title: Case C-132/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV v Andacon NV

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 March 2007 — Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV and GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV v Andacon NV
   (Case C-132/07)
   (2007/C 117/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Beecham Group plc, SmithKline Beecham plc, Glaxo Group Ltd, Stafford-Miller Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare NV, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare BV

      Defendant: Andacon NV
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the first paragraph of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1891/04 (1) be construed as prohibiting the competent customs service or the competent customs office from providing, or causing to be provided, information within the terms of Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 (2), or arranging, or causing to be arranged, an inspection within the terms of the second subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03, so long as the application for action made prior to 1 July 2004 has not been supplemented by the declaration referred to in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03? In other words, is the declaration in question a formal condition governing the continued effectiveness of the application for action?

               2.

               Is Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 to be construed as allowing the Antwerp customs authorities to grant the trade mark proprietor access to six samples of the goods in order to be able to determine whether or not the goods in question were counterfeit, it being understood that such notification of a sample is not to be treated as equivalent to a thorough inspection within the terms of the second subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03? If so, ought this granting of access to have occurred within the period of three working days laid down in Article 4(1) of that regulation?

               3.

               Does Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 preclude Belgian customs officials from providing information, acquired in the context of implementation of that regulation, outside the channels envisaged thereby — reference being made to, inter alia, Article 9(2) and the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 — for example, within the context of the questioning of witnesses or submission of documents ordered by Belgian courts?

               4.

               Does Regulation (EC) No 1383/03 preclude information obtained as a result of the application of Articles 4(2) (see Question 2) and 9(2) and (3) thereof, other than that referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 9(3), or information obtained pursuant to the questioning of witnesses or submission of documents ordered by Belgian courts (see Question 3), from being used in the context of proceedings not designed to secure a declaration that goods are counterfeit, for example in connection with proceedings to counter parallel imports?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1891/2004 of 21 October 2004 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 concerning customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights and the measures to be taken against goods found to have infringed such rights (OJ 2004 L 328, p. 16).

      (2)  OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 7.


title: Case C-652/11 P: Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/19

         Appeal brought on 19 December 2011 by Mindo Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 5 October 2011 in Case T-19/06: Mindo Srl v European Commission
   (Case C-652/11 P)
   2012/C 49/32
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mindo Srl (represented by: C. Osti, A. Prastaro, G. Mastrantonio, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside, in its entirety, the judgment of the General Court, on 5 October 2011, in case T-19/06 Mindo v. Commission and, consequently,

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court and order the latter to assess it on the merits, as its judgment deprived Mindo of its right to a full judicial review at the first instance,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant's request is based on the following pleas in law:

               The General Court affirms that Mindo has no interest in pursuing the proceedings, because it could not take any advantage of the annulment of the Contested Judgment in itself, nor in relation to Alliance One International Inc.’s (“Alliance One”) claim for contribution, or to third parties’ follow-on actions for damages.

               Firstly, the Appellant submits that the above mentioned findings should be annulled, as thy violate the applicable laws, are based on distortion of facts and, in any case, are characterized by insufficient and contradictory reasoning.

               Secondly, the Appellant argues that the Contested Judgment should be annulled because I either deprives Mindo of its right of access to the court (and consequently of its rights to have its case fully reviewed) or, should the Contested Judgment be interpreted as requiring Mindo and Alliance One to have jointly lodged the application at first instance, it breaches Mindo's and Alliance One's right of defense.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione dei Ricorsi contro i Provvedimenti dell'Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi by order of 16 December 1997 in the case of Merck & Co. Inc. v Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Case C-333/98)

text:
24.10.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 327/15
administrative measure with the operation of services of               not only to the product covered by the authorisation
general economic interest, but is sufficient that that                 to place the corresponding medicinal product on the
responsibility results from public-law contracts entered               market' but also to the derivatives (salts and esters) of
into, as here, between the body in question and the public             the product, bearing in mind that, under Article 1 of
authorities. Furthermore, it is not necessary, in order for            Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, product' must be
Article 90(2) of the Treaty to apply, for the body to hold a           construed as meaning the active ingredient or
monopoly in the operation of the services in question.                 combination of active ingredients of a medicinal
                                                                       product'?
(1) Not yet published in the OJ.
                                                                   D. If the above extension to the derivatives of the active
                                                                       ingredient is accepted, must Article 4 of Regulation
                                                                       (EEC) No 1768/92 be construed as meaning that the
                                                                       protection conferred by the SPC is not impaired by
                                                                       the health authority measure granting marketing
                                                                       authorisation and in particular by the active ingredient
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                  indicated in that authorisation as corresponding to the
dei Ricorsi contro i Provvedimenti dell'Ufficio Italiano               authorised medicinal product?
Brevetti e Marchi by order of 16 December 1997 in the
case of Merck & Co. Inc. v Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e
                             Marchi
                                                                   E. On the assumption, once again, that the suggested
                        (Case C-333/98)                                extension of the protection conferred by the SPC to
                                                                       the derivatives of the active ingredient is accepted,
                          (98/C 327/23)                                must the final phrase of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 1768/92 be construed as meaning that the
                                                                       supplementary protection may be relied on for each of
                                                                       the medicinal products in so far as they have been
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       authorised by the health authority before the expiry of
European Communities by order of 16 December 1997
                                                                       the certificate, or is the first authorisation of the
from the Commissione dei Ricorsi contro i Provvedimenti
                                                                       medicinal product corresponding to the active
dell'Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e Marchi (Committee hearing
                                                                       ingredient sufficient?
Appeals against measures of the Italian Patent and
Trademark Office), which was received at the Court
Registry on 9 September 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Merck & Co. Inc. v Ufficio Italiano Brevetti e         F. Finally, if the active ingredient corresponding to the
Marchi (the Italian Patent and Trademark Office) on the                medicinal product which was the subject of the first
following questions:                                                   marketing authorisation is a salt or an ester of the
                                                                       patented substance, does the protection conferred by
                                                                       the SPC also extend to that substance and to its other
                                                                       derivatives?
A. May the recitals in the preamble to a Community
    regulation (in this case, recitals 13 and 17 in the
    preamble to Council Regulation (EC) No 1610/96) (1)            (1) OJ L 198, 8.8.1996, p. 30.
    be recognised as being prescriptive, and not solely as         (2) OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1.
    providing guidance for the interpretation of the
    regulation which they introduce?
B. On the assumption that the rules of authentic
    interpretation' are prescriptive and do not merely
    have an interpretative function, may recital 17 in             Action brought on 11 September 1998 by Commission of
    the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 be                      the European Communities against Italian Republic
    recognised as having the status of a rule for the
    authentic interpretation of the provisions of Council                                 (Case C-334/98)
    Regulation (EC) No 1768/92 (2) to which that recital
    refers and, in particular, Article 4 of Regulation (EC)                                 (98/C 327/24)
    No 1768/92?
                                                                   An action against Italian Republic was brought before
C. If it is accepted that recital 17 in the preamble to            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 does have the suggested             11 September 1998 by Commission of the European
    status as a rule of authentic interpretation, must             Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
    Article 4 of Regulation No 1768/92 be construed                Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
    as meaning that the protection conferred by a                  in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    supplementary protection certificate (SPC) extends             Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-439/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — Sport-pari v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Error of assessment)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — Sport-pari v Council
   (Case T-439/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Belarus - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Error of assessment))
   (2015/C 034/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sport-pari ZAO (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: V. Vaitkutė Pavan, A. Smaliukas, E. Matulionyte and T. Milašauskas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Scharf and E. Paasivirta, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011, amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 25), Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 161, p. 1), Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 17), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 8), Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/357/CFSP of 20 June 2011, amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus, Council Regulation (EU) No 588/2011 of 20 June 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus, Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as those acts concern Sport-pari ZAO;

               2)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Sport-pari;

               3)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case T-419/11: Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — ETAD v Commission (State aid — Annulment of the contested measure — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/19

         Order of the General Court of 19 April 2016 — ETAD v Commission
   (Case T-419/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Annulment of the contested measure - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 222/22)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Etaireia Akiniton Dimosiou AE (ETAD), formerly Ellinika Touristika Akinita AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Frangakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. van Vliet and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Elliniko Kazino Kerkyras AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Frangakis, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE (Loutraki, Greece) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011 on State aid to certain Greek casinos C 16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ L 285, p. 25).

      Operative part of the order

   The Court hereby orders:

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay its own costs and pay those incurred by Etaireia Akiniton Dimosiou AE (ETAD) and Elliniko Kazino Kerkyras.

               3.

               Koinopraxia Touristiki Loutrakiou AE OTA — Loutraki AE — Klab Otel Loutraki Kazino Touristikes kai Xenodocheiakes Epicheiriseis AE shall pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-54/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 2 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Liung Hong Yang

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 2 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Liung Hong Yang
   (Case C-54/12)
   2012/C 98/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Revere

      Party to the main proceedings

   Liung Hong Yang

      Question(s) referred

               1.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

               2.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?

               3.

               Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-370/00: Action brought on 4 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
25.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 335/39
Commerce (Commercial Court), Foix, of 25 September 2000,                          Council Directive 96/49/EC of 23 July 1996 on the
which was received at the Court Registry on 28 September                          approximation of the laws of the Member States with
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Réunion des                         regard to the transport of dangerous goods by rail (1) and
Assureurs Maladie v Jean Marc Laboup, on the following                            Commission Directive 96/87/EC of 13 December 1996
question:                                                                         adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                                                                                96/49/EC on the approximation of the laws of the
In the light of:                                                                  Member States with regard to the transport of dangerous
—     the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European                          goods by rail (2) or in any event by failing to inform the
      Communities in Case C-129/96 Inter-Environnement                            Commission of those measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      Wallonie v Région Wallonne [1997] ECR I-7411, which                         its obligations under those Directives.
      states that:
                                                                            —     order Ireland to pay the costs.
      ‘the Member States ... [must] refrain, during the period
      laid down [in a directive] for its implementation, from
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
      adopting measures liable seriously to compromise the
      result prescribed’; and
                                                                            Article 249 CE (ex Article 189 of the EC Treaty) under which
—     the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European                  a directive shall be binding as to the result to be achieved,
      Communities in Case C-239/98 Commission v France                      upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation
      [1999] ECR I-8935 declaring that the French State has                 on the Member States to observe the period for compliance
      failed to fulfil its obligations to transpose Directives              laid down in the directive. That period expired on 1 January
      92/49 and 92/96 into domestic law,                                    1997 without Ireland having adopted all the measures necess-
                                                                            ary to comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions
      can Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to
                                                                            of the Commission.
      direct insurance other than life assurance (1) and Directive
      92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 [relating to direct life
      assurance] (2) be interpreted as prohibiting any enforce-             (1) OJ L 235, 17.09.1996, p. 25-30 .
      ment (or any procedure) of any kind whatsoever, in                    (2) OJ L 335, 24.12.1996, p. 45.
      particular by means of court-supervised receivership
      or liquidation proceedings before the Tribunaux de
      Commerce, of judicial decisions taken pursuant to legis-
      lation on direct insurance other than life assurance [or on
      direct life assurance] which is incompatible with those
      directives?                                                           Appeal brought on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc
                                                                            against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the Second
(1) Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination         Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98 (1)
    direct insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives      between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the
    73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)          European Communities, supported by the Federal Repub-
    (OJ 1992 L 228, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the                  lic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktienge-
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions                                      sellschaft
    relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
    79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ                                  (Case C-371/00 P)
    1992 L 360, p. 1).
                                                                                (2000/C 335/70)
                                                                            An appeal against the order made on 25 July 2000 by the
                                                                            Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Action brought on 4 October 2000 by the Commission                          Instance of the European Communities in case T-110/98
        of the European Communities against Ireland                         between RJB Mining plc and the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany,
                          (Case C-370/00)                                   the Kingdom of Spain and RAG Aktiengesellschaft, was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (2000/C 335/69)
                                                                            ties on 9 October 2000 by RJB Mining plc, a public limited
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                   company incorporated in England with its registerd office at
Justice of the European Communities on 4 October 2000 by                    Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by Mark Brealey,
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                     Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Jonathan
by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an                Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
address for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a            at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10, Rue Mathias
member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner                       Hardt.
Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                            The Appellant seeks an order that:
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1)    the Appeal be allowed;
—     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                    2)    the Order be set aside;


               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/20

         Removal from the register of Case C-238/04 (1)

   (2005/C 45/44)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 2 December 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-238/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 190, de 24.7.04.


title: Removal from the register of T-70/96

text:
21 . 12 . 96          I EN I              Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 388/ 11
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Removal from the register of T-31/96 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 388/21
The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision                          (Language of the case: French)
dated 1 December 1995 and notified on 27 December
1995 by which he was assigned non-active status,                     By order of 6 November 1996 the President of the Third
backdated to 30 November 1995 and granted the                        Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
allowance provided for in Annex IV to the Staff                      Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Regulations. By way of subsequent related decisions, he              removal from the register of Case T-31/96 : Credit
also contests the decision, notified by letter of 21 February        Lyonnais v. Commission of the European ' Communities.
1996 , to withhold Lfrs 71 484 from the allowance granted
pursuant to Article 41 of the Staff Regulations and the              (!) OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
related decision to stop, with effect from 1 December
1995 , the remuneration and allowances to which he is
entitled .
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-70/96 (')
The applicant argues in the first place in support of his                                         96/C 388/22 )
claims that Articles 25 and 41 of the Staff Regulations
have been infringed. He contends that, under the principle                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
of legal certainty of legal situations, the starting point of a      By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
Community measure may not be set at a date prior to its              Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
publication. As far as the matter at issue is concerned, late        European Communities has ordered the removal from the
notification of assignment to non-active status prevents             register of Case T-70/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
the appointing authority from considering the official's             Ensino Particular, Limitada          v.    Commission of the
priority for reinstatement in any post of his grade which            European Communities.
may fall vacant or be created and for which he has the
necessary qualifications .                                           (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
In addition, the statement of reasons of the contested
decision does not enable either the applicant or the Court
of First Instance to check whether the budgetary authority
                                                                               Removal from the register of T-72/96 (*)
extended the possibilities for the application of Article 41
of the Staff Regulations to the 1996 financial year in                                          ( 96/C 388/23
accordance with the rules set out in Article 220 et seq. of                       (Language of the case: Portuguese)
the EC Treaty.
                                                                     By order of 12 November 1996 the President of the
                                                                     Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
In his application, the applicant also claims that there has         European Communities has ordered the removal from the
been an infringement of the duty to have regard to                   register of Case T-72/96 : Mediocurso, Estabelecimento de
officials ' interest.                                                Ensino Particular, Limitada v. Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities.
                                                                     (!) OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case T-639/11: Order of the General Court of 28 September 2012 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS) (Community trade mark — Refusal to register — Withdrawal of the application to register — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/34

         Order of the General Court of 28 September 2012 — Heads! v OHIM (HEADS)
   (Case T-639/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Refusal to register - Withdrawal of the application to register - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 366/68
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Heads! GmbH & Co. KG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz and T. Bösling, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: D. Walicka, agent)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 October 2011 (Case R 2348/2010-1) relating to an application for registration of the word mark ‘HEADS’ as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case T-180/07: Action brought on 24 May 2007 — Promomadrid Desarrollo Internacional de Madrid v OHIM (MADRIDEXPORTA)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/41

         Action brought on 24 May 2007 — Promomadrid Desarrollo Internacional de Madrid v OHIM (MADRIDEXPORTA)
   (Case T-180/07)
   (2007/C 155/74)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Promomadrid Desarrollo Internacional de Madrid, S.A. (Madrid) (Represented by: M. Aznar Alonso, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Forms of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, of 7 March 2007, in which it rejected the application No 4.659.553 for registration of the composite Community trade mark MADRIDEXPORTA, in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 does not comply with Council Regulation (EC) 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark.

               —

               A declaration that Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94 does not apply to composite Community trade mark MADRIDEXPORTA NO 4.659.553, and that Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94 applies instead.

               —

               Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark applied for: Composite mark ‘MADRIDEXPORTA’ (application No 4.659.553), for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

      Decision of the examiner: Reject the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Reject the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(c) and Article 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-278/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC — Animal health — Protection of pigs — Failure to transpose)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-278/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC - Animal health - Protection of pigs - Failure to transpose)
   (2005/C 271/15)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-278/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and A. Bordes) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: A. Tiemann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 June 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 and Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.


title: Case T-335/09: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2011 — Groupement Adriano, Jaime Ribeiro, Conduril v Commission (Action for annulment — MEDA I programme — Specific financing agreement — Mandate given to the European Union to recover debts owed by a third party to the Kingdom of Morocco — Debit note — Reminder letter — Acts inseparable from the contract — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/25

         Order of the General Court of 21 October 2011 — Groupement Adriano, Jaime Ribeiro, Conduril v Commission
   (Case T-335/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - MEDA I programme - Specific financing agreement - Mandate given to the European Union to recover debts owed by a third party to the Kingdom of Morocco - Debit note - Reminder letter - Acts inseparable from the contract - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 370/41
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicants: Groupement Adriano, Jaime Ribeiro, Conduril — Construção, ACE (Porto, Portugal) (represented by: A. Pinto Cardoso and L. Fuzeta da Ponte, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët and S. Delaude, Agents, and R. Faria da Cunha, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of, first, debit note No 3230905272 issued by the Commission on 12 June 2009 and, second, of the letter of 3 August 2009 by which the Commission ordered payment of the sum claimed by means of the debit note and related default interest.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Groupement Adriano, Jaime Ribeiro, Conduril — Construção, ACE.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-259/03: Action brought on 21 July 2003 by "Z" against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.11.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 264/27
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc. against                  Grounds of claim:             —      The mark applied for is not
   the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                                         devoid of any distinctive
                                                                                character within the mean-
                                                                                ing of Article 7(1)(b) of
                        (Case T-243/03)                                                                        Regulation (EC) No 40/
                                                                                94 (1).
                        (2003/C 264/48)                                                                 —      The mark applied for is not
                                                                                the normal means of
                                                                                designating services in the
                                                                                field of transportation, stor-
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                age and travel.
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Com-
                                                                              munity trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 June 2003 by Guardant, Inc.,
Atlanta (USA), represented by G. Farrington, Solicitor.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Defendant’s Second Board of               Action brought on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’ against the
      Appeal of 28 April 2003;                                                    Commission of the European Communities
—     order the Defendant to remit the application to its
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community                                        (Case T-259/03)
      Trade Mark number 1713213;
                                                                                (2003/C 264/49)
—     order the Defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The trade mark con-          The word mark ‘PENSAMOS MÁS                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
cerned:                      EN USTED’ — application                      European Communities on 21 July 2003 by ‘Z’, resident in
                             No 1713213                                   Athens, Greece, represented by Vasilios Christianos, lawyer,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Goods or service con-        Services in Class 39 (transpor-
cerned:                      tation, storage and travel services;
                             transportation of passengers and             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             cargo, frequent flyer bonus pro-
                             grams)                                       —    order the defendant to pay to her by way of damages,
                                                                               with interest from the time at which the damage or
Decision        contested    Refusal of registration by the                    harm arose, the sum of EUR 900 000, comprising
before the Board of          examiner                                          EUR 700 000 for non-material damage which she has
Appeal:                                                                        suffered and EUR 200 000 for harm suffered to her
                                                                               health;
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                   —    order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/28                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            1.11.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and its final report and thus denied her any possibility of
                                                                                exercising her rights of defence effectively.
                                                                           (1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and
An investigation in relation to the applicant was ordered and                  of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). After                    conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136,
the investigation had been completed, certain items appeared                   31.5.1999, p. 1).
in the European press referring to the applicant and the                   (2) Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
investigation of her, such that the applicant considers them                   of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard
disparaging and offensive. In addition, OLAF issued a press                    to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of
release concerning the investigation and also included a                       such data (OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31).
                                                                           (3) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
reference to it in its annual activity report. Although she was
                                                                               the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
not referred to by name in the documents made public by                        with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
OLAF, the applicant considers that the information which was                   institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
given made it particularly easy to identify her, so that it was                (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).
clear who was in question. Also, after the investigation had
been completed, the applicant requested OLAF to disclose to
her the file which it had drawn up on her, its final report and
any other information concerning what its findings were on
the accusations against her. However, OLAF refused to disclose
anything at all to her.
                                                                           Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l.
The applicant seeks, by her action, compensation for the non-              against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
material damage and harm to her health which she claims to                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
have suffered for the abovementioned reasons. She pleads in
support of her action:
                                                                                (Case T-261/03)
—     Infringement by OLAF of the second subparagraph
      of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 1073/1999 (1), in                                           (2003/C 264/50)
      conjunction with Directive 95/46 (2) and Regulation
      No 45/2001 (3). The applicant submits that it follows, on
                                                                           (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
      reading the foregoing provisions in conjunction with
                                                                           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
      each other, that OLAF is obliged, when publishing reports
                                                                                submitted: English)
      of its activities, to provide information in such a way that
      the identity of the person to whom the investigation
      relates is not revealed, directly or indirectly.
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
—     Infringement by OLAF of Article 8(2) of Regulation                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      No 1073/1999 in that it accepted or acquiesced in, and               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      ultimately allowed, the leaking of information to the                18 July 2003 by Euro Style ’94 S.r.l., Barletta, (Italy), represent-
      press regarding the investigation in relation to the                 ed by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
      applicant.                                                           bourg. RCN-Companhia de Importaçao e Esportaçao de Texte-
                                                                           is, LDA. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board
                                                                           of Appeal.
—     Infringement of Article 8(2) and (3) of Regulation
      No 1073/1999 which, in the applicant’s submission,
      prohibits OLAF from publishing press releases relating to            The applicant claims that the Court should:
      investigations which it carries out.
                                                                           —     cancel or amed the decision of the Second Board of
                                                                                Appeal of OHIM no. R0067/2001-2;
—     Infringement by OLAF of Articles 4(1) and (2) and 6 of
      Regulation No 1073/1999, of Article 4 of Decision 99-
                                                                           —     consequently to order the registration of the trademark
      50 of the Court of Auditors of 16 December 1999, and
      of the more general obligation to observe the right to                     ‘GLOVE’ also for class 25 as requested by the firm Euro
                                                                                Style ’94 S.r.l.;
      good administration in accordance with Article 41 of the
      Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
      since it refused to disclose to the applicant the file on her        —     order to bear the costs according to regulation.


title: Case T -397/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  18 November 2005  — Fédération de l'hospitalisation privée v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/25

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 November 2005 — Fédération de l'hospitalisation privée v Commission
   (Case T -397/03) (1)

   (2006/C 22/46)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.2.2004.


title: Case T-175/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Walter Hundhausen v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/48

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Walter Hundhausen v Commission
   (Case T-175/14)
   2014/C 142/62
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Walter Hundhausen GmbH (Schwerte, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision, in respect of State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, to initiate the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, notified with the invitation to submit comments (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the defendant failed to give sufficient reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for its decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The decision to initiate the investigation procedure contains no specific substantive assessment based on factual and legal aspects with regard to the existence of all the constituent elements for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

                           If the Court is of the opinion that State aid exists, that aid would, in the applicant’s view, be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU.


title: Case C-364/05: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/52

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-364/05) (1)

   (2006/C 326/107)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Case T-634/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-72/10, da Silva Tenreiro v Commission

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/40

         Appeal brought on 9 December 2011 by Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 in Case F-72/10, da Silva Tenreiro v Commission
   (Case T-634/11 P)
   2012/C 32/80
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Mario Paulo da Silva Tenreiro (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission.

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2011 (Case F-72/10 da Silva Tenreiro v Commission) dismissing the action of the applicant,

                           —

                           Annul the decision of the European Commission rejecting the applicant’s application for the vacant post of Director of Directorate E ‘Justice’ in Directorate General (DG) Justice, Freedom and Security and the decision appointing Ms K to that post.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law in that the Tribunal should have dismissed the plea alleging a misuse of power in spite of serious indications of such misuse relied on by the applicant, whereas the Court should reverse the burden of proof in order to comply with the principle of equality of arms in proceedings before the Tribunal

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging disregard for the equality of arms of the parties by refusing to order the production, among others, of Ms K’s staff report for the period in which she exercised the function of director in Directorate ‘Security’ in DG ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’, whereas the Appointing Authority justifies the rejection of her application for that post by a plausible inaptitude in the light of her performance as acting director, while taking the view that she may be appointed to the post of director in Directorate ‘Justice’ in the same DG in the light of that same experience as director.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging distortion and misrepresentation of the facts in that the CST should have concluded that the two appeal procedures for the post of director (‘Justice’ and ‘Security’) were separate and that the outcome of one of those procedures has not influenced the outcome of the other.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law alleging infringement of the rule that the parties should be heard, breach of the rights of the defence and of the duty to state reasons in that the CST failed to make reference to the manifest error of assessment raised by the applicant at the hearing, based on the evaluation grid of the pre-selection board which the applicant became aware of in the annex to the defence, since the CST held that there was no need for a second exchange of pleadings.


title: Case T-313/05: Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Microsoft/Commission

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/16

         Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Microsoft/Commission
   (Case T-313/05)
   (2005/C 257/31)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties:

      Applicant(s): Microsoft Corporation (Washington, USA) [represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, I. Forrester, QC]

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought:

               —

               annul the Commission Decision of 1 June 2005;

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Following the Commission's Decision of 24 March 2004, contested in Case T-201/04 (1) and according to which the applicant is required to disclose specifications for certain Windows protocols in order to ensure interoperability with Windows, the Commission informed the applicant by letter of 1 June 2005 that, in its opinion, the applicant is under an obligation to permit distribution to third parties — non-licensees — in source code form of software developed by competitors on the basis of the disclosed Windows protocol specifications unless the software includes an invention by the applicant satisfying criteria of novelty and inventiveness.
   The applicant contests the Commission's letter of 1 June 2005 as the applicant contends that the distribution in source code form of the software in question would grant non-licensees access to the applicant's trade secrets without giving the applicant the possibility to ensure that they are kept confidential through licensing terms as is the case for licensees.
   The applicant is of the opinion that the letter of 1 June 2005 imposes an illegal deprivation of the applicant's property rights and that the Commission lacked competence to impose obligations going beyond those required by the Decision of 24 March 2004 as the Commission's letter of 1 June 2005 purports to apply this Decision.
   The applicant further alleges that the letter of 1 June 2005 breaches the principle of proportionality as it goes beyond what is necessary to remedy the abuse established by the Decision of 24 March 2004.
   Moreover the applicant claims that the test of novelty and inventiveness set out in the letter of 1 June 2005 breaches the principle of legal certainty as it is unclear, imprecise and very difficult to apply meaningfully in a trade secret context.
   Finally, the applicant submits that the letter of 1 June 2005 contravenes principles of public international law binding on the Community because it entails a worldwide and thus extraterritorial disclosure of the applicant's property rights.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10 July 2004, p. 18.


title: Case T-97/12: Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/29

         Action brought on 22 February 2012 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-97/12)
   2012/C 151/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rami Makhlouf (Damas, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 and Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 and their subsequent implementing acts, insofar as they concern the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-432/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 290, p. 13.


title: Case C-43/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  23 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/23

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-43/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2006/C 131/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz, D. Martin and H. Kreppel, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: U. Forsthoff, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, as far as concerns discrimination based on religion or belief, disability and sexual orientation, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.


title: Case T-116/06: Action brought on  13 April 2006  — Oakley v OHIM

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/17

         Action brought on 13 April 2006 — Oakley v OHIM
   (Case T-116/06)
   (2006/C 154/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, USA) (represented by: Michaela Huth-Dierig, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venticinque Ltd (Hailsham, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of January 17, 2006 in appeal R 682/2004-1 to be annulled.

               —

               The defendant to be ordered to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘O STORE’ for services in class 35 — Community trade mark No 2 074 599

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Venticinque Limited

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national word mark ‘THE O STORE’ for goods and services in classes 18 and 25

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of both the applicant's and Venticinque Ltd's appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the goods and services are absolutely dissimilar and there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks since the distinctive character of the earlier mark ‘THE O STORE’ is very limited. Furthermore, proof has not been provided that ‘THE O STORE’ is in any way known or well established in the French market.


               2.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/21

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein dated 20 January 2015 in the Case of the Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz
   (Case E-3/15)
   (2015/C 217/07)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 20 January 2015 from Staatsgerichtshof des Fürstentums Liechtenstein (State Court of the Principality of Liechtenstein), which was received at the Court Registry on 22 January 2015, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of the Liechtensteinische Gesellschaft für Umweltschutz v Gemeinde Vaduz on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Directive 2011/92/EU of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment applicable in the Principality of Liechtenstein to EIA procedures which are still based, under transitional arrangements, on the Gesetz über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung (Law on Environmental Impact Assessment) of 10 March 1999 (‘the old version of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment’)?

               2.

               If so, is there an unlawful restriction of the right of complaint of environmental organisations under Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU in conjunction with Article 20 of the old version of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment in the present case if the Government takes a general decision on the environmental compatibility of the project pursuant to Article 16 of the old version of the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment in a separate procedure, but — in the form of conditions — reserves the resolution of crucial issues relating to the project’s environmental compatibility to subsequent authorisation procedures under special legislation?

               3.

               If so, does Article 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU have direct effect in respect of the EIA procedure at issue, which forms the basis for the individual complaint to the State Court?

               4.

               What would be the legal consequence, in the present case, of an infringement of the right of complaint under the directive with reference to questions 2 and 3?


title: Case C-533/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Työtuomioistuin (Finland) lodged on 9 October 2013 — Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry v Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy
   (Case C-533/13)
   2013/C 352/18
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Työtuomioistuin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Auto- ja Kuljetusalan Työntekijäliitto AKT ry

      Defendants: Öljytuote ry, Shell Aviation Finland Oy

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Must Article 4(1) of the Temporary Agency Work Directive 2008/104/EC (1) be interpreted as laying down a permanent obligation on national authorities, including the courts, to ensure by the means available to them that national provisions or clauses in collective agreements contrary to that provision of the directive are not in force or are not applied?

               (b)

               Must Article 4(1) of the directive be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which the use of temporary agency labour is permitted only in the cases specially listed, such as to cope with peak periods of work or for work which cannot be given to an undertaking’s own employees to do? May the use of agency workers for a lengthy period in the ordinary work of an undertaking alongside the undertaking’s own employees be defined as a prohibited use of agency labour?

               (c)

               If the national provision is found to be contrary to the directive, what methods does a court have for achieving the objectives of the directive where a collective agreement to be observed by individuals is concerned?

      (1)  Directive 2008/104/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work, OJ 2008 L 327, p. 9.


title: Case F-38/11: Action brought on 5 April 2011 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/22

         Action brought on 5 April 2011 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-38/11)
   2011/C 179/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote in the 2009 promotion exercise the applicant, who was transferred on 1 September 2009 from the Court of Justice of the European Union to the European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Parliament of 4 January 2011 to reject the applicant’s complaint against the decision not to promote him to grade AD7 in the 2009 promotion exercise;

               —

               As necessary, annul the decision of the Parliament not to promote him to grade AD7 in the 2009 promotion exercise;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Société Bretagne Angleterre Irlande (BAI) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-230/95)

text:
No C 77/ 14            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        16 . 3 . 96
Action brought on 18 December 1995 by Societe Bretagne               therefore to the beneficiary of the aid, it is unfair for the
Angleterre Irlande ( BAI) against the Commission of the              complainant not to be informed of it. The injustice is all
                     European Communities                            the greater because, unknown to the complainant, the
                        ( Case T-230/95 )                            agreement to which it objects was drawn up by the State
                                                                     concerned in conjunction with the Commission, according
                           ( 96/C 77/32 )
                                                                     to its own press release. Consequently, the inquiry into the
                                                                     matter was neither impartial nor diligent.
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Because it does not have the text of the Commission 's
An action against the Commission of the European                     decision, the applicant finds itself in the following position :
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    either the Commission's decision did not put an end to
Instance of the European Communities on 18 December                  the infringement complained of by the applicant and
 1995 by Societe Bretagne Angleterre Irlande ( BAI ), a              is unlawful, or that decision gives all operators the
company whose registered office is in Roscoff ( France ),            opportunity of entering into agreements with State
represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of the Paris Bar, with an          authorities which make it possible for them to ensure that
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 their vessels are profitable. In the first case, the applicant
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.                                            would be unable to exercise its right to take legal action,
                                                                     because it does not know the reasons on which the decision
                                                                     is based . In the second case, it would for the same reason be
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          unable to make use of such an opportunity.
— order the Commission to compensate the loss suffered
     by the applicant because it has not been informed of the
     decision taken by the Commission in Case C-32/93 ( Ex
     NN 40/93 ) or, if it should be so informed during the
     proceedings, because the Commission is late in fulfilling
     its obligation,                                                 Action brought on 19 December 1995 by SIC — Sociedade
                                                                     Independente de Comunica^ao, SA against the Commission
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                             of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-231/95 )
Pleans in law and main arguments:                                                              ( 96/C 77/33 )
The applicant, a company governed by French law which                An action against the Commission of the European
was for many years the sole operator of a shipping line              Communities was brought before the Court of First
between the ports of Plymouth in England and Santander in            Instance of the European Communities on 19 December
Spain, objects to the fact that the Commission has failed,           1995 by SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunica^ao,
despite a number of requests and formal notices, to inform           SA, whose registered office is at 119 Estrada da Outurela ,
the applicant of the terms of a decision given in response to a      Carnaxide, Linda-a-Velha, represented by Carlos Botelho
complaint lodged under Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty.            Moniz and Ana Santos Reis, Advogados, with chambers at
                                                                     63 6° Rua Castilho, Lisbon, with an address for service in
That complaint concerned aids granted by the 'Diputacion             Luxembourg at the chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Foral de Vizcaya' ( Regional Government of Biscay ) and the          Grand-rue .
' Gobierno Vasco' ( Basque Government ) to a company,
Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA, 50 % controlled by the United
Kingdom company Peninsular and Oriental European                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
Ferries ( P&O ), which has since March 1993 been operating
a competing line between the ports of Portsmouth and                — find and declare that the defendant has, in breach of
Bilbao . More specifically, those authorities had undertaken             Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and of general
to purchase travel vouchers from Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya                principles of law, failed in its duty to give a decision on
amounting to the sum of Pta 1 314 190 000 during the line's              the request for a procedure to be commenced under
first three years of operation during which it was forecast to           Article 93 ( 2 ) made to it by the applicant in its complaint
be running at a loss. Those payments were to be made even if             ( No IV/34.811 ) concerning the aid granted by the
the crossings did not take place; the price agreed was                   Portuguese Government to RTP — Radiotelevisao
substantially higher than the shipping company's public                  Portuguesa , SA,
fares .
                                                                    — order the Commission to pay the costs in their
At the beginning of June 1995 the applicant learned from                 entirety.
the newspapers that the Commission had given a decision,
but it still does not know either the content of that decision       Pleas in law and main arguments:
or the date on which it was adopted, even though it has
requested the information a number of times .                       The applicant states that Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty lays
                                                                     down a rule concerning the incompatibility of aid with the
First of all, the applicant maintains that once a decision has      common market; Article 92 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) allows exceptions to
been adopted, its existence made public in a press release           that rule . The Commission has sole competence to decide as
and its content imparted to the State in question, and               to the availability of exceptions, in other words to decide as


title: Case T-370/15 P: Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by CJ against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, CJ v ECDC

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/51

         Appeal brought on 9 July 2015 by CJ against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in joined cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, CJ v ECDC

   (Case T-370/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: CJ (Agios Stefanos, Greece) (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2015 in Joined Cases F-159/12 and F-161/12, CJ v ECDC, insofar as it:

                           —

                           dismissed the action in Case F-159/12 in part and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs;

                           —

                           dismissed the action in Case F-161/12 in whole and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs and pay those incurred by the ECDC;

                           —

                           ordered the appellant to pay the Tribunal a sum of EUR 2  000 in order to refund part of the avoidable expenditure which the Tribunal was forced to incur;

               —

               consequently, in the event that the appeal is declared well founded:

                           —

                           annul the contested decision of 24 February 2012;

                           —

                           order the ECDC to pay compensation, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 80  000, for the non-material harm sustained by the appellant and alleged in the first head of claim in Case F-161/12;

                           —

                           order the ECDC to pay compensation, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 56  800 for the non-material harm sustained by the appellant and alleged in the incidental claims for compensation brought during the trial at first instance;

               —

               order the ECDC to pay all costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal infringed the principle audi et alteram partem in rejecting the appellant’s statement of reply as inadmissible because its body and annexes did not directly relate to certain annexes of the ECDC defence;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal failed to adjudicate incidental heads of claim raised for the first time in the course of the proceedings, for compensation of non-material harm caused by certain statements made in the ECDC defence;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal infringed Article 91(1) of the Staff Regulations in considering itself barred from examining the verity of allegations of financial mismanagement at ECDC inasmuch as they had previously been examined by OLAF;

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal misinterpreted;

                           —

                           Article 47(b)(ii), read in conjunction with Article 86, of the Condition of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (‘CEOS’) in holding that the appellant could be summarily dismissed for insubordination without a disciplinary process;

                           —

                           Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in relation to the time allowed for the appellant to put his view before being dismissed;

                           —

                           Article 48(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in accepting as proven accusations that the appellant had engaged in criminal conduct, although he had been neither charged with, nor convicted of, such conduct before a criminal court;

                           —

                           The employer’s duty of care in holding that ECDC did not need to afford the appellant certain rights of defence during an administrative inquiry under Annex IX to the Staff Regulations;

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal misinterpreted, the first, fifth and eight plea in law and the order sought;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal made an erroneous legal classification of certain facts;

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal distorted certain evidence.