title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 7 October 1997 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Gesellschaft mbH (Case C-369/97)

text:
6. 12. 97             I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 370/5
the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber,                 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                        These are analogous to those in Case C-367/97 ( 2 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        (') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994 , p. 20 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) See p. 4 of this Official Journal .
1 . declare that, by not laying down the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to
     comply with Council Directive 94/5 7/EC (') of
     22 November 1994 on common rules and standards
     for ship inspection and survey organizations and for
     the relevant activities of maritime administrations, the
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
     Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 7 October
     obligations under this directive and under the EC                  1997 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
     Treaty;                                                                 Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth Co . Gesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-369/97 )
2 . order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
     costs .                                                                                ( 97/C 370/ 12 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Forth Senate of
                                                                        the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria , of
Under the mandatory provisions of the third paragraph of                7 October 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
Article 189 and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                        on 27 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case
EC Treaty, the Member States are required to lay down                   of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W.
the necessary rules in order to comply with directives                  Woolworth Co Gesellschaft mbH on the following
addressed to them before expiry of the period laid down                 question :
in those directives . In this case that period expired on
31 December 1995 without the Netherlands having laid
                                                                        does Article 30 of the EC Treaty preclude a provision
down the necessary provisions .
                                                                        which reserves the fitting and supplying of corrective
                                                                        spectacles and hence also the marketing of ready-made
(') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994 , p . 20 .                                reading glasses to opticians who are permitted to exercise
                                                                        their craft trade only on providing proof of qualifications,
                                                                        if account is taken of the fact that
                                                                        ( a ) spectacles fitted by opticians are substantially more
                                                                               expensive than ready-made reading glasses and
Action brought on 24 October 1997 by the Commission                            opticians will therefore be more interested in sales of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             glasses fitted by them that in selling ready-made
                                Belgium                                        reading glasses; and
                          ( Case C-368/97)
                                                                        ( b ) ready-made reading glasses come ( partly ) from abroad,
                            ( 97/C 370/ 11 )                                   whereas spectacles fitted by opticians form part of
                                                                               domestic production ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 24 October 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service,                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                              e Penale di Venezia, First Chamber, by order of 7 October
                                                                        1997       in  the    case    of Cinzia    Gozza and Others v.
                                                                        ( 1 ) Università degli Studi di Padova; ( 2 ) Ministero
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica;
                                                                        ( 3 ) Ministero della Sanità; and ( 4 ) Ministero della
1 . declare that, by not laying down the laws, regulations                                        Pubblica Istruzione
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to                                            ( Case C-371/97 )
     comply with Council Directive 94/57/EC (') of
     22 November 1994 on common rules and standards                                                   ( 97/C 370/ 13 )
     for ship inspection and survey organizations and for
     the relevant activities of maritime administrations, the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            European Communities by order of 7 October 1997 from
     under this directive and under the EC Treaty;                      the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia ( Civil and


title: Case F-81/07: Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Barbin v Parliament

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/43

         Action brought on 6 August 2007 — Barbin v Parliament
   (Case F-81/07)
   (2007/C 247/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

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

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Parliament's decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 12 in the 2006 promotion procedure

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that, according to the internal provisions of the Parliament governing promotion, the average length of time spent in grade AD 11 is four years. The applicant has been classified in that grade since 1 April 2001 and had reached the relevant threshold for promotion to grade AD 12 in the 2006 promotion procedure. Furthermore, the Promotion Committee entered her name on the list of officials who were recommended for promotion to that grade by virtue of the procedure in question.
   According to the applicant, the Appointing Authority did not provide any information to explain the refusal to promote her and thus infringed the obligation to state reasons. Furthermore, the contested decision is based on the decision, which is the subject-matter of Case F-44/07 (1), to allocate the applicant only one merit point. Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 1d of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 7.7.2007, p. 45.


title: Case T-307/05: Action brought on  8 August 2005  — Fermont v Commission

text:
               20.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/13

         Action brought on 8 August 2005 — Fermont v Commission
   (Case T-307/05)
   (2006/C 121/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Alain Fermont (Kraainem, Belgium) (represented by: L. Kakiese, lawyer, and N. Luzeyemo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the European Commission to procure the cessation of the highly damaging machinations against the applicant of the two officials complained about both of whom are infringing the rules of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               make a declaration that the duty to protect legitimate expectations has been infringed;

               —

               make a declaration that the applicant has suffered and experienced psychological harassment on the part of the two officials complained about;

               —

               order the European Commission, for failing to act in the face of the highly damaging machinations of the two officials against the applicant, to pay EUR 5 040 000 for non-material, physical and material damage.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case had concluded a contract of employment with the Centre for the Development of Undertakings (CDU), a structure dependent on the Group of ACP States. As part of the performance of that contract, the applicant's task was to implement the harmonisation of the health authorities and the monitoring of fishing in Sao Tomé and Principe and in the Gulf of Guinea.
   The applicant alleges, first of all, that the defendant impeded the performance of his functions.
   The applicant also alleges infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, and of the provisions of the Staff Regulations prohibiting psychological harassment and enshrining the duty of independence.


title: Case T-266/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2008 — Air One SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 2008 — Air One SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-266/07) (1)

   (2008/C 107/73)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-424/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications — Directive 2002/19/EC — Directive 2002/21/EC — Directive 2002/22/EC — Networks and services — National rules — New markets)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 December 2009 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-424/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications - Directive 2002/19/EC - Directive 2002/21/EC - Directive 2002/22/EC - Networks and services - National rules - New markets)
   2010/C 113/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and A. Nijenhuis, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent, C. Koenig, Professor and S. Loetz, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 8(4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7), Articles 6, 7, 8(1), 15(3) and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33), as well as Article 17(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Definition, analysis and regulation of new markets — National provisions defining ‘new markets’ in general and laying down restrictive conditions concerning regulation of those markets by the national regulatory authority as well as use of the consultation procedure provided for in Community law in connection with the definition and analysis of those markets

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting Paragraph 9a of the Law on Telecommunications (Telekommunikationsgesetz), of 22 June 2004, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), Articles 6 to 8(1) and (2), 15(3) and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), and Article 17(2) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-552/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Canon Europa NV v European Commission (Appeal — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 — Actions for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties — Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Canon Europa NV v European Commission
   (Case C-552/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 - Actions for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties - Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques))
   (2016/C 048/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Canon Europa NV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, and P. Muñiz, advogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Canon Europa NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: Case T-65/09 P: Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Reali v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Contract staff — Recruitment — Classification in grade — Experience — Qualifications — Equivalence)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 October 2010 — Reali v Commission
   (Case T-65/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Experience - Qualifications - Equivalence)
   2010/C 346/79
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Enzo Reali (Florence, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008, in Case F-136/06 Reali v Commission [2008] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Enzo Reali to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-183/03: Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 184/44              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           2.8.2003
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                Action brought on 21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA
      Parliament to pay those costs.                                       against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Parlia-                                        (Case T-184/03)
ment's decision changing the method of calculating annual
travel expenses to Greece.
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the                                               (2003/C 184/98)
applicants in support of their application are similar to those
of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Action brought on 26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular                         21 May 2003 by Metrovacesa SA, (Madrid), represented by José
Evolution, Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the                Antonio Calderón Chavero, lawyer at the Madrid Bar.
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                          (Case T-183/03)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2003/C 184/97)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM
                                                                                of 10 March 2003 in Case R-183/2002;
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                           —     dismiss in its entirety opposition procedure no B262.271;
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
26 May 2003 by Applied Molecular Evolution, Inc., San Diego,               —     uphold the claims of the appellant and allow the relevant
USA, represented by Mr A. Deutsch, lawyer.                                       Opposition Division at OHIM to register the trade mark
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      in question; and
—     Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade-              —     order OHIM and the other parties to pay the costs.
      marks and Designs) in the case R 108/2002-2 of
      13 March 2003.
—     Order the defendant to register the mark No 001586510
      ‘APPLIED MOLECULAR EVOLUTION’
—     Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the
      defendant                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Applicant for Community          GESINAR S.L. (Assignee: the ap-
Applicant for Community          Applied    Molecular     Evolution,       trade mark:                      plicant)
trade mark:                      Inc
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘APPLIED MOLECU-
sought:                          LAR EVOLUTION’ for certain
                                 services in Class 42 (application         Community       trade    mark    Figurative mark ‘Gesinar’ — Ap-
                                 No 001586510)                             sought:                          plication no 1 202 027 for
                                                                                goods in Classes 35, 36 and
Examiner's decision:             Application refused                                                        41 (business management assis-
                                                                                tance, administration, brokerage,
Decision of the Board of         Appeal dismissed                                                           leasing, evaluation, appraisal
Appeal:                                                                                and development of all kinds
                                                                                of real estate; issue of tokens
Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 7(1)                                             of value, educational and enter-
                                 (b) and (c), of Regulation 40/                                             tainment services)
                                 94 (1).
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or sign       GESTIONES         ADMINISTRATI-
                                                                           cited in the opposition pro-     VAS Y SERVICIOS INMOBI-
                                                                           ceedings:                        LIARIOS MAR S.L.


title: Case C-511/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Hildesheim v BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(5), third subparagraph — Right to deduct input tax — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Letting of a building for commercial and residential purposes — Criterion for calculating the deductible proportion of VAT)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Hildesheim v BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-511/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(5), third subparagraph - Right to deduct input tax - Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions - Letting of a building for commercial and residential purposes - Criterion for calculating the deductible proportion of VAT)
   2013/C 9/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Hildesheim

      Defendant: BLC Baumarkt GmbH & Co. KG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to deduct input tax — Goods and services used for both taxable and exempt transactions — Letting of a building for commercial and residential purposes — Calculation of the deductible proportion on the basis of the turnover attributed to the commercial tenants — National legislation prescribing that the proportion is to be calculated on the basis of the building’s floor area attributed to those tenants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as allowing Member States, for the purposes of calculating the proportion of input value added tax deductible for a given operation, such as the construction of a mixed-use building, to give precedence, as the key to allocation, to an allocation key other than that based on turnover appearing in Article 19(1) of that directive, on condition that the method used guarantees a more precise determination of the said deductible proportion.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 September 1999 in Case C-231/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State): A.M.L. van Rooij v Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel (Environment - Directive 76/464/EEC - 'Discharge' - Possibility for a Member State to adopt a wider definition of 'discharge' than that in the directive)

text:
18.12.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 366/11
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 28 September 1999
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-440/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation): GIE Groupe Concorde and Others
v The Master of the vessel ‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and
                              Others (1)                                                         of 29 September 1999
(Brussels Convention — Jurisdiction in contractual matters
           — Place of performance of the obligation)
                                                                           in Case C-231/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (1999/C 366/17)                                 the Nederlandse Raad van State): A.M.L. van Rooij v
                                                                              Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Environment — Directive 76/464/EEC — ‘Discharge’ —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Possibility for a Member State to adopt a wider definition of
                    in the European Court Reports)                                       ‘discharge’ than that in the directive)
In Case C-440/97: reference to the Court under the Protocol
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                          (1999/C 366/18)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Cour de Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between GIE
Groupe Concorde and Others and The Master of the vessel
‘Suhadiwarno Panjan’ and Others — on the interpretation of                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
Article 5(1) of the abovementioned Convention of 27 Sep-
tember 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
and — amended version — p. 77), by the Convention of                                          in the European Court Reports)
25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic
(OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention of 26 May 1989
on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) — the Court, composed                       In Case C-231/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn,                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur) (Presidents           Raad van State, Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the
of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-              proceedings pending before that court between A.M.L. van
ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet                   Rooij and Dagelijks bestuur van het waterschap de Dommel,
and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                 third party: Gebr. Van Aarle BV — on the interpretation of
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 Sep-              Article 1(2) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976
tember 1999, in which it has ruled:                                        on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances dis-
                                                                           charged into the aquatic environment of the Community
On a proper construction of Article 5(1) of the Convention of              (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), compo-
27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judg-             sed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
ments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the                   (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of            General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and               a judgment on 29 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
Accession of the Hellenic Republic, and by the Convention of 26 May
1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese           1. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive
Republic, the place of performance of the obligation, within the               76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
meaning of that provision, is to be determined in accordance with the          dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
law governing the obligation in question according to the conflict             the Community must be interpreted as covering the emission of
rules of the court seized.                                                     contaminated steam which is precipitated on to surface water.
                                                                               The distance between those waters and the place of emission of
                                                                               the contaminated steam is relevant only for the purpose of
(1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                               determining whether the pollution of the waters cannot be
                                                                               regarded as foreseeable according to general experience, so that
                                                                               the pollution is not attributable to the person causing the steam.
 ---pagebreak--- C 366/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.12.1999
2. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464 must        to Directive 76/464 (OJ 1986 L 181, p. 16) — the Court (Sixth
    be interpreted as covering the emission of contaminated steam          Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the
    which is first precipitated on to land and roofs and then reaches      Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges;
    the surface water via a storm water drain. It is not material in       A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
    this respect whether the drain in question belongs to the              the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 September 1999, in
    establishment concerned or to a third party.                           which it has ruled:
(1) OJ No C 252 of 16.8.1997.                                              1. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Council Directive
                                                                               76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
                                                                               dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
                                                                               the Community must be interpreted as not including the pollution
                                                                               from significant sources, including multiple and diffuse sources,
                                                                               referred to in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 86/280/EEC of
                                                                               12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for
                                                                               discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of
                                                                               the Annex to Directive 76/464.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                  2. The expression ‘significant sources ... (including multiple and
                                                                               diffuse sources)’ in Article 5(1) of Directive 86/280 must be
                                                                               interpreted as not including the escape of creosote from wooden
                       of 29 September 1999                                    posts placed in surface water, where the pollution caused by that
                                                                               substance is attributable to a person.
in Case C-232/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Nederlandse Raad van State): L. Nederhoff & Zn. v
Dijkgraaf en hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraad-                           3. The term ‘discharge’ in Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 76/464 must
                          schap Rijnland (1)                                   be interpreted as including the placing by a person in surface
                                                                               water of wooden posts treated with creosote.
(Environment — Directives 76/464/EEC, 76/769/EEC and
86/280/EEC — ‘Discharge’ — Possibility for a Member
                                                                           4. Directive 76/464 permits Member States to make the authoris-
State to adopt more stringent measures than those provided
                                                                               ation for a discharge subject to additional requirements not
for in Directive 76/464/EEC — Effect of Directive
                                                                               provided for in that directive, in order to protect the aquatic
                76/769/EEC on such a measure)
                                                                               environment of the Community against pollution caused by
                                                                               certain dangerous substances. The obligation to investigate or
                           (1999/C 366/19)                                     choose alternative solutions which have less impact on the
                                                                               environment constitutes such a requirement, even if it may have
                                                                               the effect of making the grant of authorisation impossible or
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                             altogether exceptional.
                                                                           5. The limitative conditions for the use of creosote laid down in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         point 32 of Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC of
                    in the European Court Reports)                             27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
In Case C-232/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                  restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nederlandse                        substances and preparations, as amended by European Parlia-
Raad van State for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                     ment and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994,
pending before that court between L. Nederhoff & Zn. and                       do not preclude an authority of a Member State, when considering
Dijkgraaf en hoogheemraden van het Hoogheemraadschap                           applications for authorisation concerning the introduction into
Rijnland — on the interpretation of Council Directive                          surface water by professional users of wood treated with that
76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain                        substance, from establishing criteria of assessment such that its
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment                   use is impossible or altogether exceptional.
of the Community (OJ 1976 L 129, p. 23), Council Directive
76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
certain dangerous substances and preparations (OJ 1976                     (1) OJ No C 252 of 16.8.1997.
L 262, p. 201), as amended by European Parliament and
Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994 (OJ 1994
L 365, p. 1), and Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June
1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of
certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex


title: Case C-14/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Anagram International Inc. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Gas-filled balloons)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Anagram International Inc. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam
   (Case C-14/05) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff classification - Gas-filled balloons)
   (2006/C 224/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Anagram International Inc.

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 442/2000 of 25 February 2000 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2000 L 54, p. 33) — Validity — Tariff classification of balloons — General Rules 1 and 6 for the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature — Heading 9505 90 00 and heading 9503 90 32
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Consideration of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of affecting the validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 442/2000 of 25 February 2000 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature in so far as the products referred to in point 3 of the table set out in the Annex thereto are classified under subheading 9503 90 32 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002.

               2.

               The classification decided upon by the Commission of the European Communities in Regulation No 442/2000, as regards the product described in point 3 of the table set out in the Annex thereto, is applicable by analogy to gas-filled balloons made of aluminised, bonded plastic foil, the plastic foil forming the inside of the balloon.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.


title: Case C-599/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Jetair NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD Financiën (VAT  — Special scheme for travel agents  — Transactions carried out outside the European Union  — Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC  — Article 28(3)  — Directive 2006/112/EC  — Article 370  — ‘Standstill’ clauses  — Amendment of national legislation during the transposition period)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/10

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Belgium) — Jetair NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you v FOD Financiën
   (Case C-599/12) (1)

   ((VAT - Special scheme for travel agents - Transactions carried out outside the European Union - Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 28(3) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 370 - ‘Standstill’ clauses - Amendment of national legislation during the transposition period))
   2014/C 135/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Jetair NV, BTW-eenheid BTWE Travel4you

      Defendant: FOD Financiën

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brugge — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU, Articles 26(3) and 28(3)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Interpretation and validity of Articles 153, 309 and 370 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Special scheme applicable to travel agents — Supplies of services involving recourse to other taxable persons for the purpose of performing transactions outside the European Union — Non-exemption — Principles of equality, fiscal neutrality and proportionality.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 28(3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 370 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax do not preclude the introduction by a Member State before 1 January 1978, during the transposition period of Sixth Directive 77/388, of a provision that amends its existing legislation by imposing VAT on the transactions of travel agents relating to journeys outside the European Union;

               2.

               A Member State is not in breach of Article 309 of Directive 2006/112 by not treating the services of travel agents as exempt intermediary activities where those services relate to journeys made outside of the European Union and by imposing VAT on those services, if it imposed VAT on those services on 1 January 1978;

               3.

               Article 370 of Directive 2006/112, read in conjunction with point 4 of Part A of Annex X of that directive, does not infringe EU law by granting Member States the option to continue to tax the supply of the services of travel agents in relation to journeys outside the European Union;

               4.

               A Member State does not infringe EU law, in particular the principles of equality, proportionality and fiscal neutrality, by treating travel agents, within the meaning of Article 26(1) of Directive 77/388 and Article 306 of Directive 2006/112, differently from intermediaries and by laying down a rule, such as the Royal Decree of 28 November 1999, under which only the services of travel agents, but not those of intermediaries, are taxable with regard to journeys outside the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case T-486/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 April 2008 — Michail v Commission (Staff Case — Officials — Acton for annulment — Duty to provide assistance — Mental harassment)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 16 April 2008 — Michail v Commission
   (Case T-486/04) (1)

   (Staff Case - Officials - Acton for annulment - Duty to provide assistance - Mental harassment)
   (2008/C 128/68)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H Tserepa-Lacombe, agents, assisted initially by V. Kasparian, lawyer, then by I. Antypas, lawyer))
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the implied decision of 20 March 2004 by the Commission rejecting an application for assistance made by the applicant under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Mr Christos Michail to bear one half of his costs;

               3.

               orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of Mr Michail.

      (1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2008.


title: Case F-99/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 November 2009 — Di Prospero v Commission (Staff case — Open Competition — Anti-fraud sector — Competition notice EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 — Lack of possibility for candidates to apply for several open competitions simultaneously — Refusal to admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/117/08)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/76

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 November 2009 — Di Prospero v Commission
   (Case F-99/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Open Competition - Anti-fraud sector - Competition notice EPSO/AD/116/08 and EPSO/AD/117/08 - Lack of possibility for candidates to apply for several open competitions simultaneously - Refusal to admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/117/08)
   2010/C 24/141
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rita Di Prospero (Uccle, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and B. Eggers, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of EPSO’s decision to not admit the applicant to open competition EPSO/AD/117/08.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) to not allow Mrs Di Prospero to apply for open competition EPSO/AD/117/08;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009, p. 54.


title: Case T-306/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/26

         Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Gamet v EUIPO — ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Door handle)
   (Case T-306/16)
   (2016/C 296/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Gamet S.A. (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: A. Rolbiecka, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Firma produkcyjno-handlowa ‘Metal-Bud’ Robert Gubała (Świątniki Górne, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant

      Design at issue: Community design ‘Door handle’ — Community design No 2 208 066-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17/03/2016 in Case R 2040/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO dated 17 march 2016 given in case R 2040/2014-3, concerning proceedings for a declaration of invalidity of the RCD 002208066-0001;

               —

               order the EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 63(2) of Regulation No 6/2002 by accepting belated evidence — a declaration of the representative of the undertaking Klamex, regardless of the fact that the subject evidence contained information strictly new for the proceedings, not confirmed by evidence presented before the Invalidity Division;

               —

               Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect and arbitrary finding that evidence presented by the other party confirmed that there were no material differences between the RCD and the design of the ‘DORA’ handle in:

                           —

                           the shape and the proportions of the shaft,

                           —

                           the proportions of the shaft and grip part,

                           —

                           the depth of the grip handle,

                           —

                           the degree of beveling of the grip handle,

                           —

                           rounding of the edges of handle.

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4 and 6(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, read in conjunction with Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002 through incorrect assessment of freedom in designing door handles by stating that the designer’s degree of freedom in designing door handles was almost unlimited and resulted from the fact that the Board had not taken into consideration features which a designer should have taken into consideration by designing the door handle;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Regulation No 6/2002 by incorrect finding that the RCD does not produce an overall impression on the informed user that is different from the impression produced by the ‘DORA’ handle.


title: Case F-96/08: Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/75

         Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank
   (Case F-96/08)
   (2009/C 44/135)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt,Germany) (represented by: L. Levi, and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank refusing an ad personam promotion to the applicant, and an order that the defendant pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision refusing an ad personam promotion to the applicant, communicated by letter of 11 March 2008;

               —

               consequently, (i) annul all decisions resulting from the decision not to promote the applicant communicated on 11 March 2008, including in particular the applicant's pay slips from March 2008 and (ii) order the defendant to pay EUR 10 000, determined ex aequo et bono, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               if the enforcement of an order of annulment were to entail serious difficulties, payment of EUR 78 000, or at least, one half of that sum to cover the damage suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Spyridoula Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-195/96)

text:
No C 54/26           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 2 . 97
Action brought on 28 November 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef                rules on the composition and functioning of the Staff
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Committee ( participation in ballots, arrangements for the
                       ( Case T- 192/96 )                            expression of voting intentions ).
                          ( 97/C 54/42 )                             The applicant considers that the decision amending the
                                                                     Rules of the Staff Committee, Luxembourg section, should
               (Language of the case: French)                        therefore have been annulled by the appointing authority.
                                                                     It is apparent from Article 9 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations of
An action against the Commission of the European                     Officials and , generally, from the organizational powers
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    exercised by each institution within its own sphere of
Instance of the European Communities on 28 November                  competence, and also from its duty to ensure that its
 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg                  officials are able freely to appoint their representatives in
( Luxembourg), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the                 compliance with democratic rules, that the institutions are
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       not only entitled to intervene on their own initiative where
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois.                       they have doubts as to the regularity of elections to the
                                                                     Staff Committee but are in fact obliged to determine
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         complaints addressed to them in that regard. However, the
                                                                     Commission rejected the complaint lodged by the
— annul, wholly or in part, the general meeting of staff             applicant and thus refrained from taking the measures
    held in Luxembourg on 5 December 1995 , or                       required by the applicable provisions.
    alternatively rule that that meeting has not been
    concluded,
— annul , wholly or in part, the decision amending the
    Rules of the Staff Committee, Luxembourg section,
    adopted by the general meeting of staff of the                   Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Spyridoula
    Commission on 5 December 1995 , together with all                Alexopoulou against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
    measures taken pursuant to that decision,
                                                                                ( Case T-195 /96 )
— annul all subsequent measures taken pursuant to those                                        ( 97/C 54/43 )
    Rules,
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the refusal
    contained in the decision of 28 August 1996,                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                        Instance of the European Communities on 27 November
                                                                     1996 by Spyridoula Alexopoulou , residing in Brussels ,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  represented by Constantin Nikis, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of
                                                                     Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
The applicant, a member of the trade union 'Action &
Defense — Luxembourg', contests the way in which the
general meeting in issue was conducted and the decision              The applicant claims that the Court should :
amending the Rules of the Staff Committee; he challenges
the Commission 's refusal to intervene, as characterized in          — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
the decision rejecting the complaint lodged by him . In                   8 January 1996 classifying the applicant in grade A7,
support of his application, he pleads infringement of                     step 5 , and implicitly refusing to appoint her to
Article 9 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Annex II              grade A6 ,
thereto, and of Convention No 151 of 7 June 1978
concerning protection of the right to organize and                   — pay her the sum of BRF 250 000, subject to increase
procedures for determining conditions of employment in                    or decrease during the course of the proceedings, as
the public service, as well as the rules on the composition               compensation for the damage suffered as a result of
and functioning of the Staff committee adopted by the                     the loss of her chances of promotion to grade A5 ,
Commission on 27 April 1988 in the course of its 916th
meeting.                                                             — order the Commission to pay all the costs .
He maintains, first, that the general meeting was irregular          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in several procedural respects and marked by a flagrant
disregard of the ethical rules concerning the holding of             The applicant, who was also the applicant in Case T-17/
meetings, and, second, that the electoral system prescribed          95 Alexopoulou v. Commission, disposed of by judgment
in the new Rules is unclear and lacking in transparency,             of 5     October    1995 ('), contests the refusal      of the
discriminates   between      electors on the  one   hand   and       appointing authority to appoint her to grade A6 . In her
candidates on the other, contains lacunae and breaches the           view, that refusal cannot constitute valid compliance with
fundamental principles of democratic elections ( secret              the said judgment, in which an initial decision classifying
ballots, equality of opportunity ) and the Commission                her in grade A7 was annulled .
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97          ΓEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 54/27
She considers in that regard that the appointing authority            The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
misused its power of assessment in taking the view that               those previously relied on in Cases T-128/96 Lebedef v.
her extensive experience in the field in which she was                Commission (M and T-161 /96 Bosetti v. Commission ( 2 ).
established and her significant intellectual and human
qualities were not so exceptional as to justify appointment           (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 , p. 17.
to grade A6 .                                                         ( 2 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal .
According to the applicant, the contested decision
therefore infringes Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
as well as the 1983 decision on the criteria applicable to
appointment in grade and classification in step on
recruitment .                                                         Action brought on 2 December 1996 by Consorzio del
                                                                      Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano and Società Cooperativa
                                                                      Latteria Sociale Spadarotta ari against Commission of the
(>) [ 1995 ] ECR-SC 11-683 .                                                                European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-197/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/45 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 14 October 1996 by Giorgio Lebedef
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                         ( Case T-196/96 )                            Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
                            ( 97/C 54/44 )                            1996 by Consorzio del Formaggio Parmigiano Reggiano,
                                                                      whose registered office is at Reggio Emilia ( Italy ), and
                                                                      Societa Cooperativa Latteria Sociale Spadarotta arl, whose
                 (Language of the case: French)                       registered office is at Montecchio Emilia ( Italy ),
                                                                      represented by Fausto Capelli and Luigi Sordelli, of the
                                                                      Milan Bar, and Louis Schiltz, of the Luxembourg Bar, with
An action against the Commission of the European                      an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
Instance of the European Communities on 14 October
1996 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing at Senningerberg
( Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bouneou, of the                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 avenue du Bois .                       — declare that the applicants have capacity to bring this
                                                                            action,
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          — annul Commission Decision ( 96/536/EEC ) of 29 July
                                                                             1996 ( ] ) in so far as it mentions in the Annex the
— annul the Commission's decision of 31 October 1995,                       German cheeses 'Kase von Typ Parmesan', ' Parmesan'
                                                                            and 'Duramont-Typ Parmesan',
— annul the refusal to admit the independent trade union              — order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
      'Action & Defense — Luxembourg' to the framework                      proceedings .
      agreement,
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— annul the prohibition against carrying on trade union
      activities during working hours and on the                      The applicants contest the inclusion of the names 'Kase
      Commission's premises,                                          von Typ Parmesan', ' Parmesan ' and 'Duramont-Typ
                                                                      Parmesan' in the list drawn up by the Commission of
                                                                      milk-based products in respect of which Member States
— order the Commission to pay all the costs .                         are authorized to grant individual or general derogations
                                                                      pursuant to Article 8 ( 2 ) of Directive 92/46/EEC ( 2 ) laying
                                                                      down the health rules for the production and placing on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based
                                                                      products .
The applicant, secretary-general of the trade union 'Action
&c Defense — Luxembourg', contests in particular the                  According to the applicants, the designations of the
defendant's refusal to admit that trade union to the                  cheeses so protected constitute obvious imitation of the
framework agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning                   names of famous Italian cheeses . It should be noted in this
relations between the Commission and trade unions and                 respect that the term 'Parmesan' is the literal translation
staff associations .                                                  of the Italian term 'parmigiano'.


title: Case C-343/15: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 30 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Nederlands) — J. Klinkenberg v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/19

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 30 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Nederlands) — J. Klinkenberg v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Case C-343/15) (1)

   (2016/C 326/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Case T-181/17: Action brought on 18 August 2017 — PC v EASO

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/13

         Action brought on 18 August 2017 — PC v EASO
   (Case T-181/17)
   (2017/C 357/18)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: PC (represented by: L. Railas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Asylum Support Office (EASO)

      Form of order sought

               —

               order EASO to cancel and destroy the anonymous document degrading to human dignity from the reasoned decision of 15 June 2016 and to take a new decision relating to the backdated decision EASO/ED/2015/358 and the dismissal decision EASO/HR/2015/607 made on its basis, which are sought to be annulled in the applicant’s action T-610/16;

               —

               order EASO to remove the separate personal files and to maintain, as regards the applicant, only a single personal file in accordance with Article 26 of the EU Staff Regulations, the documents in which are in accordance with the Staff Regulations; order EASO to remove from the applicant’s personal file the handwritten documents which cannot be identified with complete certainty and do not belong there;

               —

               order EASO to investigate the process by which document EASO/ED/2015/358 came into being, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures with respect to the poor administration of the office in accordance with Articles 29(b) and 31(6) of Regulation No 439/2010 establishing EASO, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 30 000 for the breach of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union when EASO adopted an individual measure which adversely affected her;

               —

               order EASO to investigate the workplace harassment directed to the applicant, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those who were responsible for the harassment, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 30 000 for that long-term workplace harassment;

               —

               order EASO to investigate the leaking to unauthorised third parties of confidential documents concerning the applicant, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those responsible for leaking the document, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 on account of the administrative infringement;

               —

               order EASO to investigate the breach of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union, and order EASO and the EASO management board to take measures against those responsible for the breaches of the Protocol, and to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 20 000 on account of the administrative infringement;

               —

               order EASO to restore the applicant’s five-year employment relationship, so that it continues without interruption and for remuneration, and require EASO to pay the applicant as compensation the salary for the post, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for the period of time in which she was absent from her work until it is restored;

               —

               in the alternative, if EASO cannot restore the applicant’s employment relationship, order EASO to pay the applicant as compensation the salary for the post, allowances and employer’s pension contributions for a period of five years without interruption;

               —

               order EASO to pay the applicant damages of EUR 30 000 as compensation for the mental suffering experienced by her, that is, the feeling of psychological damage which the applicant experienced because of EASO’s manner of proceeding in which the right to be heard was handled contrary to the spirit of Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

               —

               order EASO to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that workplace harassment done and directed by her superior was systematically and repeatedly applied to the applicant. That caused, for example, abnormal working conditions for the probationary period, which thus lacked integrity and objectivity and was characterised by authoritarian measures, manipulation and groundless public criticism of the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that in EASO’s reasoned decision EASO/HR/2016/525 there is a document, based on anonymous complaints, which was not connected with the applicant’s dismissal and does not form part of the applicant’s personal file.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that EASO deprived the applicant of possibilities of defence both by drawing up document EASP/ED/2015/358 retrospectively and by infringing Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that EASO is also blackening the applicant’s character outside EASO, for example by sending the European Ombudsman reasoned decision EASO/HR/2016/525, which contains an unfounded, irrelevant and unconfirmed document about the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that EASO transmits and leaks confidential documents concerning the applicant to third parties who are not entitled to have access to them, contrary to Articles 17 and 19 of the EU Staff Regulations.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that EASO has infringed the rules concerning the consistency of documents, in that EASO keeps two different personal files on the applicant and refuses to regard as relevant even the data in the public personal file, contrary to Article 26 of the EU Staff Regulations.


title: Case C-493/11 P: Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/17

         Appeal brought on 23 September 2011 by United Technologies Corp. against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 13 July 2011 in Case T-141/07: United Technologies Corp. v European Commission
   (Case C-493/11 P)
   2011/C 347/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: United Technologies Corp. (represented by: A. Winckler, avocat, J. Temple Lang, solicitor, C.J. Cook, advocate, D. Gerard, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment,

               —

               based on the elements available to it, partially annul the Decision and reduce the amount of the fines set forth therein or, as it finds it appropriate, set aside the Judgment and remand the case to the General Court for reconsideration of the relevant elements of facts;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and of the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its first plea, the Appellant disputes the General Court's conclusion that the Commission was entitled to impute liability to UTC for the conduct of GTO and the Otis subsidiaries. The plea is dived into three limbs. First, the General Court committed an error of substantive law by failing to comply with the legal test provided for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability arising from 100 % ownership of subsidiaries by a parent company. Second, the General Court's interpretation of the legal test for the rebuttal of the presumption of imputability violates the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Third, the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning in addressing the specific rebuttals of the presumption of imputability raised by UTC.
   By its second plea, the Appellant claims that the General Court failed to provide adequate reasoning and committed an error of law by omitting to address UTC's claim of breach of equal treatment with MEC.


title: Case C-21/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság) — Károly Nagy v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal (Common agricultural policy — EAGGF financing — Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and (EC) No 817/2004 — Community support for rural development — Support for agri-environmental production methods — Agri-environmental aid other than ‘livestock’ aid, the grant of which is conditional upon a certain density of livestock — Application of the integrated administration and control system — System for the identification and registration of bovine animals — Duty of national authorities to provide information on the conditions for eligibility)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság) — Károly Nagy v Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal
   (Case C-21/10) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - EAGGF financing - Regulations (EC) No 1257/1999 and (EC) No 817/2004 - Community support for rural development - Support for agri-environmental production methods - Agri-environmental aid other than ‘livestock’ aid, the grant of which is conditional upon a certain density of livestock - Application of the integrated administration and control system - System for the identification and registration of bovine animals - Duty of national authorities to provide information on the conditions for eligibility)
   2011/C 269/16
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Károly Nagy

      Defendant: Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Fővárosi Bíróság — Interpretation of Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80), and Article 68 of Commission Regulation(EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 153, p. 30) — Exclusion of a farmer from agri-environmental aid on the ground of failure to register animals in the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid regimes — Failure discovered only following cross-checks provided for by that system — Application of the integrated system to agri-environmental aid which is not for animals but which is dependent on a certain density of livestock

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               As regards the aid based on Article 22 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1783/2003 of 29 September 2003, which is subject to a condition relating to the density of livestock, it is permissible under that provision and Article 68 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 817/2004 of 29 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 for the competent authorities to carry out cross-checks with the data from the integrated administration and control system and, in particular, to rely on the data held in the database of a national system for the individual identification and registration of bovine animals, such as the Hungarian system for the individual identification and registration of bovine animals (Egységes Nyilvántartási és Azonosítási Rendszer).

               2.

               It is permissible under Article 22 of Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended, and Article 68 of Regulation No 817/2004 for the competent authorities, when verifying compliance with the conditions governing eligibility for agri-environmental aid under the former provision, to check only the data held in the database of a national system for the individual identification and registration of bovine animals, such as the Hungarian system for the individual identification and registration of bovine animals, in order to refuse that aid, without necessarily having to carry out other checks.

               3.

               Article 22 of Regulation No 1257/1999, as amended, and Article 68 of Regulation No 817/2004, interpreted in the light of Article 16 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Regulation No 1782/2003, place the national authorities — to the extent that, for the purposes of verifying compliance with the conditions governing eligibility for agri-environmental aid under the former provision, which is subject to a condition relating to density of livestock, those authorities check only the data in a national system for the individual identification and registration of bovine animals, such as the Hungarian system for the individual identification and registration of bovine animals — under an obligation to provide information concerning those eligibility conditions which consists in informing the farmer concerned that any animals found not to be correctly identified or registered in that national system are to count as animals found with irregularities liable to have legal consequences, such as a reduction in or exclusion from the aid concerned.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case F-144/15: Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/102

         Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA
   (Case F-144/15)
   (2016/C 048/118)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency not to extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment of 15 January 2015 no tot extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year;

               —

               Order the EASA to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-349/97)

text:
6 . 12 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 370/ 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                               transferee, in proportion to the part of the holding directly
                        (Sixth Chamber)                             or indirectly given over to dairy production at the time
                                                                    when the non-marketing undertaking was entered into
                      of 16 October 1997                            pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of
                                                                    17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for the
in Case C-l 65/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from          non-marketing of milk and milk products and for the
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division): The             conversion of dairy herds.
Queen v. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex
   parte: Benjamin Lay, Donald Gage and David Gage (')
                                                                    (■) OJ C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 .
(Additional levy on milk — Special reference quantity —
Transfer of part of a mixed holding — Apportionment of
          the quota between transferor and transferee)
                         ( 97/C 370/01 )
                                                                    Action brought on 13 October 1997 by the Kingdom of
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Spain against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-349/97)
In Case C-l 65195 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                   ( 97/C 370/02 )
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's
Bench Division (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between The            An action against the Commission of the European
Queen and Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex            Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
parte: Benjamin Lay, Donald Gage and David Gage — on                13 October 1997 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by
the interpretation of Articles 1 (2) and 2 of Council               Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, acting as
Regulation ( EEC) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993 allocating             Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
a special reference quantity to certain producers of milk           Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
and milk products ( OJ L 187, 29. 7. 1993, p. 8 ) — The
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                 The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should :
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; L.
                                                                    — annul Commission Decision 97/608/EC of 30 July
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   1997 H amending Decision 97/333/EC on the
judgment on 16 October 1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                         clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
                                                                         States in respect of the expenditure for 1993 of the
 On a proper construction of Articles 1 (2) and 2 of                     Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural and
 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2055/93 of 19 July 1993                     Guidance Fund ( EAGGF), as regards the financial
allocating a special reference quantity to certain producers             corrections imposed on the Kingdom of Spain and
of milk and milk products, where part of a mixed holding                 examined in the application, and
is transferred, the reference quantity must be apportioned
between the transferor and transferee, or allocated to the          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 370/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6 . 12 . 97
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support:                       undertaking without conducting a tendering
                                                                         procedure . It also uses it in order to correct what it
                                                                         regards as inadequacies in the Community legislation,
The    contested     decision  is based  on   erroneous    and           as the Conciliation Body recognizes with regard to
subjective considerations . The Kingdom of Spain believes                dried feedingstuffs .
that it has put forward sufficient information and
arguments to show that the contested decision infringed at
least the following principles of Community law :                        Those corrections, which are in fact in the nature of
                                                                         penalties, are not based on any legislative provision.
— The principle of the right to a hearing : this principle is
    infringed by all the corrections at issue in the
    application .                                                        The Conciliation Body regards the correction of 10%
                                                                          in respect of production aid as fair, but in so doing
                                                                         relies on the same argument as the Commission : the
    Formally, that principle was observed in that the                     lack of computer records. It is not permissible to
    Member State was given an opportunity to state its                   withhold the refund of aid paid out in advance merely
    views on the matters raised by the Commission staff.                  because certain computer records have not been
    But in practice no notice was ever taken of the                       finalized : there must be a duly established and serious
    explanations given. That is immediately clear from the                lack   of checks        which    has  caused   harm    to   the
    documents sent to the Commission by the Spanish                       Community budget.
    authorities, setting out facts and arguments
    comprehensively, and the replies to them, which do no
    more than stress the same points, without                        — In the alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the
    contradicting or refuting the arguments put forward.                  principle of proportionality: if the submissions of the
    Such conduct is tantamount to denying the right of                    Spanish authorities had been properly considered, the
    defence and involves breach of the right to a hearing:               corrections would have been much lower than those
    the explanations put forward by Spain in its defence                  actually imposed. The applicant considers that it put
    have been repeatedly ignored .                                        forward adequate data and arguments to demonstrate
                                                                          to the Court that there is no lack of controls in Spain,
                                                                          at least not to the extent alleged by the Commission.
— Lack of any evidence of the faults imputed to the
    Member State : this basic requirement was also
    infringed in all cases, particularly in relation to              (') OJ L 245 , 9 . 9 . 1997, p . 20 .
    consumption aid . The Commission based its
    corrections either on appearances or suspicions or else
    on data refuted or corrected by the Spanish
    authorities .
— The principle of sound administration : infringed in all
    cases through failure to take account of or sufficiently         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
    assess the explanations repeatedly given by the Spanish          Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of
    authorities — particularly as regards the overall                24 September 1997 in the case of Wilfried Ernst Joachim
    correction of 2 % for consumption aid . That                     Monsees against the Unabhangiger Verwaltungssenat fiir
    correction was applied on the basis of visits and                Karnten,        Additional         Party:    Bundesminister       fiir
                                                                                Wissenschaft und Verkehr
     inspections in years prior to 1993 , and in relation to
     alleged faults on the part of an undertaking which did                                     ( Case C-3 50/97)
     not receive aid in that year.
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/03 )
— The principle nulla poena sine lege: this principle was
     infringed in particular in relation to aid for oil
     production and aid for the production of dried                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     feedingstuffs .                                                 European          Communities           by     order    of        the
                                                                     Verwaltungsgerichtshof ( Administrative Court ), Vienna of
                                                                     24 September 1997, received at the Court Registry on
     A financial correction may only be imposed if it is             13 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     found that controls are not being carried out in                Wilfried Ernst Joachim Monsees against the Unabhangiger
     accordance with the Community provisions and only               Verwaltungssenat fiir Karnten ( Independent Administrative
     if the inadequacies detected are serious and give               Board for Carinthia ), Additional Party : Bundesminister fiir
     reasonable grounds for concluding that the                      Wissenschaft und Verkehr ( Federal Minister for Science
     Community budget has been seriously affected . The              and Transport ), on the following question:
     Commission        uses   the  instrument    of   financial
     correction in order to penalize a Member State for not
     keeping a computer record up to date or for awarding            are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
     a contract regarding records of oil production to an            freedom of movement of goods ) and the other provisions