title: Case T-241/13: Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/38

         Action brought on 25 April 2013 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-241/13)
   2013/C 207/63
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias, S. Papaiannou and A. Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               uphold the action;

               —

               annul the Commission implementing decision of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2013) 981 and published at OJ 2013 L 67, as regards the part relating to the Hellenic Republic;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In relation to the financial corrections imposed by the contested Commission implementing decision of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2013) 981 and published at OJ 2013 L 67, in so far as that decision imposes financial corrections on the Hellenic Republic, in relation to aid referred to in Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003, in the bovine, sheep and goat and tobacco sectors in the claim years 2006 and 2007, the Hellenic Republic puts forward the following pleas for annulment:
   By the first plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic submits that the correction imposed for the weaknesses found as regards implementation of Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 (1) is unlawful and should be annulled because: (a) it infringes Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003, which is implemented optionally by the Member States and confers a very broad discretion as regards definition of the persons entitled to the additional payment, of the eligibility criteria and of the more specific terms and conditions for making the additional payment; and (b) ineffectual implementation of Article 69 of Regulation No 1782/2003 does not have the effect of causing damage to the Fund, as required by Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 (2) in order for a financial correction to be lawfully imposed.
   By the second plea for annulment, the Hellenic Republic contends that the correction imposed for shortcomings in key checks in the tobacco sector is unlawful and should be annulled because: (a) the Commission’s finding that the on-the-spot checks did not comply with Regulation No 796/2004 (3) is based on an incorrect interpretation and application of Article 23 of that regulation and on a deficient appraisal of the facts, and contains deficient and contradictory reasoning; and (b) the Commission’s finding that the key checks in processing undertakings were not carried out is based on an error as to the facts.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-66/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany)): D. Wandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation — Incurrence of a customs debt on importation — Relevant time — Concept of removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duty — Production of certificates of origin — Effect)

text:
16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 173/3
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                        As Community law stands at present, Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the
3.    Orders the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the             competent authorities of a Member State from interpreting the
      Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European               national law governing the practice of medicine in such a way that,
      Communities to bear their own costs.                                 within the context of the correction of purely optical defects, the
                                                                           objective examination of a client’s eyesight, that is to say, an
                                                                           examination which does not use a method under which the client
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
                                                                           alone determines the optical defects from which he is suffering, is
                                                                           reserved, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, to a
                                                                           category of professionals holding specific qualifications, such as
                                                                           ophthalmologists, to the exclusion, in particular, of opticians who are
                                                                           not qualified medical doctors. It is for the national court to assess, in
                                                                           the light of the Treaty requirements relating to freedom of establish-
                                                                           ment and the demands of legal certainty and the protection of public
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     health, whether the interpretation of domestic law adopted by the
                                                                           competent national authorities in that regard remains a valid basis
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  for the prosecutions brought in the case in the main proceedings.
                        of 1 February 2001                                 (1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.
in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis
Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun
and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express
Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Pro-
fessionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmo-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         logie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10
EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                                            of 1 February 2001
after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) —
National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying                   in Case C-66/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
out certain optical examinations — National legislation                    the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany)): D. Wandel GmbH
restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out                                       v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)
certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively
                       for ophthalmologists)                               (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
                                                                           Incurrence of a customs debt on importation — Relevant
                          (2001/C 173/04)                                  time — Concept of removal from customs supervision of
                                                                           goods liable to import duty — Production of certificates of
                                                                                origin — Effect)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-108/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Première Instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brus-                                 in the European Court Reports)
sels) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
pending before that court against Dennis Mac Quen, Derek                   In Case C-66/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision                        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly              (Finance Court), Bremen, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins               the proceedings pending before that court between D. Wandel
Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil                 GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation of
plaintiff — on the interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty            Article 75, Article 201(1)(a) and (2), Article 203(1) and
(now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC                Article 204(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49                 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                 (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth           of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges;                   J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,            Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it has                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
ruled:                                                                     1 February 2001, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.    Where an examination of goods has been ordered by the                 of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
      customs authority for the purposes of verifying a declaration         D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;
      which has been accepted and it has proved impossible to carry         J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      out the examination because the goods have been removed from          judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it:
      the place of temporary storage without the authorisation of the
      relevant customs authority, the customs debt on importation is        1.    Declares that, since the public management and construction
      incurred under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                   entities of Val-de-Marne and Paris and the low-rent housing
      No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community                    corporation Logirel did not publish contract notices in the
      Customs Code.                                                               Official Journal of the European Communities concerning
                                                                                the public contracts announced by notices in the Bulletin
2.    It is possible for a customs debt on importation to be incurred             Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics of 7 and
      under Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where                         16 February 1995 and the Moniteur des Travaux Publics et
      the customs declaration received by the customs office was                  du Bâtiment of 17 February 1995, the French Republic
      accompanied by technically correct certificates of origin corre-            has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
      sponding to Form A and where the zero preferential tariff                   93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
      applied to the goods covered by the declaration.                            procedures for the award of public works contracts, in particular
                                                                                Article 11(2) thereof;
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                  2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;
                                                                            3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 1 February 2001                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
ties v French Republic, supported by United Kingdom of
             Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)                                                  of 1 February 2001
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communi-
93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of ‘con-                                             ties v French Republic (1)
                          tracting authority’)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Com-
                            (2001/C 173/06)                                 munity system for the conservation and management of
                                                                            fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities
                                                                            — Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings
                      (Language of the case: French)                        (Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and
                                                                            Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary
                                                                            prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against
                     in the European Court Reports)                         those responsible for infringing the Community rules on
                                                                            conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation
In Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communities                       No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger, F. Million and S. Pailler) supported by United                                              (2001/C 173/07)
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
R.V. Magrill) — application for a declaration that, in the
context of various procedures, for the award of public                                           (Language of the case: French)
contracts for the construction of housing organised by public
development and construction entities and by low-rent hous-
ing corporations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June                                        in the European Court Reports)
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular             In Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities
Article 11(2) thereof — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                 (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v French Republic


title: Case F-79/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA (Civil service — EMCDDA staff — Temporary staff — Decision not to renew a contract of employment — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Administrative inquiry — Judgment by default — Examination of the admissibility of the application — Act adversely affecting the applicant — Inadmissibility — Allocation of costs)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/42

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Gyarmathy v EMCDDA
   (Case F-79/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - EMCDDA staff - Temporary staff - Decision not to renew a contract of employment - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Administrative inquiry - Judgment by default - Examination of the admissibility of the application - Act adversely affecting the applicant - Inadmissibility - Allocation of costs))
   (2015/C 213/68)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Valéria Anna Gyarmathy (Györ, Hungary) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti and F. Pereyra, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request seeking recognition of the fact that she had been the victim of psychological harassment on the part of her line manager and, secondly, of the decision not to renew her contract and, as a result, an application for a new investigation to be conducted and for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that the parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1/2/2014, p. 22.


title: Case T-73/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA containing information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Prima facie case — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/25

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — InterMune UK and Others v EMA
   (Case T-73/13 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA containing information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests)
   2013/C 189/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: UK Ltd (London (United Kingdom)); InterMune, Inc. (Brisbane, California, United States); and InterMune International AG (Muttenz, Switzerland) (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith, A. Williams, Solicitors, T. de la Mare, QC and F. Campbell, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jablonski, N. Rampal Olmedo and A. Spina, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, in essence, for suspension of operation of EMA Decision EMA/24685/2013 of 15 January 2013, granting a third party access to certain documents containing information submitted as part of an application for authorisation to place the medicinal product Esbriet on the market, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), inasmuch as that information is not yet within the public domain

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of EMA Decision EMA/24685/2013 of 15 January 2013, granting a third party access, under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, to the documents ‘2.4 Non-clinical Overview; 2.5 Clinical Overview; 2.6 Non-clinical Summary; and 2.7 Clinical Summary’, submitted as part of an application for authorisation to place the medicinal product Esbriet on the market, is suspended inasmuch as those documents contain information which is not yet publicly available.

               2.

               The EMA is ordered not to disclose the documents referred to in point 1 of the operative part of this order in a version which is more detailed than the edited version of those documents as provided by InterMune UK Ltd, InterMune, Inc., and InterMune International AG to the EMA on 8 October 2012.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-312/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/45

         Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-312/04)
   (2004/C 262/85)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and Valérie Landes, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service awarding him a single priority point of the directorate general in the 2003 promotions procedure, confirmed and made final by the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the application to reconsider its decision;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority not to award him any special priority points under the aegis of the ‘Comité de promotion pour activités supplémentaires dans l'intérêt de l'institution’ in the 2003 promotions procedure;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority to award him a total of 20 points in the 2003 promotions procedure, the 2003 list of meritorious officials in Grade A 5, the 2003 list of officials promoted to Grade A 4 and, in any event, the decision not to include his name in those lists;

               —

               annul, to the extent necessary, the rejection of his complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law and main arguments in this case are similar to those relied upon in Case T-311/04 José Luis Buendia Sierra v Commission


title: Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-341/96)

text:
No C 370/6            1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
     account the exact amount of the tax paid in another                          Kingdom conforms to the requirements of Directive
     State but only a tax credit which may be lower meets                         80/778/EEC           in    that   maximum   admissible
     the objective assigned to the Member States of                               concentrations for several parameters in the
     abolishing double taxation,                                                  Directive are exceeded,
— Whether Article 48 must be interpreted as meaning that                     the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
     nationals of a Member State who are frontier workers                    under the Treaty;
     in another Member State may not, by reason of a tax
     credit mechanism of the type provided for by the                   — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs .
     Franco-German Convention , be taxed more heavily
     than persons whose occupational activity is pursued in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     their State of residence .
                                                                        The grounds on which the Commission considers that the
                                                                        United Kingdom 's application of the Directive is defective
                                                                        may be summarised as follows :
                                                                        — by the acceptance of ' undertakings' from the water
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile                 companies, failure to enforce their compliance with the
di Genova by order of that court of 7 October 1996 in the                    requirements of the Directive, and
case of Ignazio Messina & Co. SPA v. Amministrazione
                     delle Finanze dello Stato                          — failure to ensure that the quality of water supplied in
                         ( Case C-338/96 )                                   several parts of the United Kingdom conforms to the
                                                                             requirements of the Directive.
                            ( 96/C 370/ 13 )
                                                                        (') Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the
                                                                            quality of water intended for human consumption ( OJ No
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      L 229 , 30 . 8 . 1980, p. 11 ).
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile
di Genova ( Genoa District Court) of 7 October 1996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 October
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio
Messina & Co., SPA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello
Stato on the questions which are identical to those in Cases            Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
C-279/96 , C-280/96 and C-281 /96 (')•                                  the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                Germany
(•) OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p . 3 .                                                          ( Case C-341/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 15 )
                                                                        An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Action brought on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of                  Communities on 15 October 1996 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the United Kingdom                  the European Communities, represented by Claudia
                         ( Case C-340/96 )                              Schmidt, of the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                            ( 96/C 370/ 14                              Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the European
                                                                        Commission, Wagner Centre C254, Kirchberg.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
October 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mr Richard Wainwright,                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for                prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de                    measures necessary in order to comply with Council
la Cruz, member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.                         Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
                                                                             procedures for the awards of public supply
                                                                             contracts ('), the Federal Republic of Germany has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph
                                                                             of Article 189 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with
— declare that:                                                              Article 34 ( 1 ) of the said Directive,
     — by failing, by the acceptance of undertakings, to                — declare, in the alternative, that the Federal Republic of
         enforce compliance by water companies with the                      Germany has failed to fulfil its obligation forthwith to
         requirements of Directive 80/778/EEC ( : ), and                     inform the Commission of the relevant measures
                                                                             adopted to transpose the Directive,
     — by failing, thereby, to ensure that the quality of
         water supplied in several parts of the United                  — order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 7 . 12 . 96              EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370/ 7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      2 . Does at least the principle, to be regarded as part of
                                                                               Community law, that national law is to be interpreted
                                                                               in a Community manner consistent with EC law,
According to the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                      require national provisions on equal treatment with
Treaty, a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be                   respect to benefits from occupational pension schemes
achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed.                     to be interpreted and applied in harmony with the
It follows that each Member State is obliged to realize the                    requirements and limitations ( prohibition of retroactive
objective of the directive prior to the expiry of the time                    effect) of Community law ?
limit prescribed therein, that is to say, to transpose it into
domestic law in such a way that its practical effect is
achieved in full . The Federal Republic of Germany has
failed to discharge that obligation to transpose the Directive
in full within the time-limit laid down in Article 34 ( 1 )
thereof ( 14 June 1994 ).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg, Brussels, by judgment of that court of
(M OJNoL 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    11 October 1996 in the case of Belgisch Interventie- en
                                                                                Restitutiebureau against Prolacto NV
                                                                                ( Case C-346/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 17 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen by order of that court
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 10 February 1995 in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                      Hannover v. Almut Sattler                          European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, of
                           ( Case C-345 /96                              11 October 1996 , received at the Court Registry on
                             ( 96/C 370/ 16 )                            21 October 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau against Prolacto
                                                                         NV on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities . by an order of the Third Chamber
of the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour                 In the context of a tender for the supply of skimmed milk
Court of Lower Saxony) of 10 February 1995 , which was                   power as food aid on the basis of Commission Regulations
                                                                         ( EEC ) Nos 345/87 ( ] ) and 1358/87 ( 2 ) of 3 February 1987
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 1996, for a
                                                                         and 15 May 1987, respectively, and the associated
preliminary ruling in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                                                                         tendering securities lodged pursuant to Article 12 of
Hannover v. Almut Sattler on the following questions :
                                                                         Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 ( 3 ) of 17 May
                                                                         1983 , may a legal person who subsequently failed to fulfil
1 . ( a ) Does Community law require precedence of                       its obligations and did not effect delivery be also the subject
            application or validity ( under the second paragraph         of a claim for payment of compensation on the part
            of Article 5 and Article 189 of the EC Treaty ) over         of the Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau ( Belgian
            national provisions of the Member States which               intervention and restitution agency ) pursuant to Article 25
            could or would be applicable, by way of                      ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 when all the tendering
            concurrence of claims, to the same factual situation         securities have been declared forfeit to that agency ?
            and with the same aim of supporting claims to
            equal treatment in occupational pension schemes,             (!) OJ No L 34 , 3 . 2 . 1987, p . 8 .
            as for example in Germany — generally — the                  ( 2 ) OJNoL 131 , 15 . 5 . 1987, p . 1 .
            employment law principle of equal treatment or —             ( 3 ) OJNoL 142 , 17. 5 . 1983 , p . 1 .
            specifically — paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the Beschafti
            gungsforderungsgesetz ( Employment Promotion
            Law ) 1985 ?
      ( b ) Does the precedence of Community law in such a
            conflict, where Community law confers benefits               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
            under occupational pension schemes only if and in            Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Contencioso
            so far as they are attributable to periods of                Administrativo, Sección Primera, by order of that court of
            employment after 17 May 1990, whereas the                    3 July 1996 in the case of Soldred SA v. Administración
            national provisions regulate the same factual                                          General del Estado
            situation differently in that they do not exclude                                         Case C-347/96 )
            retroactive effect, apply generally ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 18 )
      (c ) Does such precedence exist only if the economic
            objective of Article 119, which exists alongside the
            social objective, namely the creation of equal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            competitive opportunities, is specifically affected ?         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior


title: Case F-133/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter was sent by the institution to the applicant’s lawyer concerning costs the applicant had been ordered to pay — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/35

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
      (Case F-133/12)
      (Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter was sent by the institution to the applicant’s lawyer concerning costs the applicant had been ordered to pay - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
      (2014/C 71/70)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

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

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for compensation for the fact that a letter concerning the applicant was sent by the defendant to the applicant’s lawyer, and a claim for damages.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as being in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

                  2.

                  Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

                  3.

                  Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 2 000.


title: Case C-311/01: Action brought on 8 August 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
13.10.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/17
Action brought on 8 August 2001 by the Commission of                    authority of the country of residence, which is thus the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                     ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of Article 1(o)(ii)
                            Netherlands                                 of the regulation. It is this benefit which may temporarily be
                                                                        exported to another Member State pursuant to the rules in
                                                                        Article 69 of the regulation within the context of the search
                          (Case C-311/01)                               for work.
                         (2001/C 289/32)
                                                                        Article 69 of the regulation must for that reason normally be
                                                                        applied by the State of residence in favour of the unemployed
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought            frontier worker unless the latter moves to the State in which
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 he formerly worked and the general rule of the ‘lex loci laboris’
on 8 August 2001 by the Commission of the European                      (Article 13(2)(a) of the regulation) becomes applicable once
Communities, represented by H. Michard and H. van Vliet,                more.
acting as Agents.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     rule that, by refusing to allow wholly unemployed frontier
      workers to make use of the possibility under Article 69
      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
      1971 on the application of social security schemes to
      employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
      members of their families moving within the Community
      to move to the territory of one or more other Member              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema
      States for the purpose of seeking work while retaining            di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite Civili) by order of that
      entitlement to unemployment benefit under the con-                court of 19 April 2001 in the case of Christine Valia
      ditions laid down in that article, the Kingdom of the             Morgenbesser against Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvoca-
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under            ti di Genova, Consiglio Nazionale Forense, Procuratore
      Articles 69 and 71 of that regulation;                                  Generale presso la Corte Suprema di Cassazione
—     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of
      the proceedings.                                                                          (Case C-313/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Corte Suprema di
The case concerns a simple cumulative application of Articles           Cassazione (Sezioni Unite Civili) of 19 April 2001, received at
71(1)(a)(ii) and 69 of Regulation No 1408/71. Under                     the Court Registry on 8 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling
Article 71(1)(a)(ii), a wholly unemployed frontier worker is            in the case of Christine Valia Morgenbesser against Consiglio
entitled to receive unemployment benefit in accordance with             dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Genova, Consiglio Nazionale
the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he               Forense, Procuratore Generale presso la Corte Suprema di
resides as though he had been subject to that legislation while         Cassazione on the following question:
last employed. The country of residence must therefore
normally apply Article 69 of the regulation in the case where
the frontier worker in question wishes, for purposes of seeking         which is: whether, irrespective of recognition and confir-
work, to move to a Member State other than that in which he             mation, an academic qualification obtained by a Community
was previously working. If the frontier worker satisfies the            national in a State of the Community (in this case, France) can
preconditions of Article 69 the facilities provided for under           be relied upon automatically in another State (in this case
that article ought to be made available to him. There is in this        Italy), in the same way as the provisions of the EC Treaty cited
case no question of ‘re-exportation’ of benefits.                       by the appellant concerning the right of establishment and
Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of the regulation does not provide for             freedom to provide services (Articles 10, 12, 14, 39 and 43
exportation of unemployment benefit from the country in                 EC, ex Articles 5, 6, 7a, 48 and 52) and also Article 149 (ex
which the person works to the country in which he resides;              Article 126) of the Treaty.
the unemployment benefit is paid by and on behalf of the
authority of the place of residence and in accordance with the
criteria of the legislation of the country of residence. It is in
reality a benefit of the country of residence, to be paid by the


title: Case C-115/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 2 March 2011 — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 2 March 2011 — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie
   (Case C-115/11)
   2011/C 152/23
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe

      Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the fact that the personal scope of the first sentence of Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) covers ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’ — in respect of whom it is specified in Article 14(2)(b) that this is a person other than that referred to in Article 14(2)(a) — mean, in the case of an employed person who is employed in an employment relationship by a single employer,

                           (a)

                           that he is to be considered such a person if, on account of the nature of the employment, he performs work in different Member States at the same time (simultaneously), which also includes relatively short periods of time, and therefore frequently crosses State borders,

                     and also

                           (b)

                           that he is to be considered such a person too if in the context of a single employment relationship he is obliged to perform work permanently (normally) in several Member States, including the State in which he resides, or in several Member States other than that of his State of residence — either irrespective of the length of the consecutive periods in which he performs his obligations in the individual Member States and the length of the intermissions between them, or with a temporal limit?

               2.

               If the interpretation set out in (b) above is accepted, can Article 14(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied in a situation in which the obligation existing in the context of the employment relationship between the employee and a single employer to permanently perform work in several Member States covers performance of obligations in the Member State in which the employee resides even though such a situation — the performance of work in that very State — appears to be precluded at the time that the employment relationship is entered into and, in the event of the answer being in the negative, can Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416


title: Case T-117/07: Action brought on 18 April 2007 — Areva & Others v Commission

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/28

         Action brought on 18 April 2007 — Areva & Others v Commission
   (Case T-117/07)
   (2007/C 140/49)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: AREVA SA, AREVA T&D HOLDING SA, AREVA T&D SA (Paris, France) and AREVA T&D AG (Oberentfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Schild, and J.-M. Cot, lawyers

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 24 January 2007 in that, firstly, it holds AREVA T&D SA and ALSTOM SA jointly liable for the anti-competitive practices implemented between 7 December 1992 and 8 January 2004, and, secondly, it attributes to AREVA T&D SA, AREVA T&D AG, AREVA T&D HOLDING SA and AREVA SA joint and several liability for the anti-competitive practices implemented between 9 January 2004 and 11 May 2004;

               —

               in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on AREVA T&D SA, AREVA T&D AG, AREVA T&D HOLDING SA and AREVA SA;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present, action the applicants seek the partial annulment of Commission Decision C (2006) 6762 Final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas Insulating Switchgear), concerning a cartel in the gas insulated switchgear projects sector entailing manipulation of the bidding procedure for those projects, the fixing of minimum tender prices, the allocation of quotas and of projects, and exchanges of information. In the alternative the applicants seek the reduction of the amount of the fine which was imposed on them by the contested decision.
   In support of their claims, the applicants raise seven pleas in law.
   The first plea in law alleges infringement by the Commission of the obligation to state reasons set out in Article 253 EC, in that the reasoning is contradictory and insufficient as regards the aspects relating, in particular, to the imputation of the anti-competitive practices, the finding that the applicants and ALSTOM SA were jointly and severally liable, and the increase in the basic amount of the fine on account of AREVA T&D SA's role as ringleader of the infringement.
   In their second plea in law, the applicants criticise the Commission for having infringed Article 81 EC and, in particular, the legal rules relating to the imputation of liability for an infringement, by holding AREVA T&D SA, and AREVA T&D AG liable for the anti-competitive practices preceding their transfer by ALSTOM SA, when it had held that those companies were not independent of ALSTOM before being transferred.
   The applicants' third plea in law alleges infringement of Article 81 EC in that the Commission imputed to AREVA SA and AREVA T&D HOLDING SA liability for anti-competitive practices attributed to their direct or indirect subsidiaries AREVA T&D SA and AREVA T&D AG, when, in the applicants' submission, it had not shown that AREVA SA and AREVA T&D HOLDING SA effectively controlled those subsidiaries during the infringement period.
   The fourth and fifth pleas in law allege infringement of Articles 7 EC and 81 EC and relate, in particular, to the rules concerning the joint and several liability for the infringement. The applicants claim out that the Commission could not find AREVA T&D SA and ALSTOM SA jointly liable to pay the fine since they do not form an economic unit and such a joint sanction constitutes an unlawful delegation of the Commission's power to impose sanctions and also an infringement of the general principles of equal treatment, legal certainty and effective judicial protection.
   In the sixth plea in law, the applicants criticise the contested decision for having misapplied the concept of ringleader and thus infringed Article 81 EC and also the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (1) and several general principles of law.
   In their last plea in law, the applicants claim that the Commission made an error of assessment as regards the extent of the cooperation provided by the applicants during the investigation, in breach of Article 81 EC and the guidelines regarding cooperation set out in the Notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (2).

      (1)  OJ C 9 of 14.1.1998, p. 3

      (2)  OJ C 45 of 19.2.2002, p. 3


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-260/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in the European Court Reports)

text:
No C 268/10           PEN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
 ( OJ No L 139, p . 19 ), and Council Directive 92/31/EEC               1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
amending Directive 89/336/EEC ( OJ No L 126, p. 11 ),                       period the laws, regulations and administrative
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(1 )           measures needed to comply with Council Directive
and Article 2 ( 1 ) of the abovementioned directives and                    91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty — the Courth ( Fifth Chamber),                 the laws of the Member States concerning
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.                       telecommunications terminal equipment, including the
Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and L.                     mutual recognition of their conformity, the Hellenic
Sévon ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;                  Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
R. Grass , for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       Treaty;
 11 August 1995 , in which it:
                                                                       2 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 1 . declares that, by omitting to bring into force the laws,          (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 89/336/EEC of 3 May
     1989 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
     States relating to electromagnetic compatibility and
     Council Directive 92/31 /EEC of 28 April 1992
     amending Directive 89/336/EEC, Ireland has failed to             Action brought on 2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi against
     fulfil its obligations under Article 12 (1 ) and Article 2 (1 )                     the European Parliament
     of the abovementioned directives and Article 1 89 of the                                 ( Case C-228/95 )
     EC Treaty;
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/21 )
2 , orders Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
(') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                    2 July 1995 by Giorgio Bernardi, represented by Giancarlo
                                                                      Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara Bar ( Italy ), with an address
                                                                      for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue Godchaux .
                                                                      The applicant claims inter alia that the Court should annul
                                                                      the notice entitled ' Call for nominations for the office of
                                                                      Ombudsman' ( ! ), and all acts connected with it or adopted
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                as a consequence .
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                        of 11 August 1995                             By order of 1 1 July 1995, pursuant to Article 47 of the EC
                                                                      Statute of the Court of Justice, the Court referred that action
in Case C-260/94 : Commission of the European                         to the Court of First Instance .
              Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( 1 )
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           C ) OJ No C 127, 23 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
          published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 95/C 268/20 )
                  (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
                                                                      Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,
In Case C-260/94: Commission of the European                          by a decision of that court of 24 May 1995 in the case of P.
Communities ( agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Anders                Moskof v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (National
Christian Jessen ) v. Hellenic Republic (agents : Panagiotis                                  Tobacco Board )
Mylonopoulos and Ioanna Kiki ) — application for a
                                                                                ( Case C-244/95 )
declaration that, by failing to adopt, and alternatively by
failing to notify to the Commission, within the periods                                            95/C 268/22 )
prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
measures needed to comply with Council Directive                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the approximation of the              European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
laws of the Member States concerning telecommunications               Court of First Instance, Athens, of 24 March 1995 , which
terminal equipment, including the mutual recognition of               was received at the Court Registry on 12 July 1995 , for a
their conformity ( OJ No L 128 , p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic        preliminary ruling in the case of P. Moskof A. E. v. Ethnikos
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty —            Organismos Kapnou on the validity of Commission
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3477/93 ( x ) inasmuch as it concerns
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini             the agricultural conversion rates to be applied to the
( Rapporteur ), C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch, Judges; C. O.           premium for tobacco from the 1992 and previous harvests
Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a              which was taken out of supervision from 1 July 1993 and
judgment on 11 August 1995 , the operative part of which is           subsequently. Doubt is cast on the validity of Regulation
as follows :                                                           ( EEC ) No 3477/93 on the following grounds :


title: Case T-162/13: Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Magic Mountain Kletterhallen and Others v Commission (State aid — Aid for the construction and operation of climbing centres of Deutscher Alpenverein eV — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Aid scheme — More detailed economic analysis — Market failure — Legitimate objective in the public interest — Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU — Serious difficulties)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2016 — Magic Mountain Kletterhallen and Others v Commission
   (Case T-162/13) (1)

   ((State aid - Aid for the construction and operation of climbing centres of Deutscher Alpenverein eV - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Aid scheme - More detailed economic analysis - Market failure - Legitimate objective in the public interest - Article 108(2) and (3) TFEU - Serious difficulties))
   (2016/C 270/40)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Magic Mountain Kletterhallen GmbH (Berlin, Germany), Kletterhallenverband Klever eV (Leipzig, Germany), Neoliet Beheer BV (Son, Netherlands), and Pedriza BV (Haarlem, Netherlands) (represented by: initially M. von Oppen, A. Gerdung and R. Dreblow, then M. von Oppen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Deutscher Alpenverein eV (Munich, Germany), and Deutscher Alpenverein, Sektion Berlin eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Geulen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 8761 of 5 December 2012 on State aid SA.33952 (2012/NN) — Germany — Climbing centres of Deutscher Alpenverein.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Magic Mountain Kletterhallen GmbH, Kletterhallenverband Klever eV, Neoliet Beheer BV and Pedriza BV jointly and severally to bear the costs incurred by the European Commission and their own costs;

               3.

               Orders Deutscher Alpenverein eV and Deutscher Alpenverein, Sektion Berlin eV to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-384/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of participation in the infringement — Fines — Aggravating circumstances)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — IBP and International Building Products France v Commission
   (Case T-384/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of participation in the infringement - Fines - Aggravating circumstances)
   2011/C 145/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: IBP Ltd (Tipton, United Kingdom); and International Building Products France SA (Sartrouville, France) (represented by: M. Clough QC and A. Aldred, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings) and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IBP Ltd and International Building Products France SA to bear their own costs and to pay 80 % of the European Commission’s costs, and also to bear their own costs and to pay the Commission’s costs relating to the interim measures proceedings;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear 20 % of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-644/14: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — ADR Center v Commission (Financial aid — General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 — Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ — Action for annulment — Enforceable decision — Article 299 TFEU — Powers of the author of the act — Principle of sound administration — Application for an order directing the Commission to pay the balance due under the grant agreements — Partial reclassification of the action — Arbitration clause — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Eligible costs)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — ADR Center v Commission
   (Case T-644/14) (1)

   ((Financial aid - General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 - Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ - Action for annulment - Enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Powers of the author of the act - Principle of sound administration - Application for an order directing the Commission to pay the balance due under the grant agreements - Partial reclassification of the action - Arbitration clause - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Eligible costs))
   (2017/C 293/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ADR Center SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented: initially by L. Tantalo, and subsequently by A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Estrada de Solà and L. Cappelletti, and subsequently by J. Estrada de Solà and S. Delaude, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, first, based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Decision C(2014) 4485 final of the Commission of 27 June 2014 concerning the recovery of part of the financial contribution paid to the applicant under three grant agreements concluded in the context of the ‘Civil Justice’ specific programme and, second, based on Article 272 TFEU seeking an order directing the Commission to pay it the balance due to it under the three grant agreements in an amount of EUR 49 172,52 together with damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ADR Center SpA to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission, including the costs of that institution pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures, and to bear half of its own costs, including in relation to its costs pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay half of the costs incurred by ADR Center, including half of the costs of the latter pertaining to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 388, 3.11.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 September 1996 in Case T-386/94: Alain-Pierre Allo v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - 'Second stream' procedure for promotion to Grade A 3 - Action for annulment - Personal file - Absence of staff reports - Action for damages)

text:
9 . 11 . 96           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 3 36/25
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
                    of 19 September 1996                               and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                       has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 , in which
     in Case T-158/94 : François Brunagel v. European                  it :
                           Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Application of                    1 . orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
Article 29 (2) of the Staff Regulations — Assessment of                     Bfrs 1 0 000 by way of damages for non-material
candidates ' vocational aptitude — Misuse of powers —                       damage;
         Non-discrimination — Statement of reasons)
                          ( 96/C 336/51 )                              2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                       3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
In Case T-158/94 : Francois Brunagel , an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v. European
Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Alex Bonn ) —                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for annulment of the decision of the European                                  of 24 September 1996
Parliament of 1 9 July 1993 refusing to appoint the applicant
to the post of Head of Protocol and, consequently, for                 in Case T-485/93 : Société Louis Dreyfus et Cie v.
annulment of the decision appointing Mr B. to that post —                     Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of:           (Emergency assistance given by the Community to the States
K. Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke,                  of the former Soviet Union — Invitation to tender — Action
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the                    for annulment — Admissibility — Action for damages —
Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September 1996 , in                                        Admissibility)
which it :
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/53 )
1 . dismisses the action ;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                       In Case T-485/93 : Societe Louis Dreyfus et Cie , established
(') OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .                                      in Paris , represented by Robert Saint-Esteben , of the Paris
                                                                       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities ( Agents : Marie-Jose Jonczy,
                                                                       Nicholas Khan and, at the hearing, Berend Jan Drijber ) —
                                                                       application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
                                                                       Vnesheconombank and , second, for damages for the loss
                    of 19 September 1996                               allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First
in Case T-3 86/94 : Alain-Pierre Allo v. Commission of the             Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of: C. P. Briët,
                 European Communities ( 1 )                            President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki , Judges; J.
(Officials — 'Second stream ' procedure for promotion to               Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
Grade A3 — Action for annulment — Personal file —                      given a judgment on 24 September 1996 , in which it :
      Absence of staff reports — Action for damages)
                                                                       1 . dismisses     the     application     for annulment    as
                          ( 96/C 336/52 )                                   inadmissible;
               (Language of the case: French)                          2 . dismisses the objection of inadmissibility inasmuch as it
                                                                            concerns the claims for compensation for the material
In Case T-386/94 : Alain-Pierre Allo, an official of the                    and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                         applicant;
Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers              3 . orders the procedure relating to those claims for
of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission                   compensation to be continued in relation to the
                                                                            substance :
of the European Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves
Vieira and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
                                                                       4.   reserves the costs .
annulment of the decision of the Commission of 30 May
1994 listing the officials eligible for promotion to grade A 3
under the so-called ' second stream' procedure and , second,           (') OJ No C 198 , 22 . 7 . 1993 .
for damages for the material and non-material damage
suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-227/06: Action brought on  17 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/21

         Action brought on 17 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-227/06)
   (2006/C 165/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and B. Stromsky, agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing a de facto obligation on economic operators wishing to market in Belgium construction products legally produced and/or marketed in another Member State of the European Union to obtain ‘BENOR’ or ‘ATG’ marks denoting conformity for the marketing of these products in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The national measures at issue can be classified as State measures impeding free movement of goods not justified by considerations laid down in Article 30 EC or by imperative requirements of public interest and not satisfying the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-234/06: Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/23

         Action brought on 4 September 2006 — Torresan v OHIM — Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe (CANNABIS)
   (Case T-234/06)
   (2006/C 261/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Giampietro Torresan (Schonenfels, Switzerland) (represented by: Gianluca Recher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 29 June 2006 in proceedings R 517/2005-2, notified by fax of 5 July 2006, and confirm the registration of the Community trade mark CANNABIS for Classes 32 and 33;

               —

               in any case, order the costs of all of the proceedings to be reimbursed, including those of the previous two appeals before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘CANNABIS’ (application for registration No 1.073.349), for goods and services in Classes 32, 33 and 42.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Klosterbrauerei Weissenohe GmbH & Co. KG.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: The applicant for the declaration of invalidity does not claim any trade mark right. The declaration of invalidity is applied for in respect of goods in Classes 32 (beer) and 33 (wine, spirits, liqueurs, sparkling wine, champagne).

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity partially granted, annulment of the registration of the Community trade mark as regards the products claimed in Classes 32 and 33.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, and contradiction in the grounds of the contested decision.


title: Case C-389/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for copper plumbing tubes — Fines — Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration — Effective judicial remedy)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 December 2011 — KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-389/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper plumbing tubes - Fines - Size of the market, duration of the infringement and cooperation capable of being taken into consideration - Effective judicial remedy)
   2012/C 32/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: KME Germany AG, formerly KM Europa Metal AG, KME France SAS, formerly Tréfimétaux SA, KME Italy SpA, formerly Europa Metalli SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, avvocato, A. Winckler, avocat, G. Rizza, avvocato, T. Graf, advokat, M. Piergiovanni, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, acting as Agents, C. Thomas, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court of 19 May 2010 in Case T-25/05 KME Germany and Others v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking the reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by Commission Decision 2006/485/EC of 3 September 2004 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.069 — Copper plumbing tubes) (notified under No C(2004) 2826), concerning a system of allocation of production volumes and market shares, and the setting of targets and price increases on the European market for copper plumbing tubes

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders KME Germany AG, KME France SAS and KME Italy SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret by order of that court of 19 December 1995 in the case of Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark, acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson, v. Dansk Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S (Case C-400/95)

text:
17 . 2 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 46/9
The decision to reject Geotronics' tender on grounds of                answer is in the affirmative, is that rule justified on grounds
origin was undoubtedly taken after the entry into force of             of the general interest in maintaining industrial peace in the
the EEA Agreement. The EEA Agreement applies to all legal              sensitive area of the supply of tourist services, in respect of
situations which arise after its entry into force . Geotronics         which the Greek State, as a country for which tourism is
therefore contends that there is no retroactivity in the               important, has a reasonable and justifiable interest in
present case .                                                         intervening by regulation ?
The scope of the EEA Agreement
The Court of First Instance ruled that the EEA Agreement
cannot apply to the contract at issue since one of the parties
of the Contract, Romania , is not a party to the EEA                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sø- og Handelsret
Agreement. This is a formalistic conclusion which overlooks            by order of that court of 19 December 1995 in the case of
the economic reality of the situation. That reality is that            Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark,
there is in fact, as a result of the Commission's decision ,           acting on behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson, v. Dansk
discrimination between two EEA producers of equivalent                 Handel & Service, acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked
products . The economic reality of the transaction and the                                                A/S
actions taken in relation thereto should be decisive .                                           ( Case C-400/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 46/15 )
It is submitted that the present situation falls within the
scope of the EEA Agreement. Geotronics further maintains
that the Commission has discriminated in a manner likely to            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
distort competition between products originating in the EC             European Communities by order of the Sø- og Handelsret
and EFTA states by giving an unfair competitive advantage              ( Maritime and Commercial Court) of 19 December 1995 ,
to the former . Such discrimination hinders the free                   which was received at the Court Registry on 21 December
movement of goods contrary to Articles 8 , 11 and 65 ( 1 ) of          1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Handels- og
the EEA Agreement.                                                     Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark (Union of
                                                                       Commercial and Clerical Employees in Denmark ), acting on
                                                                       behalf of Helle Elisabeth Larsson, v. Dansk Handel &
 (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 , p . 33 .                            Service ( Danish Commercial and Service-Industries
                                                                       Association ), acting on behalf of Føtex Supermarked A/S, on
                                                                       the following question:
                                                                       Does Article 5 ( 1 ), in conjunction with Article 2 ( 1 ), of
                                                                       Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
                                                                       implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis               and women as regards access to employment, vocational
 Epikratias tis Ellados ( Council of State, Greece ), by a             training and promotion, and working conditions ( x ), cover
 decision of that court of 7 November 1995 in the case of              dismissal as a result of absence following the end of
 Sindesmos ton en Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon                  maternity leave if the absence is attributable to an illness
              Grafion v. Minister of Employment                        which arose during pregnancy and continued during and
                         ( Case C-398/95 )
                                                                        after maternity leave, it being assumed that the dismissal
                                                                        took place after the end of the maternity leave ?
                            ( 96/C 46/14 )
                                                                        (') OJ No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by a decision of the Simvoulio tis
 Epikratias tis Ellados of 7 November 1995 , which was
 received at the Court Registry on 18 December 1995 , for a
 preliminary ruling in the case of Sindesmos ton en Elladi
 Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafion (Association of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van
 Tourist and Travel Agencies in Greece ) v. Minister of                 Eerste Aanleg te Brussel, by judgment of that court of
 Employment, supported by the Somatio Diplomatoukhon                    12 December 1995 , in the case of B. R. D. (Bureau RIK
 Xenagon ( Association of Certified Tourist Guides ) and the            DECAN-Business Research & Development ) NV v. Belgian
 Panellinia Omospondia Xenagon ( Panhellenic Federation of                                                State
 Tourist Guides ) on the following question:
                                                                                Case C-401 /95 )
 Is the rule in Article 37 of Law No 1545/1985 which, in the                                         ( 96/C 46/ 16 )
 circumstances referred to therein, prescribes a mandatory
  legal form of a relationship of non-independent                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
  employment between the parties — the legal form under                 European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
  which it is usual for the services of tourist guides to be            Eerste Aanleg te Brussel ( Court of First Instance, Brussels ),
  provided in the circumstances described in that Article —              by judgment of that court of 12 December 1995 , which was
  contrary to Articles 59 et seq. of the EC Treaty ? If the             received at the Court Registry on 21 December 1995 , for a


title: Case T-67/13: Action brought on 1 February 2013 — Novartis Europharm v Commission

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/24

         Action brought on 1 February 2013 — Novartis Europharm v Commission
   (Case T-67/13)
   2013/C 101/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Novartis Europharm Ltd (Horsham, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Schoonderbeek, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2012) 8605 final of 19 November 2012 to grant a marketing authorisation to Hospira UK ltd, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1); and

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of the data protection rights of Novartis Europharm Ltd. for its product Aclasta pursuant to Articles 13(4) of Regulation (EC) No. 2309/93 (1), read in conjunction with Article 89 of Regulation (EC) No. 726/2004 (2). As Aclasta was granted a separate independent marketing authorisation through the centralised procedure the Aclasta authorisation does not fall under the same global marketing authorisation as Zometa (another product of Novartis Europharm Ltd) specified in article 6(1) of Directive 2001/83 (3) for the purposes of data protection.
   In addition, the contested Decision is also unlawful in that it constitutes an infringement of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC as data protection for the reference medicinal product Aclasta has not expired and hence the conditions for granting a marketing authorisation under this article have not been complied with.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorization and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (Text with EEA relevance)

      (3)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use


title: OPINION 2/92 OF THE COURT of 24 March 1995 (Competence of the Community or one of its institutions to participate in the Third Revised Decision of the OECD on national treatment)

text:
24 . 6 . 95           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 159/ 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              OPINION 2/92 OF THE COURT                             2 , the Community and the Member States share joint
                    of 24 March 1995 ( l )                                competence to participate in that decision.
(Competence of the Community or one ofits institutions to
                                                                    f 1 ) OJ No C 255 , 2 . 10 . 1992 .
participate in the Third Revised Decision of the OECD on
                      national treatment)
                        ( 95/C 159/01 )
By a request made on 4 September 1 992 under the second
subparagraph of Article 228 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty, the
Kingdom of Belgium sought the opinion of the Court on the                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
competence of the Community or one of its institutions to                                     ( Sixth Chamber)
take part in the Third Revised Decision on international
treatment of the Council of the Organization for Economic                                       of 4 May 1995
Cooperation and Development; more specifically, the Court           in Case C-7/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
was requested to give its opinion on the following                  from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Landesamt für
questions :                                                         Ausbildungsförderung Nordrhein-Westfalen v. Lubor
                                                                                Gaal 1 1 )
— Is the dual legal basis ( Articles 57 and 113 ) proposed by        (Régulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Artide 12 — 'Child'
     the Commission for the Council Decision on the                                                 définition)
     Community's participation in the Third Decision
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/02 )
     justified ?
— If the reply to the first question is in the negative, which                     (Language of the case: German)
     would be the correct legal basis ?
                                                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
— Does the Community's competence to participate in the                       published in the European Court Reports)
     Third Decision exclude participation by the Member
     States or is 'mixed' participation justified ?
                                                                    In Case C-7/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                    the EEC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
The Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President,         ( Federal Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling in
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and C. Gulmann                 the proceedings pending before that court between the
( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur),            Landesamt fiir Ausbildungsfôrderung Nordrhein
C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray             Westfalen and Lubor Gaal, with the Oberbundesanwalt
and D. A. O. Edward, Judges; after hearing F. G. Jacobs,            beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht, intervener — on the
First Advocate-General, C. O. Lenz, G. Tesauro, G.                  interpretation of Article 12 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Cosmas, P. Léger and B. Elmer, Advocates-General, gave the          No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
following opinion:                                                  for workers within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                     Chamber ), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the
 1 , the Community is competent to participate in the Third          Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), G. F. Mancini,
      Revised Decision of the OECD;                                  C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro,


title: Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative marks animal — Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL — Relative ground for refusal — Application of national law by EUIPO — Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based — Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2016 — Universal Protein Supplements Corp. v EUIPO — H Young Holdings (animal)
   (Joined Cases T-727/14 and T-728/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative marks animal - Unregistered earlier national word mark ANIMAL - Relative ground for refusal - Application of national law by EUIPO - Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Particulars of the right on which the application for a declaration of invalidity is based - Rule 37(b)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2016/C 287/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Bullock and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: H Young Holdings plc (Newbury, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor, and A. Roughton, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 July 2014 (Cases R 2054/2013-1 and R 2058/2013-1), relating to invalidity proceedings between Universal Protein Supplements and H Young Holdings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the applications;

               2.

               Orders Universal Protein Supplements Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.