title: Case T-169/00: Action brought on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.9.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/27
Action brought on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra against                    —     contrary to Article 99(h)(2) of the regulation laying down
       the Commission of the European Communities                              detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial
                                                                               Regulation (1), the Commission asked questions of the
                                                                               tenderers which went beyond a mere request for clarifi-
                         (Case T-169/00)                                       cation or the correction of obvious clerical errors con-
                                                                               tained in the tenders.
                         (2000/C 259/49)
                                                                         In addition, the applicant suggests that the Commission may
                                                                         have preferred not to award it the contract on account of the
                   (Language of the case: French)                        negative attitude adopted by the Parents’ Association, which
                                                                         would constitute a misuse of powers. It further criticises the
                                                                         Commission for having failed to have regard to the contract
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                documents and for having committed a manifest error of
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               assessment with regard to the successful tenderer. The Com-
European Communities on 20 June 2000 by SPRL Esedra,                     mission’s assessment appears untenable, as regards the criteria
established in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,            of both price and quality.
Eric Gillet and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         Furthermore, the applicant complains that the defendant has
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              failed to comply with its obligation to provide a statement of
                                                                         reasons, in that it has refused to provide sufficient information
—     annul the decision to award contract 99/52/IX.D.I to a             to enable the legality of the contested decisions to be assessed.
      group Italian companies represented by Centro Studi
      Antonio Manieri S.R.L.;
                                                                         Lastly, the applicant claims that the contract notice and
                                                                         contract documents have been disregarded, in that the figures
—     annul the decision not to award that contract to the               in respect of the turnover of the successful tenderer show that
      applicant;                                                         that undertaking is not financially capable of taking on the
                                                                         contract.
—     order the defendant to pay 1 001 574,09 euro by way of
      damages;
                                                                         (1) Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                              9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-
                                                                             tation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of
                                                                             21 December 1977 (OJ 1993 L 315, p. 1).
Pleas in law and principal arguments
The applicant was entrusted, from 1995, with the management
of the ‘Clovis’ day nursery and kindergarten for children of the
staff of the European institutions. In 1999, the Commission
decided not to seek the renewal of the management contract
and to issue an invitation to tender in connection with the
running of the day nursery and kindergarten.                             Action brought on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei
                                                                         GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant contests the Commission’s decision to award
that contract to a group of Italian companies represented by
Centro Studi Antonio Manieri S.R.L. and the decision not to                                       (Case T-170/00)
accept its tender.
                                                                                (2000/C 259/50)
In support of its claims, the applicant pleads violation of the
principle of non-discrimination, for the following reasons:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     the appraisal committee was not composed on an
      impartial basis, since it included representatives of the          An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      Parents’ Association, which, for illegitimate reasons, had         Commission of the European Communities was brought
      previously shown itself to be hostile to the applicant;            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 22 June 2000 by Förde Reederei GmbH, of Flensburg
—     the applicant was given a time-limit for the submission            (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by Ulrich
      of its tender which was not the same as that granted to            Schrömbges and Lothar Harings, Rechtsanwälte, of Messrs
      the other tenderers;                                               Graf von Westphalen Fritze & Modest, Hamburg (Germany).


title: Case T-365/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/33

         Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA)
   (Case T-365/07)
   (2007/C 283/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Traxdata France SARL (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ritrax Corp. Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Reverse the decision of 23 May 2007 handed down by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in joined cases R 1337/2005-1, R 1338/2005-1, R 1339/2005-1 and R 1340/2005-1 and to accordingly declare the invalidity of TRAXDATA CTMs No 000007393, No 000877779, No 001252725 and TEAM TRAXDATA No 000877910 for all of the products and services listed in classes 9, 16 and 42, on the basis of Article 52(1)(c) of the CTMR of 20 December 1993;

               —

               pronounce the invalidity of TEAM TRAXDATA CTM No 000877910, for the following services listed in class 36: ‘Financial sponsorship of sports and leisure activities; financial sponsorship of sporting competitions, events and teams; financial sponsorship of sportsmen and sportswomen […] advice and consultancy services in relation to all the aforesaid services’;

               —

               pronounce the invalidity of TRAXDATA CTMs No 000877779 and TEAM TRAXDATA No 000877910, for the following services listed in class 41: ‘entertainment and education services; arranging and conducting of conferences, congresses, seminars, symposiums, […] electronic game services provided by means of the Internet; publishing of books, magazines and periodicals; […] amusement centre services; […] rental of video cassettes, audio cassettes, compact discs and cine films; advice and consultancy services relating to all the aforesaid services.’

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word and figurative marks ‘TRAXDATA’ and ‘TEAM TRAXDATA’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36, 41 and 42 — Community trade marks No 877 910, 877 779, 7 393 and 1 252 725

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Ritrax Corp. Ltd

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The unregistered corporate name ‘TRAXDATA FRANCE SARL’ and trade name ‘TRAXDATA’ for the following goods and services: ‘consultancy, delivery and sale of computer consumables, hardware and accessories’

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the applicant's requests for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal infringed Article 52(1)(c) read in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 by finding that the applicant had not furnished proof that it continues to make use of ‘TRAXDATA’ and by improper application of the criteria of likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.


title: Action brought on 12 February 1998 by Henk Altmann and Others against the European Commission and the Council of the European Union (Case T-30/98)

text:
13.6.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 184/11
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                     The applicants are all members of the JET project team
                                                                     employed by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
                                                                     Authority. This application is made consequent to the
                                                                     judgment of the Court in Joined Cases T-177/94 and 377/
                                                                     94 (1). The Commission was the defendant in those cases
                                                                     and the Council participated as intervener. In the
Action brought on 12 February 1998 by Henk Altmann                   judgment, the statutes of the JET Joint Undertaking and
and Others against the European Commission and the                   associated supplementary rules and administrative
               Council of the European Union                         practices were ruled to be illegal in so far as they resulted
                                                                     in unequal treatment of the applicants and the temporary
                       (Case T-30/98)
                                                                     employees of the Communities working together as
                        (98/C 184/21)                                members of the JET Project Team at Culham. Two
                                                                     decisions of the Commission were therefore annulled.
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     The applicants now submit firstly that the Commission
An action against the European Commission and the                    has not acted to comply with the judgment by adopting
Council of the European Union was brought before the                 measures to replace the annulled decisions in the light of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on               the judgment and secondly that the Council has not
12 February 1998 by Henk Altmann and Others,                         amended the statutes. Furthermore, the current proposal
represented by Kenneth Parker QC and Rhodri Thompson                 for amendment of the statutes does not purport to address
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Offices             the unlawful inequality of treatment found in the
of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2, Place Winston Churchill.             judgment in respect of the applicants. The Commission,
                                                                     the JET Council and the JET management have not
                                                                     altered either the supplementary rules or the
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                     administrative practices ruled to be unlawful in the
                                                                     judgment and none of the proposals either to take
Ð declare that the rejection of the applicants' complaint            practical steps or to offer a financial settlement are based
    whereby the Commission and the Council failed to                 on the principles laid down in the judgment and the
    take any specific measures vis-aÁ-vis the applicants to          decisions of the Court. The applicants therefore submit
    implement the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases              that the failure of both the Commission and the Council
    T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Others v.                      to act constitutes a clear breach of Article 149 of the
    Commission of 12 December 1996 is unlawful and a                 Euratom Treaty and a service-related fault sounding in
    service-related fault for which the Commission and the           damages to the extent that such failure has caused the
    Council are liable;                                              applicants material or non-material loss.
Ð order the Commission and the Council to pay the                    (1) Altmann and Others v. Commission [1996] ECR II-2041.
    applicants:
    (a) the individual sums set out in the schedule,
         modified to the date of judgment; and, in the
         event that no order is made in respect of the
         applicants' liability for UK taxation on such
         sums,                                                       Action brought on 30 March 1998 by Anne Ruth Burrill
                                                                     and Alberto Noriega Guerra against the Commission of
    (b) such further sum as may represent:                                            the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-51/98)
         (i)   the sum payable by the applicants in respect
               of UK taxation, the quantification of such                                    (98/C 184/22)
               sums being adjourned pending negotiation
               between the parties and the UK tax
               authorities; alternatively                                           (Language of the case: French)
         (ii) the actual liabilities for which the applicants
               are liable to the UK tax authorities, the
               Council and the Commission being liable to            An action against the Commission of the European
               indemnify the applicants in respect of any            Communities was brought before the Court of First
               such contingent liability; and                        Instance of the European Communities on 30 March 1998
                                                                     by Anne Ruth Burrill and Alberto Noriega Guerra
                                                                     residing in RosieÁres (Belgium), represented by Georges
Ð Order the Commission and the Council to bear the                   Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Marie-Ange Marx, of the
    costs of these proceedings.                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at


title: Case F-122/06: Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Roodhuijzen v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/31

         Action brought on 23 October 2006 — Roodhuijzen v Commission
   (Case F-122/06)
   (2006/C 310/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28 February 2006, confirmed on 20 March 2006, not to recognise the applicant's partnership with Ms H as a non-marital partnership for the purposes of the sickness insurance scheme;

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 July 2006 rejecting the complaint brought by the applicant on 27 March 2006 under Number R/230/06;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official of Dutch nationality, requested that his partnership with Ms H, a cohabitation agreement drawn up before a notary and recognised under Dutch law, be taken into consideration in order that his partner could benefit from the Community sickness insurance scheme. The administration rejected the request, even after the applicant produced a certificate from his country's Embassy in Luxembourg, which stated that the contract in question does indeed confer the status of stable non-marital partners on the applicant and his companion.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on a plea of infringement of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 1(2)(c)(i) of Annex VII thereof, and of Article 12 of the Rules on the insurance of officials of the European Communities against the risk of accident and of occupational disease. He also pleads a manifest error of assessment, breach of the obligation to give reasons and failure to observe general principles of law, in particular the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment between officials.


title: Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Neptune Orient Lines Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-212/98)

text:
C 71/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
In support of his claims, the applicant states that there has      In respect of that decision, the applicant pleads:
been misuse of power inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
have been infringed.
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, in
                                                                       so far as the conditions for the application of that
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 30.
                                                                       article are not satisfied in the present case;
                                                                   Ð breach of the duty to state reasons;
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of proportionality and the duty
Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Claude Willeme                   to have regard for the welfare of officials;
     against Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-211/98)
                                                                   Ð breach of the interest of the service and the principle
                        (1999/C 71/60)                                 of     good    management        practice    and    sound
                                                                       administration;
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in so far
An action against the Commission of the European                       as facts of the type alleged have never resulted in a
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      decision to suspend an official, which is limited to
Instance of the European Communities on 24 December                    much more serious facts;
1998 by Claude Willeme, residing in Brussels, represented
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Ð breach of the rights of the defence.
offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Neptune Orient
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of
                                                                   Lines Limited against the Commission of the European
    16 December 1998 to suspend the applicant from his
                                                                                Communities
    duties and to withhold a sum equal to one half of his
    basic salary from his remuneration with immediate                                     (Case T-212/98)
    effect;
                                                                                (1999/C 71/61)
Ð order the European Commission to pay damages by
    way of compensation for the material and the                                  (Language of the case: English)
    non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful
    nature of the decision of 16 December 1998; those              An action against the Commission of the European
    damages are provisionally assessed at EUR 31 001;              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            1998 by Neptune Orient Lines Limited, represented by
                                                                   John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                   Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, and Alexandre R. M.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Nourry, Solicitor, and Marleen J. J. Van Kerckhove of
                                                                   Clifford Chance with an address for service in
The contested decision was adopted in the context of               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant           Goethe.
when, following an investigation carried out by the Unit
on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration of the defendant institution learned that his
wife had been awarded an employment contract with a
contractor of the Commission and had been paid for six             (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
months notwithstanding the fact that she only worked for               proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
two weeks. The appointing authority considered that it                 Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
was apparent from the information gathered by the                      Agreement);
UCLAF that the applicant's wife had been awarded that
contract because of the post held by the applicant at the
Security Office in Brussels. It therefore decided to initiate      (b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce
the disciplinary proceedings and to adopt the contested                such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the
decision.                                                              Court in all the circumstances;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 71/33
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the         those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other             e.a./Commission).
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  Action brought on 30 December 1998 by Transportacion
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to              Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V. and Tecomar S.A. de
those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line            C.V. against the Commission of the European
e.a./Commission).                                                                         Communities
                                                                                (Case T-214/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Nippon Yusen
Kaisha against the Commission of the European                     An action against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                  Instance of the European Communities on 30 December
                       (Case T-213/98)
                                                                  1998 by Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V.
                        (1999/C 71/62)                            and Tecomar S.A. de C.V., represented by Alfred Merckx,
                                                                  Sinclair Roche & Temperley, and John Pheasant, Nicholas
                                                                  Bromfield and Matthew Levitt, Lovell White Durrant,
               (Language of the case: English)                    Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                  the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
1998 by Nippon Yusen Kaisha, represented by Nicholas
                                                                  (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
Forwood and Philip Ruttley QC of the English Bar and
                                                                       proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                       Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, with an address for
                                                                       Agreement);
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                  (b) in any event, annul the fines imposed on the
                                                                       Applicants or substantially reduce such fines by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            amounts considered appropriate by the Court in all
                                                                       the circumstances;
(a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC          (c) order the Commission to pay the Applicants' costs;
     Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference               and
     Agreement);
                                                                  (d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
(b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce               Applicants in providing a bank guarantee or other
     such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the             security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     Court in all the circumstances;                                   judgment by the Court.
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                  those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                  e.a./Commission).
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.


20.9.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 226/15
According to the ORNIS committee set up by Article 16 of the                  Removal from the register of Case C-131/02 (1)
directive, ‘small numbers’ should mean an [additional] number
of less than 1 % of the annual mortality (average), determined                                 (2003/C 226/28)
on the basis of an expert opinion, for those species whose
hunting is prohibited, and a number corresponding to a level            By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of about 1 % for those species whose hunting is permitted, in           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
such a way, however, that compliance with Article 9 of the              register of Case C-131/02: Commission of the European
directive depends in any case on compliance with the other              Communities v Republic of Austria.
points of the article. The spring hunting permitted by Finland
has exceeded by several times the number calculated on the
basis of the committee's recommendation.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979, OJ 1979 L 103,
    p. 1.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/29)
Action brought on 5 August 2003 by the Commission of                    By order of 18 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/02: Commission of the European
                         (Case C-345/03)                                Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                         (2003/C 226/27)
                                                                        (1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 August
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    Removal from the register of Case C-407/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/30)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 25 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
1.   declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                 register of Case C-407/02: Commission of the European
     Directive 2000/53/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            Communities v Hellenic Republic.
     of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehi-
     cles or, in any event, by not communicating them to the
     Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
     obligations under that directive;
2.   order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Removal from the register of Case C-10/03 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/31)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on
21 April 2002.                                                          By order of 26 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-10/03: Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v Republic of Finland.
(1) OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 44 of 22.02.2003.


title: Action brought on 12 April 1995 by Tsimenta Xalkidos AE against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-104/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95         1 EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/27
    EC Treaty ( IV-33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) to the              knowledge — exclusively in their own interests in order,
    extent to which it concerns the applicant,                     inter alia, to divert exports of Greek cement into other
                                                                   Community markets .
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
    applicant under the abovementioned decision,                   The applicant also alleges that the Commission used
                                                                   inconsistent criteria in order to determine which of the
                                                                   participants in a meeting of the representative board at
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                which the alleged infringements are said to have been
    including the fees of his appointed lawyers,                   decided upon, were to be deemed to have taken part in the
                                                                   unlawful agreement, and that it determined in an entirely
— make such further provision as may be required by the            arbitrary manner the duration of the infringement alleged
    law.                                                           against ETE.
                                                                   The applicant goes on to allege that the exchange of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                information in connection with pricing in the framework of
                                                                   Cembureau was of no commercial utility and was not
In the contested Decision the Commission found that the            capable of influencing and indeed did not influence
applicant which during the relevant period of time                 intra-Community trade .
comprised the totality of Greek undertakings producing
cement, in common with other national associations of              Moreover, the applicant considers that its participation in
cement industries and undertakings producing cement, had           the ECEC is in no way reprehensible and it refutes as
infringed the provisions of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty.     lawfully and factually unfounded the reasoning by which
That infringement consisted in its participation in ( a ) an       the Commission makes allegations against the ECEC solely
agreement whose purpose was to respect domestic markets            and exclusively because its members are at the same time
and to regulate transfers of cement from one country to            members of Cembureau and of the EPC ( European Policy
another, ( b ) agreements for the exchange of information in       Committee ), whilst it considers the criteria for determining
connection with pricing and concerted practices in order to        the date of commencement and termination of the alleged
facilitate the agreement referred to at ( a ) above, and in        infringements by ECEC to be unclear and erroneous .
meetings of the representative board and executive board of
the Cembureau ( European Cement Association ), and .(c ) in        In the applicant's view the Commission has not given
concerted practices in the framework of the ECEC                   evidence of its allegations against the applicant, nor did it
( European Cement Export Committee ) for the purpose of            provide sufficient reasons for its Decision, at the same time,
exchanging information as regards the situation both in the        moreover, it has prevented ETE from obtaining access to the
Community markets and in the markets of non-member                 complete file on the matter, inasmuch as only a part of the
countries with a few to preventing market penetration of           statement of complaints was communicated to ETE.
competitor undertakings in the Community in other
internal markets of the Community. In respect of those             Finally, the applicant maintains that the Commission
infringements the Commission imposed on the applicant a            imposed on it a fine of the same amount as was imposed on
fine in the amount of ECU 100 000 .
                                                                   other associations which took part in much more frequent
                                                                   and more serious infringements, thereby infringing both the
The applicant maintains at the outset that, as moreover            principles of equal treatment and proportionality and the
expressly acknowledged by the Commission, the traditional          provisions of Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17.
markets for Greek cement until 1985 were the markets of
the Middle East and North Africa with the consequence that
the participation up until then of ETE in Cembureau cannot
be associated with the agreement to 'respect domestic
markets ' since the members of ETE had no reason to be
present and indeed no interest in the Community markets.
But when, following the collapse of the Arab and North             Action brought on 12 April 1995 by Tsimenta Xalkidos AE
African markets in 1986 , the Greek cement manufacturers             against the Commission of the European Communities
turned to the intra-Community market, the rapid increase in                              ( Case T-104/95 )
sales of Greek cement in Community markets demonstrates                                    ( 95/C 208/60 )
that ETE was the only member of Cembureau to express its
disagreement with the rule on respecting domestic
markets .                                                                         (Language of the case: Greek)
Furthermore , the applicant considers that it is illogical of the  An action against the Commission of the European
Commission to rely on the mere fact of ETE's membership            Communities was brought before the Court of First
of Cembureau in order to assimilate its conduct to that of         Instance of the European Communities on 12 April 1995 by
the other members of Cembureau which are alleged on the            Tsimenta Xalkidos AE, established in Athens , represented
basis of undisclosed documents to have engaged in unlawful         by Panayiotis Bernitsa, of the Athens Bar, with an address
conduct. The applicant maintains that the leading European         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Philippe
industrial concerns in the sector operated within the              Dupont, of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue
framework of Cembureau — and always without ETE's                  Mathias Hardt, B. P. 39 , L-2010 Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/28           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12 . 8 . 95
The applicants claims that the Court should :                        but on the contrary caused it immediate and severe damage,
                                                                     which is demonstrated moreover by the fact that at the
— adjudicate on this application separately from any other           material time when those activities were being undertaken
    associated application against the same Commission               an appreciable fall in the volume of its exports was recorded .
    Decision,                                                        For those reasons the applicant not only did not adhere to
                                                                     the principle of respect for domestic markets but actively
— annul        Commission       Decision       94/815/EC      of
                                                                     worked against it.
    30 November 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV-33.126 and 33.322 —
    Cement ) to the extent to which it concerns the                  As regards exchanges of information unlawful under
                                                                     Community law alleged against it, the applicant maintains
    applicant,
                                                                     that the information exchanged as referred to in the
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                 Commission's statement of objections was purely of
    applicant under the abovementioned decision,                     statistical interest and was very general in nature; the
                                                                     consideration of that information, rather than information
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs                  from other official sources, within Cembureau and other
    including the fees of his appointed lawyers .                    analogous bodies was merely adjudged to be most
                                                                     convenient and economic .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Moreover, the applicant refutes any involvement by it in
In the contested Decision the Commission found that the              concerted practices with a view to sharing markets and
applicant company, Tsimenta Xalkidos AE, in common                   corresponding channelling of exports, and emphasizes that
with other undertakings producing cement, had infringed              it cannot be held liable for activities of other companies
the provisions of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty. That            solely because it participated in the EPC and the ECEC .
infringement consisted in its participation in ( a ) an
agreement whose purpose was to respect domestic markets              On those grounds the applicant considers that the contested
and to regulate transfers of cement from one country to              decision must be annulled on the basis of the infringement of
another, ( b ) in a persistent concerted practice within the         essential formal requirements and the absence of a specific
framework of the European Policy Committee ( EPC ) with              and adequate statement of reasons . Moreover, it maintains
regard to the analysis of the situation both on the                  that the Commission misused its powers given that it used
Community markets and on the markets of non-member                   the powers available to it for the imposition of penalties
countries and the exchange of specific information                   against undertakings operating a cartel in order to include
concerning quantities available for export and actual                within their number an undertaking which it acknowledges
exports to non-member countries with a view to preventing            did not participate in the alleged cartel .
market penetration of competitor undertakings in the
Community in other internal markets of the Community. In             As regards the fine imposed on it, the applicant considers
respect of those infringements the Commission imposed on             that penalty to be completely unjustified given that it is
the applicant a fine in the amount of ECU 1 856 000 .                 based neither on acknowledged and proven factual
The applicant maintains at the outset that, in its statement of      circumstances nor on legal considerations adduced by the
objections the Commission neither refers to nor adduces any           Commission in its Decision . Finally, according to the
concrete action by Tsimenta Xalkidos AE constituting an               applicant, the Commission has infringed the principles of
infringement of the competition rules but instead by                  proportionality and equal treatment inasmuch as the
implication imputes to it the allegations made against the            amount of the fine is disproportionate to the seriousness of
other undertakings involved .                                         the infringements alleged against it and which put it on an
                                                                      equal footing with other Greek companies which are alleged
In support of its assertion, the applicant points out that in         to have committed             certain    particularly    serious
the draft of the contested Decision it was not included               infringements .
amongst the companies on whom it was appropriate to
impose fines and that it was included at the last minute
 notwithstanding the fact that in its view no infringement
was constituted on the basis of the factual circumstances or
the legal assessment.
 With particular regard to its imputed participation in the           Action brought on 25 April 1995 by Benjamin Laurence Lay
 Cembureau agreement, concerning respect for domestic                 against the Council of the European Union and the
 markets, the applicant considers the Commission's                            Commission of the European Communities
 reasoning to be illogical when it attributes responsibility to it
                                                                                ( Case T-107/95 )
 for actions and agreements in respect of which it makes a
 blanket charge against 'Greek producers' or 'European                                         ( 95/C 208/61 )
 cement-manufacturers ', without mentioning any actual
 involvement by Tsimenta Xalkidos AE in those actions and                            (Language of the case: English)
 agreements . The applicant stresses that the activities of
 Cembureau attributed to it , and those of the other bodies
 ( European Task Force, European Cement Export                         An action against the Council of the European Union and
 Committee and others ) not only did not serve its interests,          the Commission of the European Communities was brought


title: Case T-102/01: Action brought on 8 May 2001 by Orlando Pérez-Díaz against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
30.6.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 186/19
Action brought on 8 May 2001 by Orlando Pérez-Dı́az                             for Research, on behalf of the Chairman of the Selection
  against the Commission of the European Communities                            Committee;
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                         (Case T-102/01)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (2001/C 186/28)
                                                                          The applicant in the present case challenges his non-inclusion
                                                                          on the reserve list for selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In support of his claim the applicant alleges:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 —     Breach of the first sentence of Article 11, first paragraph,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                      of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and
European Communities on 8 May 2001 by Orlando Pérez-                            breach of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations in so far as
Dı́az, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas,                  the contested decisions are not adequately reasoned;
avocat.                                                                   —     Infringement of the principles of objectivity and of sound
                                                                                administration, failure to take account of the purpose
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     served by the engagement of temporary staff pursuant to
—     annul the decision of the Selection Committee for                         Article 12(1) of the Conditions of Employment of Other
      selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 for temporary                         Servants, and infringement of the principle of equal
      staff not to place the applicant on the reserve list, notified            treatment in regard to the knowledge of Spanish on the
      by letter of 14 July 2000 from the Head of Unit                           part of the members of the selection board;
      ‘Personnel and Administration’ of the Directorate-General           —     Manifest error of assessment.


1.5.1999               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 121/15
       Removal from the register of Case C-373/96 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-220/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/31)                                                      (1999/C 121/34)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-373/96 (reference for a preliminary       from the register of Case C-220/97: Commission of the
ruling from the Tribunale di Trento): Ministero delle Finanze         European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany.
v. Merkur Chemical Srl.
(1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-98/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/32)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-394/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of                                    (1999/C 121/35)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-98/97 (reference for a preliminary        By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Torino): CIF Srl v.      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Ministero delle Finanze.                                              from the register of Case C-394/98: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 1, 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-72/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 121/33)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-395/98 (1)
By order of 3 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered he removal
from the register of Case C-72/98 (reference for a preliminary                               (1999/C 121/36)
ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lyon): SA
Gougenheim Imprimerie Publicité v. Directeur des Services             By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Court of
Fiscaux du Rhône.                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ C 151, 16.5.1998.                                              European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.


title: Case T-311/01: Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Les Editions Albert René against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 56/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
Thus, it pleads infringement of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of                      Pleas in law and main arguments
Regulation No 4064/89 and violation of the principle of sound
administration, inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the
Commission presents the proposals for undertakings in an                     Applicant for the Com-         TRUCCO S.p.A.
excessively summary way for the purposes of their comprehen-                 munity trade mark:
sion by third parties, who were consequently unable to assess
their real scope.                                                            The Community trade            the pictorial mark registered by
                                                                             mark applied for:              the Office as ‘Starix’ for goods in
                                                                                Class      9    —       Application
In addition, according to the applicant, the Commission                                                     No 1043090
committed various errors of law and of assessment on that
point, in breach of Articles 2, 8 and 19 of Regulation                       Proprietor of the trade-       the applicant
No 4064/89, of Article 253 of the EC Treaty and of the                       mark right opposed in
principle of proportionality.                                                the opposition proceed-
                                                                             ings:
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on               Trade-mark           right     the verbal mark ‘ASTERIX’ (Reg.
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of          opposed:                       No 16147)
    30.12.1989, p. 1) (text republished in its entirety, with corrections,
    in OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).                                                Decision of the Oppo-          rejection of the opposition
(2) Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on
    the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition
                                                                             sition Division:
    proceedings (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document
    number C(2001) 1461) (OJ L 162 of 19.6.2001, p. 21).                     Decision of the Board of       rejection of the appeal
                                                                             Appeal:
                                                                             Grounds of claim:              —     risk of confusion between
                                                                                the two marks;
                                                                                —     infringement of Article 74(1)
                                                                                of      Regulation       (EC)
Action brought on 12 December 2001 by Les Editions                                                                No 40/94 (1).
Albert René against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                                Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                          (Case T-311/01)
                           (2002/C 56/29)
(Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the application has
                        been drafted: German)
                                                                             Action brought on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah
                                                                             Kadi against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                (Case T-315/01)
12 December 2001 by Les Editions Albert René, of Paris,
represented by J. Pagenberg, lawyer. A further party to the                                            (2002/C 56/30)
proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Trucco S.p.A., of
Milan (Italy).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision adopted on 5 October 2001 by the                    An action against the Council of the European Union and the
      First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in               Commission of the European Communities was brought
      the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case                  before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      No R 1030/2000-1 and order the cancellation of trade                   on 18 December 2001 by Yassin Abdullah Kadi, represented
      mark No 1043090 ‘OStarix’;                                             by Mr David Pannick QC, Mr Pushpinder Saini, Barrister, Mr
                                                                             Guy Martin and Mr Adam Tudor (Peter Carter-Ruck &
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                     Partners), of London (United Kingdom).


title: Case T-47/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Pila Ange Serrano and Others against European Parliament

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/36

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Pila Ange Serrano and Others against European Parliament
   (Case T-47/05)
   (2005/C 93/67)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Pilar Ange Serrano, residing in Luxembourg, Jean-Marie Bras, residing in Luxembourg, Dominiek Decoutere, residing in Wolwelange (Luxembourg), Armin Hau, residing in Luxembourg, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, residing in Brussels, and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos, residing in Woluwe-Saint-Lambert (Belgium, represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision containing the applicants' new classification in grade, which was communicated to them, respectively, by an undated and unsigned letter from the Director General for Personnel;

               —

               annul any act consecutive to and/or relating to that decision, even one adopted subsequent to the present action;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay damages, evaluated on an equitable basis at EUR 60 000 for each applicant, subject to any increase or reduction during the proceedings;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are all officials of the European Parliament who were successful in a competition for a change in category (from category D to category C, or from category C to category B) after the entry into force, on 1 May 2004, of the reform of the Staff Regulations. They claim that their reclassification in grade according to the new Staff Regulations is less favourable to them than that which they would have obtained had they not been successful in the competitions in question.
   In support of their application, the applicants rely, first of all, on an objection of illegality concerning Regulation No 723/2004 (1) amending the Staff Regulations, based on alleged breach of the obligation to state reasons, the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal treatment. They also claim that, in adopting the contested decisions, the European Parliament failed to comply with either its duty to have regard for the welfare of its officials or the principle of good administration.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ L 124 of 27.04.2004, p. 1).


title: Case C-470/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tampereen käräjäoikeus by order of that Court of 7 November 2003 in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against Finnish State and Tarmo Lehtinen

text:
C 35/2                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.2.2004
2.    It is incumbent on the national court, if examination of the         Is Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of
      existing compensation system discloses a defect in transposition     the Association Council, set up by the Agreement establishing
      of Directive 84/5 and if that defect has adversely affected Mr       an Association between the European Economic Community
      Evans, to determine whether the breach of that obligation of         and Turkey, on the development of the Association (herein-
      transposition is sufficiently serious.                               after, ‘Decision No 1/80’) to be interpreted as meaning that a
                                                                           Turkish national forfeits the rights acquired under Article 6(1)
                                                                           of Decision No 1/80 if he is held in custody under the
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                 enforcement of a prison sentence for a period of three years?
Application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order
on the Commission of the European Communities, lodged
       on 21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH
                          (Case C-1/03 SA)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tampereen
                            (2004/C 35/02)                                 käräjäoikeus by order of that Court of 7 November 2003
                                                                           in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against Finnish State
                                                                                and Tarmo Lehtinen
An application for authorisation to serve a garnishee order on
the Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                         (Case C-470/03)
21 November 2003 by Icon Institute GmbH, represented by
R. Nathan, with an address for service in Luxembourg. The
applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2004/C 35/04)
Lift the Commission’s immunity so that a garnishee order
relating to the funds it holds on behalf of a judgment debtor,
in this case CESD-Communautaire a.s.b.l., may take effect,
since there is no argument in law or in fact to prevent the
Commission, the garnishee, from properly releasing to the
applicant the funds it holds provisionally.                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tampereen kärä-
                                                                           jäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 7 November 2003,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 11 November 2003, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of A.G.M.-COS.MET s.r.l. against
                                                                           Finnish State and Tarmo Lehtinen on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                   (1) Is there a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative
richtshof by order of that Court of 4 september 2003 in                          restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC, or a
    the complaint proceedings brought by Ergül Dogan                             measure which should be abstained from under the
                                                                                second paragraph of Article 10 EC, if an expert official
                           (Case C-383/03)                                       belonging to the State’s health and safety at work
                                                                                organisation who does not have decision-making power,
                                                                                after a market supervision case has been raised but before
                            (2004/C 35/03)                                       the decision in the case, expresses his opinion on the
                                                                                main news programme of a national TV channel and in
                                                                                daily newspapers with wide circulation and also in
                                                                                commercial and labour market associations, in such a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           way that his statements, direct or repeated by others, on
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtsh-                       the hazard to health and even to life of the machinery
of (Administrative Court, Austria) of 4 September 2003,                          manufactured and marketed by a specified manufacturer
received at the Court Registry on 12 September 2003, for a                       which is the subject of the market supervision case may
preliminary ruling in the complaint proceedings brought by                       give the machinery negative publicity and affect its
Ergül Dogan on the following question:                                           marketing?
 ---pagebreak--- 7.2.2004               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 35/3
(2) Is machinery directive 98/37/EC (1) to be interpreted as                     (c)   Can Article 10 EC and in particular its second
     meaning that a car lift is contrary to the essential safety                       paragraph create rights for individuals in the circum-
     requirements it lays down if it is not constructed in                             stances described in point 1?
     accordance with standard SFS-EN 1493, in such a way
     that in designing the structure account is not taken of the
     placing of the vehicle on the lift in either driving direction
     and the load calculations of each lifting arm are not done                  (d) Can an official himself, in addition to the State, be
     for the least favourable loading situation?                                       similarly liable under EC law, in the circumstances
                                                                                mentioned in point 1, for compensation for his
                                                                                actions, if they are contrary to EC law?
(3) a)     If the question in point 1 is answered in the
           affirmative, are the official’s actions described in that             (e)   Is the obtaining of compensation based on EC law
           question disproportionate having regard to the                              impossible in practice or excessively difficult if in
           legitimate aim based on the protection of human                             accordance with national provisions compensation
           health and life and hence contrary to the EC Treaty,                        for economic damage other than damage to persons
           even if Question 2 were also to be answered in the                          and things may be obtained only if the damage has
           affirmative, having regard to the nature of the                             been caused by an act defined as criminal or in the
           actions and in particular the fact that possible                            exercise of public authority or if in other cases there
           hazards could have been made known and the                                  are especially serious grounds for the awarding of
           occurrence of hazards prevented by methods other                            damages?
           than those described in point 1, that the actions
           were taken even before the competent authority had
           made a decision in the market supervision case, and
           that the actions were likely in particular by being             (6) a)      If compensation is awarded under national law
           directed to a specified product to damage the                               because of a breach of requirements or omission
           marketing of that product?                                                  concerning the free movement of goods, does EC
                                                                                law require that the compensation to be awarded
                                                                                is an effective and deterrent sanction, and is it
                                                                                incompatible with the requirements of EC law
     (b) If the question of proportionality in point 3 is for                          concerning liability that under national law an
           the national court to decide, is the main weight to                         official who has committed an infringement or
           be attached to the possible non-compliance with the                         omission is liable for reasonable but necessarily
           European or national safety requirements or to                              full compensation and is not liable at all for
           the circumstances of the publication of the non-                            compensation if he is culpable of only slight negli-
           compliance with the requirements?                                           gence, or that an official and the State which is liable
                                                                                for the official’s fault or omission may be ordered to
                                                                                pay compensation for economic damage other than
                                                                                damage to persons or things only if the damage has
(4) May the actions of an official described in point 1 be                             been caused by an act defined as criminal or in the
     justified in the conditions described in point 3(a) on the                        exercise of public authority or if in other cases there
     basis of freedom of speech within the meaning of                                  are especially serious grounds for the awarding of
     Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights,                            compensation?
     even though they are contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30
     EC or to Article 10 EC?
                                                                                (b) If any of the limitations of liability mentioned in
                                                                                point 6(a) is incompatible with EC law, is the
(5) a)     If the actions of an official described in point 1 are                      limitation of compensation under national law to be
           contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC or to Article 10                       disapplied with respect to the official in question
           EC, is the breach so manifest and serious that, if the                      even though the official’s liability would be more
           other conditions of liability are satisfied, the State is                   severe or more extensive than under national law?
           obliged under EC law to compensate the damage
           which may have occurred thereby for the marketing
           of the machinery?
                                                                           (1) Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                               of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
                                                                               States relating to machinery (OJ L 207 of 23.07.1998, p. 1).
     (b) Is the breach described in point 5(a) manifest and
           serious even in a case where the authority/official
           with decision-making competence cannot be blamed
           for any fault or omission and the authority/official
           has not in any connection approved the measures
           or helped to bring about their actual consequences?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 28 May 1997 in Case T-59/96: Jean-Louis Burban v. European Parliament (Officials - Delay in drawing up staff reports - Action for damages - Admissibility - Maladministration - Loss)

text:
No C 212/26            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 7 . 97
1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      Brussels,     represented     by    Jean-Noel  Louis,  Thierry
                                                                       Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                      address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                                                                       Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue de Cessange, v. Council of
(') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                      the European Union ( Agents : Jean-Paul Jacqué and Denis
                                                                       Waelbroeck ) — application for annulment of the decision
                                                                       of the Secretary-General of the Council of 3 May 1995
                                                                       rejecting the applicant's application for a grade A 1 post
                                                                       in    the  Directorate-General       for Economic  and    Social
                                                                       Cohesion, Regional Policy, Social Policy, Employment,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Social Dialogue, Education and Youth, Culture, and
                          of 28 May 1997                               Audiovisual Media ( DG J ), and of the decision of the
      in Case T-59/96: Jean-Louis Burban v. European                   Secretary-General of the Council of 7 November 1995
                           Parliament ( 1 )                            rejecting the applicant's complaint — the Court of First
                                                                       Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: R. García
(Officials — Delay in drawing up staff reports — Action
                                                                       Valdecasas, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
for damages — Admissibility — Maladministration —
                                                                       A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                 Loss)
                                                                       judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:
                           ( 97/C 212/49
               (Language of the case: French)                          1 . dismisses the application;
In Case T-59/96 : Jean-Louis Burban, an official of the                2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
European Parliament, residing in Paris, represented by
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             C ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,
31 Grand-Rue, v. European Parliament ( Agents : Yannis
Pantalis, Francis Herbert and Daniel M. Tomasevic ) —
application for compensation for the material and non
material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of
delay in the drawing up of his staff reports for the periods
1991 — 1992 and        1993— 1994 — the         Court of First            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Instance ( Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                                            of 3 June 1997
President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                       in Case T- 196/95 : H v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities O
judgment on 28 May 1997, in which it:
                                                                        (Officials — Compulsory retirement — Establishment and
 1 . orders the Parliament to pay the applicant damages in              tasks of the Invalidity Committee — Articles 53 and 59
     the sum of Bfrs 200 000;                                           (2) of the Staff Regulations — Notification of the
                                                                                decision)
2 . orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/51
 n OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case T-l 96/95 : H, a former official of the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              represented initially by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and
                                                                       Jacques Sambon and subsequently by Lucette Defalque, of
                          of 29 May 1997                                the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
 in Case T-6/96: Théistocle Contargyris v. Council of the               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                       European Union (')                               Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
 (Officials — Rejection of application for a post —                     Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —
 Article 19 (1) of the Council's rules of procedure —                   application for annulment of the Invalidity Committee 's
 Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Power of the                     opinion of 13 September 1994, of the Commission's
 Secretary-General of the Council to adopt decisions                    decision of 27 September 1994 compulsorily retiring the
 rejecting an application for a post and a complaint —                  applicant and of the Commission's decision of 27 June
 Notice of vacancy — Manifest error of assessment —                      1995 rejecting the applicant's complaint against the
 Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff Regulations — Obligation to             former decision — the Court of First Instance (Third
     provide a statement of reasons — Misuse of powers)                 Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
                                                                        Briët and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                             97/ C 212/50
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                         3 June 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
 In Case T-6/96 : Théistocle Contargyris, a former official              1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible in so far as it
  of the Council of the European Union, residing in                           seeks annulment, first, of the decision of 27 June 1995


title: Case T-121/03: Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 184/36               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the Court of First                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President,
J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an                                       of 23 April 2003
order on 6 May 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            in Case T-73/03: Bernard Zaoui and Others v Commission
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                                        of the European Communities (1)
2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay the costs              (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Application
      incurred by the Parliament and the Council.                                                   manifestly unfounded)
3.    The Commission shall bear its own costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/82)
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.2002.                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case T-73/03, Bernard Zaoui, residing in Combs La Ville
                                                                            (France), Lucien Zaoui, residing in Netanya (Israel) and Deborah
                                                                            Zaoui, residing in Ramat Gan (Israel), represented by
                                                                            J.A. Buchinger, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 bourg, against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            — application for compensation for damage allegedly suffered
                                                                            by the applicants following an attack carried out in Netanya
                         of 30 April 2003                                   (Israel) on 27 March 2002 — the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                            Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, H. Legal and
                                                                            M.E. Martins Ribero, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
in Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH v Council of the
                                                                            on 23 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
                        European Union (1)
                                                                            1)    The application is rejected.
(Action for annulment — Article 3(1) and first indent of
Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/10/EC — Structure and rate
of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco — Manifestly                 2)    The applicants are ordered to pay the costs.
                            inadmissible)
                                                                            (1) OJ 2003 C 124.
                          (2003/C 184/81)
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-154/02: Villiger Söhne GmbH, established in Wald-                 Action brought on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace Limited
shut-Tiengen (Germany), represented by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer,                and Nexgen Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY)
against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Gijón and                    against the Commission of the European Communities
M. Simm) — application for annulment of Article 3(1) of
Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002 amending
Directives 92/79/EEC, 92/80/EEC and 95/59/EC as regards the                                            (Case T-121/03)
structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured
tobacco (OJ 2002 L 46, p. 26) and, in the alternative, of the                                          (2003/C 184/83)
first indent of Article 4(2) of that directive — the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,                                   (Language of the case: English)
Registrar, made an order on 30 April 2003, the operative part
of which is as follows:
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                         nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 10 April 2003 by Greenpeace
                                                                            Limited, London, United Kingdom, and Nexgen Group Limited
2.    The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (trading as ECOTRICITY), Gloucestershire, United Kingdom,
                                                                            represented by P. Lasok QC, Mr J. Turner and Ms R. Haynes,
3.    There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to       Barristers.
      intervene.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 191 10.8.02.
                                                                            —     annul the Contested Decision and order the Commission
                                                                                to pay the Applicants costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 184/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the Secretary-General's decision of 13 June 2002
The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the                     which confirms, without amendment, the applicant's staff
Commission's Decision approving the grant by the United                          report for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999;
Kingdom of State aid, in the form of ‘rescue aid’, to British
Energy plc (BE), a generator of electricity in the United                 —      annul the Commission's decision of 13 January 2003
Kingdom. The main source of its electricity is nuclear power.                    rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant on
                                                                                13 September 2002;
The applicants contend that the contested Decision is unlawful            —      order the defendant to pay damages of EUR 10 000;
in as much as it failed adequately or properly to assess
whether the aid was warranted by serious social difficulties,             —      order the defendant to pay the full costs of the proceed-
and whether the amount of aid was restricted to the minimum                      ings.
necessary, both in accordane with point 23(e) of the Guidelines
on State aid for Rescuing and Restructureting firms in diffi-
culty (1).
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In particular, the applicants submit that the defendant institu-          The applicant is an official in DG II of the European Commis-
tion wrongly concluded that, in the absence of the aid in                 sion. With a delay of almost two years, the appellant was the
question, BE would be insolvent and would most certainly                  subject of a staff report for the period 1997 to 1999. That
have to cease operations, without considering whether puttig              report was confirmed by the appeal assessor.
BE into administration would have been an appropriate rescue
option entailing the grant of less aid, nor the possibility
involving the closure of only one or several of its plants as             The applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest
opposed to all of them.                                                   error of assessment and misused its powers in drawing up that
                                                                          report. In support of his claims, the applicant also maintains
                                                                          that the Commission failed to comply with Article 43 of the
Moreover, the applicants dissagree with the Commision's                   Staff Regulations, thus giving rise to procedural defects. Finally,
conclusion that nuclear plants cannot be mothballed and that              the defendant failed to comply with its obligation to state
BE's plants could not be closed without giving rise to serious            reasons.
concerns over nuclear safety.
Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission have
wrongly concluded that the closure of BE's plants led to a
loss of 20 % of UK electricity generating capacity such as to
threaten security of supply and, in any event, failed to consider         Action brought on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB against the
the reduced impact on generating capacity of closing only one                        Commission of the European Communities
or several of BE's plants.
                                                                                (Case T-163/03)
(1) OJ 1999 No C 288, p. 2.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
                                                                          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 4 May 2003 by Scania AB, Söder-
Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik against
                                                                          tälje, Sweden, represented by Mr S. Pappas, lawyer.
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-157/03)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 4 Mars 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
                         (2003/C 184/84)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 16 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      annul the Decision of 24 April 2003 of the Merger Task
                                                                                Force of the European Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-                   —      annul the refusal of the Commission to review the
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     arrangement of the divestiture of the shareholding of
European Communities on 30 April 2003 by Michael Cwik,                           Volvo in Scania and enforce an immediate divestiture as
residing at Tervuren, Belgium, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer,                 requested during the meeting of the 20th February 2003
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                       and put on in the letter of the 21st February 2003.


               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/1

         (2008/C 197/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 183, 19.7.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 171, 5.7.2008

      OJ C 158, 21.6.2008

      OJ C 142, 7.6.2008

      OJ C 128, 24.5.2008

      OJ C 116, 9.5.2008

      OJ C 107, 26.4.2008

   These texts are available on:

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


title: Case T-155/14: Action brought on brought on 7 March 2014  — ANKO v Commission.

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/46

         Action brought on brought on 7 March 2014 — ANKO v Commission.
   (Case T-155/14)
   2014/C 175/64
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               Declare that the entire amount of EUR 325 823,16 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid to the applicant in respect of the PERSONA project and the entire amount of EUR 280 747,45 which the Commission seeks to recover as constituting ineligible costs and which it has already paid in respect of the TERREGOV project constitute eligible costs;

               —

               Declare that the amount of EUR 6 752,74 constitutes eligible costs incurred by ΑΝΚΟ in the context of the PERSONA project and, consequently that the Commission is under an obligation to make payment to ΑΝΚΟ;·

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action concerns the liability of the Commission under the contracts (a) 045 459 and (b) 507 749 for the performance of the (a) PERSONA and (b) TERREGOV projects respectively, under Article 272 TFEU.
   In particular, the applicant maintains that, although it complied with its contractual obligations, the Commission, in breach of the abovementioned contracts, the principle of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights and the principle of proportionality, sought the recovery of sums paid to ΑΝΚΟ as not being eligible costs. For that reason, the applicant maintains, first, that the rejection of the eligibility of almost all the sums which the Commission paid in respect of the PERSONA and TERREGOV projects and the attempt to recover those sums as improperly paid is contrary to the Commission’s contractual obligations to ΑΝΚΟ. Second, the applicant maintains that the attempt to recover the whole of those amounts is disproportionate and abusive.