title: Case T-297/03: Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto Achille s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 264/34              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     1.11.2003
Goods or services:             Goods and services in Classes 16           Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.
                               and 41                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
Decision        contested      Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of            the mark in respect of ‘printed                                    (Case T-296/03)
Appeal:                        matter’ in Class 16 and ‘arranging
                               and organising of trade fairs, exhi-
                                                                                (2003/C 264/59)
                               bitions, seminars and congresses’
                               in Class 41
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Decision of the Board of       Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:
Pleas in law:                  —    The mark is distinctive
                                    within the meaning of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                    (EC) No 40/94;                        European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Proteco s.r.l.,
                                                                          represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                               —    The mark is not a descriptive
                                    indication within the mean-
                                    ing of Article 7(1)(c) of Regu-       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                    lation (EC) No 40/94.
                                                                          —     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-295/03)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                          advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                        (2003/C 264/58)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Poli Sud s.r.l.,
represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                          Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto Achille
                                                                          s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C. against the Commission
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                               of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-297/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/60)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                         European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Tomasetto
                                                                          Achille s.a.s. di Tomasetto Andrea & C., represented by
                                                                          M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 264/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di. s.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-299/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/62)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.                                           European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Nuova Fa.U.Di.
                                                                            s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —       annul the contested refusal.
Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione Cuoio                       —       order the Commission to pay the costs.
e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l. against the Commission of the European
                            Communities
                          (Case T-298/03)                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2003/C 264/61)                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                            advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 August 2003 by Lavorazione
Cuoio e Pelli Bieffe s.r.l., represented by M.A. Calabrese, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 Action brought on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                                Limited against the Council of the European Union
—     annul the contested refusal.
                                                                                (Case T-300/03)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 264/63)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
advanced in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003, p. 43.
                                                                            Communities on 29 August 2003 by Moser Baer India
                                                                            Limited, New Delhi (India), represented by P. Bently, QC,
                                                                            K. Adamantopoulos, lawyer, R. MacLean and J. Branto, Solici-
                                                                            tors, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-455/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (zoo sport) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark ZOO Sport — Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (zoo sport)
   (Case T-455/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark ZOO Sport - Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 352/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1395/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between K-2 Corp. and Zoo Sport Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zoo Sport Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.


title: Case T-90/15: Action brought on 18 February 2015  — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/44

         Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Schoeller Corporation v OHIM — Sqope (SCOPE)
   (Case T-90/15)
   (2015/C 118/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schoeller Corporation GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: D. van Ackeren, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sqope SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SCOPE’ — Application No 4 5 02  341

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 2381/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the services financial analysis and financial information;

               —

               order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-235/11 P: Order of the Court of 29 November 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Public contracts awarded by the European Union institutions on their own behalf — Call for tenders concerning the provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme (CITL and CR) — Rejection of tender — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Principle of equal treatment — Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/5

         Order of the Court of 29 November 2011 — Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-235/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Public contracts awarded by the European Union institutions on their own behalf - Call for tenders concerning the provision of IT and user support services relating to the Community emissions trading scheme (CITL and CR) - Rejection of tender - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Principle of equal treatment - Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)
   2012/C 109/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08 Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission dismissing an action (i) for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 13 October 2008 rejecting the bid submitted by the applicant in the context of Invitation to Tender ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 for the conclusion of a framework contract for the provision of IT (information technology) services and user support in connection with the Community emissions trading scheme (Community Independent Transaction Log (CITL) and Community Registry (CR)) (OJ 2008 S 72-096229), and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer; and (ii) for damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-60/16 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-55/13 De Nicola v EIB

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/37

         Appeal brought on 13 February 2016 by Carlo de Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 December 2015 in Case F-55/13 De Nicola v EIB
   (Case T-60/16 P)
   (2016/C 111/45)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Carlo de Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Ferabecoli, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present appeal and, partially reversing the judgment under appeal, annul points 2 and 3 of the operative part, together with paragraphs 59 to 64 of the judgment itself;

               —

               Consequently, annul the guidelines established for the year 2011 or declare that they are no longer applicable; order the EIB to compensate Dr De Nicola for the damage suffered, as requested in the application initiating proceedings or, in the alternative, refer the case to another Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal in order that it may, in a different formation, give a fresh decision on the annulled paragraphs;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (single Judge) of 18 December 2015 in De Nicola v European Investment Bank (F-55/13).
   The grounds of appeal and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-55/16 P De Nicola v European Investment Bank.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova by order of that court of 26 September 1996 in the case of Ente Autonoma Fiera Internazionale di Genova against Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato/Ispettorato Compartimentale Monopoli di Stato di Genova (Case C-327/96)

text:
No C 370/4           I EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7 . 12 . 96
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                   Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
Genova by order of that court of 26 September 1996 in the                   the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
case of Ente Autonoma Fiera Internazionale di Genova
                                                                                Case C-330/96
against Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato/Ispettorato
        Compartimentale Monopoli di Stato di Genova                                                  ( 96/C 370/09 )
                            ( Case C-327/96 )
                              ( 96/C 370/07 )
                                                                         An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice on 8 October 1996 by the Commission
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   of the European Communities, represented by Maria
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di                        Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
Genova ( Genoa District Court) of 26 September 1996 ,                    service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
received at the Court Registry on 3 October 1996 , for a                 Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
preliminary ruling in the case of Ente Autonoma Fiera                    Centre, Kirchberg.
Internazionale di Genova against Ministero delle Finanze
dello Stato/Ispettorato Compartimentale Monopoli di Stato
di Genova on the question of the interpretation of                       The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by
Articles 86, 3 , 5 , 30 and 52 of the Treaty in relation to              failing to adopt or, in the alternative , to communicate to the
Article 15 of the Schedule of Requirements for premises for              Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
the retail sale of monopoly goods in so far as it imposes on             regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with Commission Directive 91 /244/EEC 0 ) of
retailers a positive obligation, supported by appropriate
                                                                         6 March 1991 amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC on
penalties, to promote domestically produced fine tobacco
and not to engage in, or allow, advertising for foreign                  the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic is in
product brands and tobaccos, whether from inside or                      breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                         Directive .
outside the Community.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                         The period within which the Member States were to
Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
   the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                comply with the provisions of the Directive expired on
                                                                         31 July 1994 . The Commission notes that the Hellenic
                            ( Case C-329/96 )                            Republic has still not complied with the Directive .
                              ( 96/C 370/08 )
                                                                         f 1 ) OJNoL115 , 8 . 5 . 1991 , p . 41 .
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 8 October 1996 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Maria
Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                Action brought on 8 October 1996 by the Commission of
Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner                        the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                                ( Case C-331/96 )
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by                                          ( 96/C 370/ 10 )
failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate to the
Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC (!) of 21 May                    the Court of Justice on 8 October 199 6 by the Commission
 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild                of the European Communities, represented by Maria
fauna and flora, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its               Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for
obligations under the Treaty and that Directive .                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                          Cruz, also of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Centre, Kirchberg.
The period within which the Member States were to                        The applicant claims that the Court should declare that, by
comply with the provisions of the Directive expired on                    failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate to the
 5 June 1992 . The Commission notes that the Hellenic                     Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,
Republic has still not complied with the Directive.                       regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                          comply with Council Directive 92/72/EEC of 21 September
 (!) OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7 . 1992, p . 7.                                  1992 on air pollution by ozone f 1 ), the Hellenic Republic is
                                                                          in breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
                                                                          Directive .


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 82, 2.4.2005

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/42

         (2005/C 93/75)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

      OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

      OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

      OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

      OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

      OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

   These texts are available on:

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

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


title: Case C-93/05: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korsholms tingsrätt — Finland) — Teemu Hakala v Oy L. Simons Transport Ab (Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the answer to which admits of no reasonable doubt — Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 — Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport — Payments to wage-earning drivers related to distances covered — Prohibition of such a pay scheme unless it does not endanger road safety)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/19

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korsholms tingsrätt — Finland) — Teemu Hakala v Oy L. Simons Transport Ab
   (Case C-93/05) (1)

   (Second subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Question the answer to which admits of no reasonable doubt - Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 - Harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport - Payments to wage-earning drivers related to distances covered - Prohibition of such a pay scheme unless it does not endanger road safety)
   (2006/C 294/32)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Korsholms tingsrätt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Teemu Hakala

      Defendant: Oy L. Simons Transport Ab
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korsholms tingsrätt — Interpretation of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1) — Payments to a wage-earning driver based on distances covered
   Operative part of the order
   A pay scheme based on distances covered is contrary to Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport, unless such a scheme is of a kind as not to endanger road safety. It is for the national court to ascertain, in view of all the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, whether that is the case.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005


title: Case C-514/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 August 2017 — Ministère public v Marin-Simion Sut

text:
               16.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 23 August 2017 — Ministère public v Marin-Simion Sut
   (Case C-514/17)
   (2017/C 347/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministère public

      Defendant: Marin-Simion Sut

      Question referred

   Can Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 (1) be interpreted as being inapplicable to acts for which a custodial sentence has been imposed by a court of an issuing Member State, when those same acts are punishable in the territory of the executing Member State only by a fine, which means, in accordance with the domestic law of the executing Member State, that the custodial sentence cannot be executed in the executing Member State, which would be to the detriment of the social rehabilitation of the person sentenced and of his family, social and other ties?

      (1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case C-609/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 23 December 2014 — Nicolae Ilie Nicula v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
      (Case C-609/14)
      (2015/C 107/25)
      Language of the case: Romanian

         Referring court

      Tribunalul Sibiu

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Nicolae Ilie Nicula

         Defendants: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Sibiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

         Intervener: Cristina Lenuța Stoica

         Question referred

      Are Article 110 TFEU, Article 6 TEU and Articles 17, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, together with the principle of legal certainty and the principle prohibiting reformatio in peius, affirmed in EU law and in the case-law of the Court of Justice, to be interpreted as precluding legislation such as OUG No 9/2013?


title: Case C-659/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Robert Caldararu

text:
               15.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 59/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 9 December 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Robert Caldararu
   (Case C-659/15)
   (2016/C 059/08)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Robert Caldararu

      Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(3) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) (2002/584/JHA) to be interpreted as meaning that extradition for the purposes of prosecution is impermissible where there are strong indications that detention conditions in the issuing Member State infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned and the fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, or is it to be interpreted as meaning that, in such circumstances, the executing Member State can or must make the decision on the permissibility of extradition conditional upon an assurance that detention conditions are compliant? To that end, can or must the executing Member State lay down specific minimum requirements applicable to the detention conditions in respect of which an assurance is sought?

               2.

               Are Articles 5 and 6(1) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA) to be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority is also entitled to give assurances that detention conditions are compliant, or do assurances in this regard remain subject to the domestic rules of competence in the issuing Member State?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.


title: Case F-87/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — Colart and Others v Parliament (Civil service — Staff representation — Framework agreement between the Parliament and the professional or trade union organisations of the institution — Executive Committee of a trade union — Dispute within the trade union as to the lawfulness and identity of the persons forming the Executive Committee — Rights of access to the email account put at the disposal of the trade union by the institution — Refusal of the institution to re-establish rights and/or to remove all rights of access to the email account — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/39

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 9 April 2014 — Colart and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-87/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Staff representation - Framework agreement between the Parliament and the professional or trade union organisations of the institution - Executive Committee of a trade union - Dispute within the trade union as to the lawfulness and identity of the persons forming the Executive Committee - Rights of access to the email account put at the disposal of the trade union by the institution - Refusal of the institution to re-establish rights and/or to remove all rights of access to the email account - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility))
   2014/C 159/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Philippe Colart and Others (Bastogne, Belgium) (represented by: A. Salerno and B. Cortese, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: O. Caisou-Rousseau and M. Ecker, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision of the European Parliament relating to the new distribution of rights of access to the mailbox of the SAFE trade union.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Colart, Mr Bras, Mr Corthout, Mr Decoutere, Mr Dony, Mr Garzone, Ms Kemmerling-Linssen, Mr Manzella and Mr Vienne are to bear their own costs and are ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23/11/2013, p. 69


title: Case F-78/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2007 — Rounis v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/57

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 27 February 2007 — Rounis v Commission
   (Case F-78/05) (1)

   (2007/C 82/121)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005, p. 22.


title: Case C-506/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2016 — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2016 — José Joaquim Neto de Sousa v Portuguese State
      (Case C-506/16)
      (2016/C 454/34)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Referring court

      Tribunal da Relação do Porto

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: José Joaquim Neto de Sousa

         Defendant: Portuguese State

         Question referred

      Do the requirements of the Second (1) and Third (2) Directives on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles preclude the national legislation from providing for the culpable driver to be compensated, in respect of pecuniary damage, in the event that his spouse, who was a passenger in the vehicle, dies, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Decree-Law No 522 of 31 December 1985, as amended by Decree-Law No 130 of 19 May 1994?

         (1)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

         (2)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).


title: Case C-241/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Article 6(2) and (3) — Incorrect transposition — Special areas of conservation — Significant effect of a project on the environment — Non-disturbing nature of certain activities — Assessment of the effects on the environment)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-241/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Article 6(2) and (3) - Incorrect transposition - Special areas of conservation - Significant effect of a project on the environment - ‘Non-disturbing’ nature of certain activities - Assessment of the effects on the environment)
   2010/C 113/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and A.-L. During, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Incorrect transposition of Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           first, by providing generally that fishing, aquaculture, hunting and other hunting-related activities practised under the conditions and in the areas authorised by the laws and regulations in force do not constitute activities causing disturbance or having such an effect, and

                           —

                           second, by systematically exempting works and developments provided for in Natura 2000 contracts from the procedure of assessment of their implications for the site, and

                           —

                           by systematically exempting works and development programmes and projects which are subject to a declaratory system from that procedure,

                     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) and Article 6(3) respectively of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to pay two thirds of the costs and the European Commission to pay the other third.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 02.08.2008.


title: Case C-4/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; other party: Argos Supply Trading BV

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/19

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 12 January 2015 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën; other party: Argos Supply Trading BV
      (Case C-4/15)
      (2015/C 107/26)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant in cassation: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

         Other party: Argos Supply Trading BV

         Question referred

      In an examination of the economic conditions governing an outward processing customs procedure, must the term ‘Community processors’ in Article 148(c) of the Customs Code (1) be interpreted as also covering Community producers of basic products or intermediate products identical to those processed, as non-Community goods, in the processing operation?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case T-368/00: Action brought on 30 November 2000 by General Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 61/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     That the contested decision violates the principle of the
                                                                               legitimate expectation, inasmuch as for many years prior
                                                                               to 1997, the Commission would have known about the
—     annul the contested decision, alternatively Article 2                    existence and contents of French Law pursuant to which
      thereof; and                                                             the aid in question has been granted.
                                                                         —     That the Commission committed manifest error of calcu-
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   lation.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 83, of 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The current application arises out of the Commission Decision
of 12 July 2000 (C(2000)2183) addressed to the French
Republic concerning two aids said to have been granted to the
applicant by the French Public Authorities. The two aids in
question consist of:                                                     Action brought on 30 November 2000 by General Motors
                                                                         Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     That the local authorities arranged for the transfer to the
      applicant of a certain and, namely 49 hectares of                                          (Case T-368/00)
      68 hectares site in the industrial zone of La Saussaye, and
      a factory on that site at a preferential price.
                                                                                (2001/C 61/34)
—     That the applicant benefited from a preferential tariff
      in respect of effluent treatment charges (redevances                                  (Language of the case: English)
      d’assainissement) levied by the City of Orléans.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of their conclusions, the applicant submits:                  European Communities on 30 November 2000 by General
                                                                         Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel Nederland B.V., companies
                                                                         registered in the Netherlands, represented by Dirk Vander-
—     That insofar as Article 2 of the contested decision orders         meersch, Robbert Snelders and Steven Allcock of Cleary,
      the French Republic to recover the aid in question, it             Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, Brussels.
      infringes Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No
      659/1999 of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules
      for the application of Article 93 [now 88] of the EEC              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Treaty (1), which provides for a 10 year limitation period
      in respect of the Commission’s power to recover aid.               —     annul Commission Decision No. C(2000) 2707 of
                                                                               20 September 2000 (Case COMP/36.653 — Opel),
                                                                               addressed to General Motors Nederland B.V. and Opel
—     That the administrative procedure infringed essential                    Nederland B.V.; alternatively
      procedural requirements and the applicant’s rights of
      defence and that the recovery order requires the French
                                                                         —     to cancel or reduce the fine imposed;
      Republic to act in breach of the European Convention of
      Human Rights. In this connection, Scott relies in particu-
      lar on the fact that there was never any fair trial of the         —     to order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
      issues on which its liability to ‘repay’ the alleged aid was
      determined, let alone any fair trial in which the applicant
      could participate and in which the rights of defence were          Pleas in law and main arguments
      respected. On the contrary, the Commission treated the
      administrative procedure as being essentially a procedure
      between itself and the French Republic.                            The contested decision imposes a fine of 43 million euros on
                                                                         the applicants for an alleged infringement of Article 81(1) EC.
                                                                         The Commission concludes that Opel Nederland B.V. entered
—     That the contested decision results in unequal treatment           into agreements with Opel dealers in the Netherlands aimed at
      of equal situations, in relation to cases that in pari materia     restricting or prohibiting export sales of Opel vehicles to end-
      with that of Scott.                                                users and Opel dealers located in other Member States.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.2.2001
The applicants oppose the unduly broad scope of the Com-                 Action brought on 4 December 2000 by the Département
mission’s findings and the excessive level of the fine and put           du Loiret against the Commission of the European Com-
forward, in particular, the following arguments:                                                       munities
                                                                                (Case T-369/00)
—     Contrary to the Commission’s findings Opel Nederland                                         (2001/C 61/35)
      did not apply a general strategy vis-à-vis its dealers to
      hinder or restrict all exports of new cars but conducted a
      lawful policy to dissuade irregular sales to unauthorized                              (Language of the case: French)
      resellers in order to protect the integrity of its selective
      distribution system.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 4 December 2000 by the Départe-
                                                                         ment du Loiret, of Orléans (France), represented by Alexandre
—     The applicants do not contest that Opel Nederland took
                                                                         Carnelutti, of the Paris Bar.
      a decision to limit product allocation based on certain
      sales targets. However, this unilateral decision cannot be
      characterised as an agreement with its dealers to restrict         The applicant claims that the Court should:
      exports in violation of Article 81 EC. This decision was
      never implemented nor was it ever communicated to the              —     annul the decision of the Commission of 12 July 2000 in
      dealers. In any event, it left dealers free to engage in                 so far as it declares illegal, and orders the repayment of,
      lawful export sales of their allegedly allocated volumes.                State aid amounting to FRF 48.7 million (100 million in
                                                                               terms of its current value) granted in the form of a
                                                                               preferential price for the purchase of land;
—     The Commission erred in finding that Opel Nederland’s              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
      bonus policy infringed 81 EC. There were no findings
      that the dealers expressly or impliedly agreed to restrict
                                                                         Pleas in law and principal arguments
      their exports sales in reaction to the bonus policy.
      Moreover, the normal dealer margin was sufficient to
      make export sales profitable. In any event, the bonus              The present action seeks annulment of the same Commission
      policy could not be considered restrictive of exports since        decision as that forming the subject-matter of Case T-366/00
      supplies were never limited.                                       Scott Paper v Commission (1). The applicant is one of the two
                                                                         entities which granted the aid in issue.
                                                                         In support of its claims, the above-mentioned Département
—     There was no agreement to discontinue exports with all             asserts, first of all, that the Commission has applied an
      the dealers of the Opel distribution network in the                excessively narrow construction to the notion of a private
      Netherlands. The alleged commitments to restrict exports           investor, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the nature of
      concern a very small number of dealers and a short                 the local authority, of its investment parameters and of the
      period of time and did not appreciably restrict inter- or          economic considerations underlying its decision to sell a parcel
      intra-brand competition.                                           of developed industrial land. It states in that regard that, in
                                                                         seeking a suitable candidate to set up a business on its territory,
                                                                         a local authority necessarily includes, amongst the economic
                                                                         criteria on which its analysis is based, the specific fiscal revenue
                                                                         which it will receive, such as that arising from the business
As to the level of the fine, the applicants consider that it is          taxes and property taxes resulting from the business set up.
disproportionate and fails to reflect the short duration of the
alleged infringement and the limited number of dealers                   The applicant also complains that the Commission has
involved, the lack of intent of Opel Nederland, the clear                included in the total costs expenditure which has manifestly
evidence of large-scale violations of the Opel selective distri-         not been incurred in the interests of Scott Paper S.A. The
bution system by some dealers, the limited impact on intra-              specific sum in question amounts to FRF 2 372 000, relating
Community trade and, finally, the immediate and effective                to preliminary studies.
corrective action taken by Opel Nederland at its own initiative.
                                                                         Lastly, it maintains that the calculation method used by the
                                                                         Commission is wrong.
                                                                         (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal of the European
                                                                             Communities.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 March 2001 in Case C-108/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France): Syndicat des Producteurs Indépendants (SPI) v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Second indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Determination of relevant place for tax purposes — Advertising services Inclusion of services provided through the intermediary of a third party)

text:
16.6.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 173/21
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 15 March 2001
                                                                                of 15 March 2001
in Case C-108/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil d’État, France): Syndicat des Producteurs
Indépendants (SPI) v Ministère de l’Économie, des Finan-                   in Case C-147/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ces et de l’Industrie (1)                                                  ties v French Republic (1)
(Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes                    (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Quality
— Common system of value added tax — Second indent of                       of bathing water — Inadequate implementation of Directive
Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Determination                                               76/160/EEC)
of relevant place for tax purposes — Advertising services
Inclusion of services provided through the intermediary of a
                              third party)                                                             (2001/C 173/36)
                           (2001/C 173/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-108/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                  In Case C-147/00: Commission of the European Communities
EC from the Conseil d’État, France, for a preliminary ruling in            (Agents: J.-F. Pasquier and G. Valero Jordana) v French Republic
the proceedings pending before that court between Syndicat                  (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and D. Colas) — application for a
des Producteurs Indépendants (SPI) and Ministère de l’Econom-               declaration that
ie, des Finances et de l’Industrie — on the interpretation of
Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  —     by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that,
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                        within 10 years of notification of Council Directive
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),                     76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                          of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1), the quality of
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann                     bathing water conformed to the limit values set in
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                         accordance with the directive, contrary to Article 4(1)
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                           thereof,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                            —     by failing to carry out sampling operations, the minimum
                                                                                frequency of which is laid down in the Annex to Directive
The second indent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive               76/160 in respect of all parameters and all bathing
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of                     waters, contrary to Article 6(1), and
the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as
                                                                            —     by failing to carry out the sampling operations for the
applying not only to advertising services supplied directly and invoiced
                                                                                ‘total coliform’ parameter,
by the supplier to a taxable advertiser but also to services supplied
indirectly to the advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn
invoices them to the advertiser.
                                                                            the French Republic has failed to take all measures to comply
                                                                            with its obligations under Directive 76/160 and has failed to
                                                                            fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of that
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                  directive, — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gul-
                                                                            mann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken,
                                                                            N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                            D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                            has given a judgment on 15 March 2001, in which it:


title: Case T-422/12: Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Kappa Filter Systems v OHIM (Action for annulment — Period allowed for bringing proceedings — Out of time — No unforeseeable circumstances — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/18

         Order of the General Court of 20 February 2013 — Kappa Filter Systems v OHIM
   (Case T-422/12) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Period allowed for bringing proceedings - Out of time - No unforeseeable circumstances - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 141/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Kappa Filter Systems GmbH (Steyr-Gleink, Austria) (represented by: C. Hadeyer, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 July 2012 (Case R 817/2012-4), relating to registration of the word mark THE FUTURE HAS ZERO EMISSIONS.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


title: Case C-83/07: Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/16

         Action brought on 14 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-83/07)
   (2007/C 69/38)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J.-B. Laignelot)

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

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has infringed its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposing Directive 2004/12/EC into national law expired on 18.8.2005.

      (1)  OJ L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 26.


title: Case T-167/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Grether AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/37

         Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Grether AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-167/05)
   (2005/C 182/70)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Grether AG, established in Binningen (Switzerland), represented by V. von Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and A. Renck, lawyers.
   Crisgo (Thailand) Co., Ltd established in Samutsakorn (Thailand) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in its entirety Decision R250/2002-4 of 14 October 2004 of the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               —

               order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Crisgo Co. Ltd.

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Figurative mark FL FENNEL for goods in class 3 application No 903 922

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               The applicant

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Community word mark FENJAL for goods in class 3

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismisses the appeal

               Pleas in law:

               Violation of Articles 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94. In this context, the applicant alleges that the Board of Appal based its decision on various new arguments and facts not brought forward or discussed by the parties. The applicant further claims that the contested decision violates Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by concluding that there was no risk of confusion.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/58

         (2006/C 60/106)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

      OJ C 22, 28.1.2006

      OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

      OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

      OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

      OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

   These texts are available on:

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

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


title: Case T-184/11 P: Appeal brought on 28 March 2011 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 January 2011 in Case F-77/09 Nijs v Court of Auditors

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/16

         Appeal brought on 28 March 2011 by Bart Nijs against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 January 2011 in Case F-77/09 Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-184/11 P)
   2011/C 179/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Court of Auditors of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 13 January 2011;

               —

               Primarily, annul the decision of the ad hoc committee of the European Court of Auditors of 15 January 2009 dismissing the applicant without reduction of his pension with effect from 1 February 2009;

               —

               Annul Decision 81-2007 of 20 September 2007 of the Court of Auditors conferring the powers of the Appointing Authority on an ad hoc committee;

               —

               Annul all the preparatory decisions taken by that ad hoc committee, in particular those of 22/29 October, 23 November 2007 and 12 June 2008 to open an administrative investigation;

               —

               In the alternative, if the Court should not allow the primary applications for annulment, hold that the sanction pronounced by the ad hoc committee of the European Court of Auditors on 15 January 2009 is, on the basis of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations, for the reasons further discussed above, far too harsh;

               —

               Refer the case back to the European Court of Auditors’ Appointing Authority with a different composition or, failing that, pronounce a sanction, if genuinely deemed necessary, far better adapted to the facts;

               —

               In the further alternative, hold expressly that the principle of the reasonable length of proceedings has not been observed in the present case, as further discussed above, and taking into account the level of the sanction to be pronounced as appropriate;

               —

               Rule in accordance with the application initiating proceedings;

               —

               Order the European Court of Auditors to bear the costs of the present proceedings;

               —

               Allow the appellant all other rights and in particular that of being permitted to reply to the European Court of Auditors’ written pleading;

               —

               Order the opposing party to bear the costs of the two instances;

               —

               Allow the appellant all other rights, entitlements, pleas and actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on nine pleas in law.

               1.

               The first plea alleges a change in the subject-matter of the proceedings by the Civil Service Tribunal by interpreting the submissions of the appellant at the hearing as a withdrawal of his application for annulment of Decision No 81-2007.

               2.

               The second plea alleges a misinterpretation of the facts by the Civil Service Tribunal in paragraphs 40, 58 and 94 of the judgment appealed against.

               3.

               The third plea alleges a misinterpretation of the first plea of the action brought by the appellant in that the Civil Service Tribunal failed to take into account the paragraphs of Articles 22a and 22b of the Staff Regulations of the European Union relied upon.

               4.

               The fourth plea alleges the non-application by the Civil Service Tribunal of the principle of the reversal of the burden of proof.

               5.

               The fifth plea alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal made a bad legal decision with regard to the second plea of the appellant’s action and failed to draw conclusions from the conduct of the Secretary-General in connection with Article 11a of the Staff Regulations.

               6.

               The sixth plea alleges failure by the Civil Service Tribunal to take into account the infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

               7.

               The seventh plea alleges bias towards the appellant by the official entrusted with the disciplinary enquiry.

               8.

               The eighth plea alleges the actual non-application of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as a result of the refusal to review whether the sanction was proportionate in the light of the facts in respect of which it was adopted.

               9.

               The ninth plea alleges that the principle of the reasonable length of proceedings was wrongly applied.


title: Case T-491/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2011 in Case F-14/10, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/27

         Appeal brought on 19 September 2011 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2011 in Case F-14/10, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-491/11 P)
   2011/C 331/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought at first instance.

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation both to the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2011 dismissing as manifestly lacking any foundation in law an action seeking an order that the Commission pay compensation to the appellant for the material and non-material damage suffered by the appellant as a result of the purportedly unreasonably lengthy duration of the procedure for recognising partial permanent invalidity.
   The appellant relies on five grounds in support of the appeal.

               1.

               First ground, alleging error of law, including on the grounds of failure to state reasons and breach of the duty to carry out proper investigations, by failing quite simply in all cases to have regard to the fact that a European Union institution incurs liability in tort where it infringes the obligation it is under to give reasons for each of its decisions and by declaring the plea relied on by the appellant in that regard irrelevant.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of the concept of the duty to state reasons.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging absolute failure to state reasons, including on the grounds of failure to carry out investigations, and procedural errors in that the Tribunal failed to declare that the Commission’s defence was clearly out of time and thus inadmissible.

               4.

               Fourth ground, alleging breach of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal and breach of the appellant’s right to a fair hearing and the rights of the defence.

               5.

               Fifth ground, alleging incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal.


title: Case F-88/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 — Van Asbroek v European Commission (Civil service — Officials — Decision on classification in intermediate grade — Request for re-examination — Substantial new fact — None — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 June 2011 — Van Asbroek v European Commission
   (Case F-88/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Decision on classification in intermediate grade - Request for re-examination - Substantial new fact - None - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2011/C 232/76
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Van Asbroek (Dilbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by G. Berscheid and D. Martin, Agents, and subsequently by J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant's request for partial annulment of the Commission's decision of 22 October 2008 regarding the introduction of a compensatory allowance in favour of officials who changed category before 1 May 2004, for reclassification, with retroactive effect from 1 May 2004, in grade D*4/8 and for reconstruction of his career to reflect the promotions, annual adjustments and advancements in step to which it had been subject since then.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Van Asbroek shall bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010, p. 50.


title: Case C-613/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Jurisdiction of the Court — Concept of ‘provision of EU law’ — Directive 89/106/EEC — Approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products — Standard approved by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) pursuant to a mandate given by the European Commission — Publication of the standard in the Official Journal of the European Union — Harmonised standard EN 13242:2002 — National standard incorporating harmonised standard EN 13242:2002 — Contractual dispute between individuals — Method used to establish (non — ) compliance of a product with a national standard transposing a harmonised standard — Date of establishing (non — ) compliance of a product with that standard — Directive 98/34/EC — Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations — Scope)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — James Elliott Construction Limited v Irish Asphalt Limited
   (Case C-613/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Jurisdiction of the Court - Concept of ‘provision of EU law’ - Directive 89/106/EEC - Approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products - Standard approved by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) pursuant to a mandate given by the European Commission - Publication of the standard in the Official Journal of the European Union - Harmonised standard EN 13242:2002 - National standard incorporating harmonised standard EN 13242:2002 - Contractual dispute between individuals - Method used to establish (non — ) compliance of a product with a national standard transposing a harmonised standard - Date of establishing (non — ) compliance of a product with that standard - Directive 98/34/EC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Scope))
   (2017/C 006/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: James Elliott Construction Limited

      Defendant: Irish Asphalt Limited

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of a harmonised standard within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to construction products, as amended by Council Directive 93/68/EEC of 22 July 1993, references to that standard having been published by the Commission in the ‘C’ series of the Official Journal of the European Union.

               2.

               Harmonised standard EN 13242:2002, entitled ‘Aggregates for unbound and hydraulically bound materials for use in civil engineering work and road construction’, must be interpreted as not binding a national court seised of a dispute concerning a contract governed by private law requiring a party to supply a product compliant with a national standard transposing that harmonised standard, either as regards the method of establishing the conformity of such a construction product with the contractual specifications or the time at which its conformity must be established.

               3.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 89/106, as amended by Directive 93/68, read in the light of the twelfth recital of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the national court is not obliged to apply the presumption of fitness for use of a construction product manufactured pursuant to a harmonised standard for the purposes of establishing that such a product is of merchantable quality or fit for its purpose where a national law of a general nature governing the sale of goods, such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, requires that a construction product have such characteristics.

               4.

               Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as last amended, by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that national provisions such as those at issue in the case in the main proceedings, specifying, unless the parties agree otherwise, implied contractual terms concerning merchantable quality and fitness for purpose of the products sold are not ‘technical regulations’, within the meaning of that provision, drafts of which must be communicated in advance, as provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34, as amended by Directive 2006/96.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 23.3.2015.


title: Case T-367/15: Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Renfe-Operadora v OHIM (AVE)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/31

         Action brought on 9 July 2015 — Renfe-Operadora v OHIM (AVE)
   (Case T-367/15)
   (2015/C 346/37)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Renfe-Operadora, Public business entity (Madrid, Spain), (represented by: J.-B. Devauriex, lawyer and M. Hernández Sandoval, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘AVE’ — Application for restitutio in integrum — Application for registration No 5.640.198

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 April 2015 in Case R 712/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision by granting its application for ‘Restitution in integrum’ and, consequently, declare admissible the earlier appeal brought by the applicant against the decision of the Cancellation Division of 4 February 2014, which is to be heard by the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM.

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Incomplete statement of facts in the contested decision, procedural irregularities giving rise to infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence and of the duty of care owed to the applicant.

               —

               Incorrect assessment of the evidence, lack of proportion between the formal defect supposedly committed by the applicant and the consequences of the same inasmuch as the applicant was deprived of its right to challenge a decision against his interests, and too strict an approach taken in the decision.

               —

               Infringement of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing as it could not challenge the grounds on which the declaration of partial annulment of the mark ‘AVE’ was based.


title: Case C-101/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) (England & Wales), by order of that court of 26 February 1999, in the case of The Queen against Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc.

text:
5.6.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 160/9
3.     Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 reserves a                 2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, was Article 4 of
particularly favourable treatment, in terms of compensatory                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2630/81 on special
aid, for certain products. Firstly, unlike the remaining prices               detailed rules for the application of the system of import
and amounts, the reduction is set at 0,5 % rather than at 2,6 %;              and export licences in the sugar sector (2), of 10 September
secondly, it constitutes a ‘de minimis’ limit rather than an                  1981 (now replaced by Article 5 of Commission Regu-
abatement percentage; thirdly, application of such a reduction                lation (EC) No 1464/95 on special detailed rules for the
is dependent on a discretionary choice by the Member States.                  application of the system of import and export licences in
Finally, under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2800/99, the                the sugar sector (3), of 27 June 1995) ultra vires and void
Community contribution for the first year amounts to 100 %.                   for the reason that it imposed a requirement which is not
                                                                              found in or justified by Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81,
                                                                              namely, that an export licence for C sugar may only be
There is no legal basis or valid reason for the abovementioned
                                                                              issued after the manufacturer in question has provided the
disparity of treatment, specifically so far as concerns the setting
                                                                              competent agency with proof that the quantity for which
of a reduction for a lower amount applicable under conditions                 the licence is requested, or an equivalent quantity has
which are by far more favourable to producers.                                actually been produced in excess of the A and B quotas of
                                                                              the undertaking concerned?
Moreover, the favourable treatment reserved for the products
and the aid in question amounts to penalisation of Mediterrane-           3. If the answer to question 1 or question 2 is ‘no’, in the
an agriculture, which is altogether contrary to the rules and                 circumstances of this case, is the National Authority in
principles of the Treaty, and is furthermore vitiated by lack of              maintaining that the sugar exported as C sugar was A or B
essential procedural requirements and misuse of powers.                       quota sugar and/or in then seeking to impose a charge
                                                                              pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              No 2670/81, laying down detailed implementing rules in
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2799/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 respect of sugar production in excess of the quota (4), of
    p. 1).                                                                    14 September 1981 for the failure to dispose of C sugar
    Council Regulation (EC) No 2800/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,                 outside the EC, in breach of one or more of the following
    p. 8).                                                                    general principles of Community law:
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,
    p. 36).
    Commission Regulation (EC) No 2813/98 (OJ L 349, 24.12.1998,              (a) the principle of Legitimate Expectations,
    p. 48).
    with particular regard to the provisions complained of,                   (b) the principle of Legal Certainty,
                                                                              (c) the principle of Non Discrimination,
                                                                              (d) the principle of Proportionality,
                                                                              (e) the principle of the Proper Use of Powers;
                                                                          with the effect that the demand for the charge in the present
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                   case is void and unenforceable?
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England
& Wales), by order of that court of 26 February 1999, in                  4. Further or alternatively, if the answer to question 1 is ‘no’:
the case of The Queen against Intervention Board for
      Agricultural Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc.                      (a) Does the National Authority have a discretion to vary
                                                                                the amount of the charge to be imposed pursuant to
                                                                                Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
                         (Case C-101/99)                                           No 2670/81?
                         (1999/C 160/20)                                      (b) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘yes’, what factors may the
                                                                                National Authority take into account in exercising
                                                                                such a discretion in the light, in particular, of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             circumstances of this case?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Crown Office) (England &                     (c) If the answer to 4 (a) is ‘no’, is Article 3(1) of Regulation
Wales), of 26 February 1999, which was received at the Court                       (EEC) No 2670/81 void to the extent that it requires a
Registry on 18 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the                         National Authority to levy a charge even when the
case of The Queen against Intervention Board for Agricultural                      amount of sugar disposed of on the internal market
Produce, ex parte: British Sugar plc, on the following questions:                  does not, in practice, exceed the sum of the relevant
                                                                                manufacturer’s A and B quotas?
1. Under the EC Sugar Regime and in particular under Article
     24.1.c of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 on the                 5. Is the National Authority, in the circumstances of this case,
     common organization of the markets in the sugar sector (1),              prevented from levying a charge pursuant to Article 3(1)
     of 30 June 1981, may an undertaking awarded a quota by                   of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 where it has
     a national authority attribute sugar as C sugar when that                not notified the undertaking of such a charge in accordance
     sugar is produced during a marketing year before the                     with the time limit contained in Article 3(2) of Regulation
     undertaking has actually completed production of a vol-                  (EEC) No 2670/81 before 1 May of the relevant year
     ume of sugar that is equivalent to the sum of its A and B                and/or is the undertaking relieved of any obligations to
     quotas?                                                                  pay such a charge in the above circumstances?
 ---pagebreak--- C 160/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
6. In the circumstances of this case, is the National Authority        Pleas in law and main arguments
     obliged to pay the export refunds which the undertaking
     would have applied for at the time of export and would
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, a
     have been payable if the sugar described as C Sugar and
                                                                       directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     exported under C Sugar Licences had been designated as A
                                                                       each Member State to which it is addressed.
     and B quota sugar, on the grounds that:
     (a) the National Authority can retrospectively accept an          Although the prescribed time-limit expired on 31 December
          export declaration under Article 3 of Commission             1996, the Portuguese Republic has still not submitted to the
          Regulation (EEC) No. 3665/87 of 27 November 1987             Commission the report on the experience gained in the light
          laying down common detailed rules for the application        of Directive 90/313/EEC, as required by Article 8 thereof.
          of the system of export refunds on agricultural prod-
          ucts (5) and the circumstances of the present case
          constitute a reason of force majeure entitling it to         (1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
          extend the period for the furnishing of proof under
          Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
          No 3665/87?
          And/or on the grounds that:
     (b) a refusal to pay such export refunds would constitute
          a breach of the principles of Legitimate Expectations        Appeal brought on 30 March 1999 by Lech-Stahlwerke
          and/or Legal Certainty and/or Proportionality and/or         GmbH against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
          Proper Use of Powers?                                        by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue
( 1) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                         Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH
( 2) OJ L 258, 11.9.1981, p. 16.                                       supported by the Federal Republic of Germany against
( 3) OJ L 144, 28.6.1995, p. 14.                                       the Commission of the European Communities in Cases
( 4) OJ L 262, 16.9.1981, p. 181.                                      T-2/96 and T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of
( 5) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.                                                     Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-111/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/22)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
Action brought on 26 March 1999 by the Commission                      by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                               Republic                                T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue Maxhütte
                                                                       Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH supported by
                                                                       the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of
                         (Case C-106/99)                               the European Communities in Joined Cases T-2/96 and
                                                                       T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                         (1999/C 160/21)                               and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 30 March 1999 by
                                                                       Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, Meitingen-Herbertshofen, Germany,
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before           represented by Rainer Bierwagen of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke &
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March           Crosby, Rond Point Schuman 9, Bte 9, B-1040 Brussels.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          The appellant claims that the Court should:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre.
                                                                       — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities of 21 January 1999 in Joined
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 Neue Maxhütte
                                                                           Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v. Com-
— declare that, by failing to submit to the Commission within              mission of the European Communities(1) to the extent that
     the prescribed period the report provided for by Article 8            it relates to the appellant,
     of Council Decision 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
     freedom of access to information on the environment (1),          — itself give final judgment in the case and declare null and
     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          void, to the extent it relates to the appellant, Commission
     under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty             Decision 95/422/ECSC of 4 April 1995 concerning State
     and Article 8 of Directive 90/313/EEC,                                aid that the Freistaat Bayern intends to grant to the ECSC
                                                                           steel undertaking Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                          Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH (OJ L 253, 21.10.1995, p. 22),