 (reference for a preliminary
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/99 (1)                    ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien):
                         (2000/C 163/41)                                 Silveria Gäng v Republic of Austria.
By order of 13 March 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal              (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
from the register of Case C-406/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-438/98 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-221/98 (1)                                            (2000/C 163/45)
                         (2000/C 163/42)
                                                                         By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the First Chamber
By order of 14 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has                  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-438/98:
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-221/98:                  Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.                Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 278 of 14.3.2000.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.


title: Case T-416/13: Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014  — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Operation of video lottery terminals — Grant by Greece of an exclusive licence — Decision rejecting a complaint — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/13

         Order of the General Court of 5 June 2014 — Stanleybet Malta and Stanley International Betting v Commission
   (Case T-416/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Competition - Operation of video lottery terminals - Grant by Greece of an exclusive licence - Decision rejecting a complaint - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 329/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Stanleybet Malta Ltd (Valetta, Malta) and Stanley International Betting Ltd (Liverpool, United Kingdom) (represented by: R.A. Jacchia, I. Picciano, A. Terranova, F. Ferraro, G. Dellis, P. Kakouris and I. Koimitzoglou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek and R. Striani, acting as Agents, subsequently by F. Ronkes Agerbeek)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision contained in the letter of the Commission of 10 June 2013 by which it informed the applicants of its decision to reject their complaint and to close the file regarding Case COMP/39.981 — Stanleybet Group 2/OPAP.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to rule on the applications of the Hellenic Republic and of the Organismos Prognostikon Agonon Podosfairou AE (OPAP) for leave to intervene.

               3.

               Stanleybet Malta Ltd and Stanley International Betting Ltd shall bear their own costs and pay those borne by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


C 118/44              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.4.2001
       Removal from the Register of Case T-40/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-155/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/119)                                                          (2001/C 118/121)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 28 November 2000, the President of the Fifth
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-40/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                 Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
mission of the European Communities.                                      Case T-155/00, Acheme v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
      Removal from the Register of Case T-107/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-196/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/120)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/122)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 12 December 2000, the President of the Second                                    (Language of the case: French)
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  By order of 11 December 2000, the President of the Fifth
Case T-107/00, Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Com-                Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
mission of the European Communities.                                      Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-196/00, Luc Verheyden v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                 Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.


title: Case F-63/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Patsarika v Cedefop (Staff cases — Contract staff — Reassignment — Rights of the defence — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Default procedure)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2009 — Patsarika v Cedefop
   (Case F-63/07) (1)

   (Staff cases - Contract staff - Reassignment - Rights of the defence - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Default procedure)
   2009/C 102/53
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Patsarika (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, Agent, assisted by P. Anestis, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision of annul the decision of Cedefop of 20 September 2006 terminating the applicant's fixed-term contract at the end of her probationary period and, second, an action for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Ms Patsarika to bear three-quarters of her own costs;

               3.

               orders the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training to bear its own costs and to pay one quarter of Ms Patsarika's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283 of 24.11.2007, p. 43.


title: Case C-111/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Občina Gorje v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 4 March 2015 — Občina Gorje v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-111/15)
   (2015/C 245/02)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Upravno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Občina Gorje

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Regulation No 1698/2005[/EC] (1), in particular Article 71(3) thereof, pursuant to which the rules on eligibility of expenditure are to be set at national level, subject to the special conditions laid down by that regulation for certain rural development measures, be interpreted as precluding the national legislation set out in Article 79(4) of [the Decree on measures implementing Axes 1, 3 and 4 of the Rural Development Programme of the Republic of Slovenia for the period 2007-2013, in the years 2010 to 2013 (‘the RDP Decree’)] and in point 3 of Section VI of the invitation to tender, pursuant to which only expenses incurred after the date of adoption of the decision on the right to obtain funding (until the end of the investment period or, at the latest, 30 June 2015) constitute eligible investment expenditure?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must Regulation No 1698/2005, in particular Article 71(3) thereof, be interpreted as precluding the national legislation set out in Article 56(4) of the Zakon o kmetijstvu (Law on agriculture), in accordance with which any claim that does not meet the requirements of Article 79(4) of the RDP Decree on eligible investment expenditure incurred after the date of adoption of the decision [on the right to obtain funding] must be rejected in its entirety?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), OJ 2005 L 277, p. 1.


title: Case C-170/02 P: Appeal brought on 7 May 2002 by Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH, "Die Presse" Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and "Salzburger Nachrichten" Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG against the order made on 11 March 2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-3/02 between Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH, "Die Presse" Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and "Salzburger Nachrichten" Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG and Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 156/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret                  Appeal brought on 7 May 2002 by Schlüsselverlag J.S.
by order of that Court of 1st May 2002 in the case of                     Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH
     Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet                    & Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-
                                                                          Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungs-
                                                                          verlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH, ‘Die Presse’
                                                                          Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’
                          (Case C-169/02)                                 Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG against the order
                                                                          made on 11 March 2002 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-3/
                                                                          02 between Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H.,
                         (2002/C 156/19)                                  J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG,
                                                                          Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß
                                                                          Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft
                                                                          mbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salz-
                                                                          burger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG
                                                                                and Commission of the European Communities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                           (Case C-170/02 P)
European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
Regional Court) of 1st May 2002, received at the Court                                            (2002/C 156/20)
Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Dansk Postordreforening against Skatteministeriet on the
following questions:
                                                                          An appeal against the order made on 11 March 2002 by the
                                                                          Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third
1.    Is Article 13(A)(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive (Council          Chamber) in Case T-3/02 between Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser
      Directive 77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted as meaning:             Gesellschaft m.b.H., J. Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria
                                                                          Medien AG, Zeitungs- und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen
                                                                          Ruß Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft
                                                                          mbH, ‘Die Presse’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger
      (i)   that a Member State has the right to levy VAT on              Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG and Com-
            the conveyance by the public postal services of COD           mission of the European Communities (1) was brought before
            letters and parcels to private persons where the              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 May
            Member State has removed such items of mail from              2002 by Schlüsselverlag J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., J.
            the exclusive right and obligation to convey mail             Wimmer Medien GmbH & Co KG, Styria Medien AG, Zeitungs-
            under the Member State’s national postal legislation,         und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., Eugen Ruß Vorarlberger
            or                                                            Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei Gesellschaft mbH, ‘Die Presse’
                                                                          Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Ver-
                                                                          lags-Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co KG, represented by Dr Michael
      (ii) is a Member State required not to levy VAT on such             Krüger, Rechtsanwalt, Linz.
            items of mail?
                                                                          The appellants claim that the Court should:
2.    If neither Question 1(i) or 1(ii) can be answered unequivo-         —     Set aside the contested order and give judgment in
      cally in the affirmative, what criteria should be used to                 accordance with the form of order sought in the appli-
      establish whether a Member State has a right, under the                   cation; in the alternative, set aside the contested order
      circumstances set out in Question 1(i), to levy VAT on                    and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance; in
      the conveyance of COD letters and parcels to private                      either case, order the defendant Commission to pay the
      individuals or is it required not to levy VAT on such                     costs.
      items of mail?
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              —     Incompleteness of findings of fact
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                  The Court of First Instance took the Commission’s
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).                          statement that the letters of 12 July 2001 and 3 Septem-
                                                                                ber 2001 ‘give the opinion of the merger control
                                                                                directorate and are not binding on the European Com-
                                                                                mission’ as the basis for its legal assessment without
                                                                                including the content of that statement in its findings of
                                                                                fact.
 ---pagebreak--- C 156/12                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.6.2002
—     Incorrect legal assessment of the letter of the director of      the pension of 5 % for each year by which the pension is taken
      the merger control directorate of 7 November 2001                in advance?
      The interpretation of the Court of First Instance that the
      letter of 7 November 2001 is to be imputed to the                (1) Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
      Commission as a contestable act, since in contrast to the            progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
      two previous letters there is no mention in it of the                for men and women in matters of social security (OJ L 6 of
      Commission not being bound, appears arbitrary and                    10.1.1979, p. 24).
      contrary to the principle of good faith and hence in
      breach of general principles of Community law.
      With a correct legal assessment, the Court of First Instance
      should have concluded that the letter of the merger              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
      control directorate of 7 November 2001 was not imput-            di Cassazione by order of that Court of 17 January 2002
      able to the Commission, so that there was a continuing           in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura
      failure to act by the Commission.                                — AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessandro &
                                                                       Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricol-
                                                                       tura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda agricola
                                                                       Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against Agen-
                                                                       zia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA; and 4) Agen-
(1) Not yet reported in the ECR.                                       zia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against
                                                                                Battista e Giacomo Malzani
                                                                             (Case C-177/02, C-178/02, C-179/02 e C-180/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/22)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the la Corte Suprema di
                                                                       Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 17 January 2002,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Cour de              received at the Court Registry on 13 May 2002, for a
Cassation by judgment of that Court of 29 April 2002 in                preliminary ruling in the cases of 1) Agenzia per le erogazioni
the case of Robert Bourgard against Institut National                  in agricoltura — AGEA against Azienda agricola Fava Alessan-
   d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants                dro & Delledonne Carla; 2) Agenzia per le erogazioni in
                                                                       agricoltura — AGEA against Luigi Serpelloni; 3) Azienda
                                                                       agricola Coato Giovanni, Lorenzo & Vaccaro Ivana against
                          (Case C-172/02)                              Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA; and
                                                                       4) Agenzia per le erogazioni in agricoltura — AGEA against
                                                                       Battista e Giacomo Malzani on the following question:
                          (2002/C 156/21)
                                                                       Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March
                                                                       1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of
                                                                       28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                       additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
European Communities by judgment of the Belgian Cour de
                                                                       liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
Cassation (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2002, received at the
                                                                       exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
Court Registry on 10 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Robert Bourgard against Institut National
d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants on the
following question:                                                    (1) OJ L 90 of 1.4.1984, p. 10.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
Does Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) of the Council of
19 December 1978 authorise a Member State which has set
the pensionable age of male self-employed workers at 65 and
that of female self-employed workers at 60, with the result
that the old-age pension of male workers is calculated on the
basis of an insurance record expressed as a fraction with a
denominator of 45, whilst the denominator is 40 for female
workers, to impose on male workers, who alone have the right
to rquest early payment of the old-age pension in the five years
prior to normal retirement age, a reduction in the amount of


title: Case T-39/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2014  — Cezar v OHIM — Poli-Eco (Insert) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing an insert — Earlier design — Novelty — Individual character — Visible features of a component part of a complex product — Assessment of the earlier design — Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 October 2014 — Cezar v OHIM — Poli-Eco (Insert)
   (Case T-39/13) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing an insert - Earlier design - Novelty - Individual character - Visible features of a component part of a complex product - Assessment of the earlier design - Articles 3, 4, 5, 6 and 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   2014/C 409/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński (Ełk, Poland) (represented initially by M. Nentwig and G. Becker, and subsequently by M. Nentwig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by F. Mattina, and subsequently by P. Bullock, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. (Szprotawa, Poland) (represented initially by B. Rokicki, and subsequently by D. Rzazewska, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 November 2012 (Case R 1512/2010-3), concerning invalidity proceedings between Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. and Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 8 November 2012 (Case R 1512/2010-3);

               2)

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Cezar Przedsiębiorstwo Produkcyjne Dariusz Bogdan Niewiński;

               3)

               Orders Poli-Eco Tworzywa Sztuczne sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case C-493/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz — Austria) — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH v Finanzamt Linz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes — Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 — Categories of aid which may be regarded as compatible with the internal market and exempt from the obligation to notify — Mandatory nature of the conditions for exemption — Article 3(1) — Express reference to that regulation in the aid scheme)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz — Austria) — Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH v Finanzamt Linz
   (Case C-493/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Aid scheme in the form of reductions in environmental taxes - Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 - Categories of aid which may be regarded as compatible with the internal market and exempt from the obligation to notify - Mandatory nature of the conditions for exemption - Article 3(1) - Express reference to that regulation in the aid scheme))
   (2016/C 343/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzgericht — Außenstelle Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dilly’s Wellnesshotel GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Linz

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles [107 TFEU and 108 TFEU] (General block exemption Regulation) must be interpreted as meaning that the absence, in an aid scheme such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of an express reference to that regulation, by citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union, precludes that scheme from being considered to fulfil the conditions for exemption, under Article 25(1) of that regulation, from the obligation to notify laid down in Article 108(3) TFEU.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case C-149/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 25 March 2013 — B v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-149/13)
   2013/C 171/33
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: B

      Defendant:
      Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Question referred

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

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.